Sitting of 18 December 1979

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
  Lords amendments agreed to.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Adult Literary
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he has received on adult literacy from the Advisory Council for Adult and Continuing Education.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): Recommendations for the development of adult literacy in the wider context of adult basic education were made in the council's report "A Strategy for the Basic Education of Adults". I announced my decisions on those recommendations in a written reply yesterday, in which I intended to make it clear that I do not feel it necessary to establish a separate development board to co-ordinate the support made available by central Departments.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the remarkable success of, and public interest in, the adult literacy classes set up by the St. Helens LEA? Is he prepared to extend those classes and provide the resources for them?
    Mr. Carlisle: I shall widen the question slightly from St. Helens. I am fully aware of the importance of the adult literacy unit. For that reason we have decided to extend it for a further three years and provide it with £500,000 for the year 1980–81 We are widening its
    258
    remit somewhat to cover other basic skills as well as literacy.

    British Students (Overseas Studies)
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what his estimate is of the number of British students currently studying at foreign universities.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): The most recent estimate of the number of students of United Kingdom origin following courses in universities and institutions of higher education abroad is 16,866. This figure is based on returns made to UNESCO in 1977 by 50 countries.
    Mr. Beith: Is it not a fact that many of those students are subsidised by the Governments of the countries in which they are studying? Is not scholarship international? Should not the Government direct their policy to encouraging all students to come to this country, not just rich students? What does the Minister think of the threat from this policy to institutions like the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine?
    Dr. Boyson: The number of foreign students in this country is three or four times higher than the number of our own students abroad. Since the figure of 16,866 includes over 9,000 students in Canada—and that figure is open to doubt—the probable figure for our students abroad is even smaller. The policy of the previous Government was to bring the total of 87,000 overseas students in this country down to about 66,000 by 1981 by a quota method which we did not like. We shall see what happens in relation to applications this year. At the moment they are down by 11per cent. Only one in four of foreign students who applied obtained admission to universities last year. We shall monitor the situation as it proceeds and see how it works out.
    Mr. William Shelton: Has my hon. Friend any figures on the numbers of foreign students attending universities in this country over the past few years? Has the number dropped?
    Dr. Boyson: The number of foreign students in our universities has gone up.

    259
    In the last full year there were about 49,000 students in universities; 19,000 were post-graduates and 30,000 under-graduates. The figure has consistently increased over the past 10 years.
    Mr. Foulkes: Has the Minister seen my correspondence with the Secretary of State pointing out the position of refugee students in this country who have neither a Government, nor in some cases families, to support them? Will the Government give special consideration to refugee students who are different from the general run of overseas students?
    Dr. Boyson: I take the point made by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes). Refugee students are different. This has been a problem for a number of years. There was a problem with Kenyan Asians and Ugandan Asians. There is now a problem with the Vietnamese boat people. I have discussed this problem twice with refugee organisations and we hope to be able to do something about refugees. It is a separate, and I believe more important, problem than that of foreign students generally.
    Mr. Lawrence: Will my hon. Friend make it quite clear that the problem is two-fold? Does he agree that it is not just a matter of saving £100 million on subsidies to foreign students, a quarter of whom come from countries with a national income higher than our own? Is it not a fact that the foreign student population has trebled in the past 10 years and that successive Governments have tried to control the numbers of foreign students? This is quite apart from the expense of having them here.
    Dr. Boyson: I accept what my hon. Friend says. It is interesting to note that other Governments are taking similar measures. Australia has increased its fees for foreign students. It has made it clear that foreign students are acceptable only if similar courses are not available in their own countries. New Zealand has also increased its fees and is limiting the number of foreign students. I heard last week that even the Philippines Government are taking similar action.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the hon. Member yet aware of the implication of his policy of full cost fees for British students, what-
    260
    ever the effect is on overseas students? Has the Minister read the comments by Professor Sims, the vice-chancellor of Sheffield university, in which he describes the Minister as being pitifully ignorant on these matters? Does the Minister understand that the unanimous opinion of vice-chancellors, as well as of Lord Boyle, is that it is essential for the sake of the survival of many courses, and perhaps even of some universities and colleges, that the policy be reversed?
    Dr. Boyson: Certain courses are being maintained almost solely for foreign students. The majority of the cost is borne by the British students who take those courses. I have had much correspondence from university vice-chancellors. As a result of a meeting with those vice-chancellors, a postgraduate scheme for research students was suggested. Some years ago the university vice-chancellors suggested that there should be a limitation on the numbers of foreign students.

    School Transport
    Mr. Les Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about the transport of children to Roman Catholic schools, as affected by his Education (No. 2) Bill and public spending reductions.
    Mr. Mark Carlisle: I have met the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster as well as representatives of the Catholic Education Council. I have also received about 4,000 letters from individual members of the Roman Catholic Church and about 400 letters from right hon. and hon. Members about constituents' correspondence.
    Mr. Huckfield: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the way in which this will be interpreted by many local authorities will totally undermine the freedom of choice of Roman Catholic parents, as described in the Education Act 1944?Does he accept that he cannot blame the local education authorities because they are blaming him? In view of the large number of representations which he will continue to receive, does he agree that it is best to withdraw the whole of clause 23 and to accept the amendment tabled by the Opposition in Committee?
    Mr. Carlisle: I do not accept that. The specific request to allow opportunity for charging came from the Association of County Councils which represents the majority of local education authorities. In many areas transport provision is made beyond that which is statutorily necessary or required. Once that provision is made, it must be free. If I do not give local education authorities the opportunity to recoup some of that cost by charging they will stop providing the transport. That would do greater harm.
    Mr. Stokes: Can my right hon and learned Friend make it clear beyond doubt that this Government are strongly in favour of Church schools—including Roman Catholic schools—and that they have no bias against them whatsoever?
    Mr. Carlisle: I have made it absolutely clear on many occasions that I am a strong supporter of denominational schools. Indeed, many provisions in the present Education Bill, which is being considered in Committee, are greatly to the advantage of denominational schools.
    Mr. Skinner: Has not the Minister a cock-eyed view of freedom when he suggests or implies that local authorities should withdraw this form of transport? Would it not be a good idea at this stage, in view of the 4,000 submissions and the opposition from all quarters, to issue a directive to all local authorities saying that not only will there be no attempt to withdraw free school transport for the over-8s and over-11s, but that we shall move towards free school transport for all schoolchildren up to the age of 16 years?
    Mr. Carlisle: I do not accept that. The cost of providing free school transport is increasing rapidly. If we had taken no action it would have cost £125 million in the coming year alone. The majority of parents do not receive free transport for their children. It is not unreasonable that those who are provided with school transport should pay something towards the cost.
    Mr. Hal Miller: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that denominational schools are not treated worse than State schools in the provision of transport? Will he also consider the removal of the statutory limits, thereby getting rid of the anomaly and allowing those living
    262
    within the three-mile limit to take part in the flat-rate charge scheme?
    Mr. Carlisle: That is the effect of the present Bill. Local authorities have the right to provide transport and the right to charge for it if they wish. The Government do not desire that the powers be used to penalise those attending denominational schools. I should be extremely concerned if that occurred.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Secretary of State understand his own Bill? Is he aware that Opposition Members believe that he does not understand that the transport clause in his bill will particularly hurt children in rural areas who attend special schools and Church schools—be they Church of England or Roman Catholic? Is he aware that, if he denies that, he does not understand the undertakings that have been given to Church schools and the effect that his Bill will have on them? Will he think again, in the light of the representations from both Roman Catholic and Church of England schools?
    Mr. Carlisle: Of course I shall continue to listen to representations. That is why I saw the Cardinal Archbishop last week and undertook to consider what he said. The hon. Lady is right to say that those in rural areas and attending denominational schools make up the majority of those who benefit from the present free transport system. However, one cannot seriously defend and justify a system under which those who live just under three miles may have to pay the full cost while those who live beyond three miles, irrespective of income, receive totally free transport. We must make some reduction in expenditure. It is more important to make it in these spheres than in the classroom.

    Microelectronics
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what study he has made of the replies from local authority associations and 15 individual authorities to his consultative paper for a microelectronics development programme in schools and colleges.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): These replies and others have been carefully studied and clearly show that there is a case for a programme to help schools

    263
    and colleges make the best use of opportunities offered by microelectronics. However, the announcement of firm plans for a programme remains dependent on wider public expenditure considerations.
    Mr. Dalyell: To what extent is the programme affected by cuts?
    Mr. Macfarlane: So far the programme has not been affected by any review of public expenditure. The initiative which the previous Administration took in March was not enshrined in the White Paper on expenditure for 1979–80. In the last six months my noble Friend the Minister of State and I have consulted the local authorities and visited secondary schools and microelectronic manufacturers throughout the country to try to ascertain the pace of change. The House will recognise that we have undertaken an important programme. We hope to make an announcement early in the new year. By then we should know precisely what the level of expenditure should be and how the taxpayers' money can be spent most beneficially.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that there is an urgent need to give teachers, and those being trained as teachers, a background knowledge of microelectronics so that in the next four or five years pupils will be able to face this revolution?
    Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is one of the matters which we have been considering. Teacher training is an important element and this is under urgent discussion.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: Does my hon. Friend accept that exceptions must be made to the general strategy of cuts in public expenditure—although they are few—and that none is more important than this?
    Mr. Macfarlane: The House will acknowledge that many issues are important. My right hon. and learned Friend and I certainly do not underestimate the vital importance of this programme in the next few years. One of our main anxieties is to ensure, in monitoring what has happened so far, that we are not already obsolete in our ideas of what should be done. The pace of change has been tremendous in recent years. We must ensure that the programme is thoroughly up to date.

    Mixed Ability Classes
    Mr. John MacKayasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the organisation of the first and second years of secondary school in England and Wales with special reference to mixed ability classes.
    Dr. Boyson: The internal organisation of schools is a matter for individual schools and local education authorities. The 1976 discussion paper on mixed ability work in comprehensive schools issued by Her Majesty's Inspectorate indicated that about 12 per cent. of comprehensive schools adopted mixed ability organisation in most subjects in both first and second years.
    Mr. MacKay: Does my hon. Friend realise that I welcome the fact that on that calculation 88 per cent. of schools have not fallen for this so-called educational reform of mixed ability classes? Does he realise that, especially for the less able, this form of organisation is very bad, because it means that the hard-won gains of the primary schools in literacy and numeracy are lost as the children have to cope with academic subjects that are beyond their ability?
    Dr. Boyson: The discussion paper on mixed ability work from Her Majesty's Inspectorate indicated that concern about standards of work with mixed ability classes applied to pupils of all abilities. To quote from that document:
    "more frequently it related to the extremes of the ability range and most frequently it related to the most able pupils".
    Mr. Woolmer: Is the Minister aware that some education authorities, such as Kirklees, are still attempting to get mixed ability teaching within schools by introducing comprehensive schools? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that before him at present for decision is an application to change the schools in my constituency to a comprehensive basis? Can he give an assurance that he will be prepared to meet myself and representatives of the local authority early in the new year to consider steps for an early implementation of that programme?
    Dr. Boyson: If Kirklees has submitted a request for a change of organisation of its schools, and if it has been received

    265
    by the Department, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's request to meet the Department will be treated relatively favourably.

    School Transport
    Mr. Armstrongasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total cost of school transport in the last financial year; and what is his estimate of the flat fare required if costs are transferred to parents.
    Mr. Macfarlane: In 1978–79, local education authorities' expenditure on home-to-school transport was about £130 million in England and Wales. It is not the Government's intention that the total cost should be transferred to parents. The national average flat fare needed to achieve the savings next year set out in Cmnd. 7746 is estimated to lie between 10p and 15p for a single journey.
    Mr. Armstrong: Will the Minister confirm that the real purpose of the proposal on transport is to cut public expenditure? He must admit that someone must pay and that in the main it will be the parents. Is he aware that in the non-metropolitan counties such as Durham—where, because of secondary reorganisation, the catchment areas are much larger, particularly with regard to the reorganisation of denominational schools—he is presenting parents with no other option than to choose the nearest school to their homes? How does he square that with his constant reiteration about freedom of choice?
    Mr. Macfarlane: The House must remember that at present the majority of families receive no help at all from their LEA with the cost of getting their children to school. All the points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised have been communicated either by word or by letter, to my right hon. and learned Friend and other Ministers. We are certainly aware of the difficulties that exist in many areas, but by and large elected local representatives understand fully the problems of their own communities. If the passage of the Education (No. 2) Bill is unchecked, I hope that all local authorities will understand quite fully the problems that exist in each community.
    Mr. Farr: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government's present proposals
    266
    would make the cost of school transport fall heavily upon children from rural areas? Will he consider that point to see whether some alleviation of the impact of that cost can be made during the passage of the present Bill?
    Mr. Macfarlane: The Committee, and the whole House, will at some future stage have the opportunity to consider what may be necessary. At the moment, the indications are that local authorities are beginning to adopt a policy of charging a flat rate. That is what is happening so far. The Department is monitoring the reports from the local authorities, which indicate that a flat rate charge will be applied. But as I indicated at Question Time on 20 November, all these points will be discussed and keptunder review.
    Mr. Flannery: Why does the Minister fail to understand the intensity of feeling throughout the country with regard to this reactionary aspect of a totally reactionary Education (No. 2) Bill? Does he not realise that those of us serving on the Committee have literally been bombarded with petitions and letters from all over the country, particularly from Church schools and so on, asking us to intervene and do something? Will he not react to that democratic pressure from throughout the country and kick out that clause, which we have not quite reached but hope to reach some time today, when we further consider this nefarious Bill?
    Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Gentleman's last observation will, I believe, bring a pang of dyspepsia to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). If we make that progress this afternoon and this evening, we shall indeed be happy. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) has spent many hours in Committee and I am dismayed and disappointed that so far he has not fully read and understood the legislation. I do not believe that he understands the legislation that is before the Committee. I do not believe that he owes it to his constituents to exaggerate the situation, as he has again done this afternoon.
    Mr. Pawseyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will issue a circular advising local authorities on the level of charges they might make

    267
    to school transport under the provisions of the Education (No. 2) Bill.
    Mr. Macfarlane: As I told the House on 20 November, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson), my right hon. and learned Friend will consider what guidance to local education authorities may be necessary in the light of the discussion on the Government's legislative proposals.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does not my hon. Friend agree that many local authorities are in the throes of introducing various plans of varying quality and that guidelines given now will save a lot of heartache and trouble in the future? Furthermore, does he not agree that the wide catchment area of denominational schools means that children will be travelling great distances and that there is an argument for specific guidelines being given?
    Mr. Skinner: And money.
    Mr. Macfarlane: As I said earlier, and as my right hon. and learned Friend also indicated, that is one of the matters that we are keeping under review. We have certainly discussed it. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, he has met the Cardinal Archbishop and Bishop Emery, and yesterday afternoon I met the Catholic Teachers Federation. We certainly undertake to the House that we shall keep the matter closely under review.
    Mr. Beith: The Minister keeps referring to the fact that under present arrangements parents within the three and two-mile limits get no help at all with regard to transport. Can he say how, under the proposed Bill, they will get any benefit whatever, when those beyond the limits are being penalised?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the inequality that has existed for many years. One of the attractive features of the clause is that it will be a far more equitable distribution, and that the flat rate charge, which many local authorities are now beginning to adopt, is by far the best way of approaching the matter.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that in some parts of the country, particularly in my own constituency, the decision as to what these charges will be will not be taken by local representatives
    268
    at all, but by representatives who come from a wider area—that is, the Conservative-controlling majority on the Cumbria county council? Inasmuch as those people are not aware of the problems of my constituents, does not the hon. Gentleman feel that some action should be taken during consideration of the Education (No. 2) Bill to protect the interests of my constituents and the constituents of other hon. Members?
    Mr. Macfarlane: To listen to the hon. Gentleman one would assume that all subsidy on rural transport was to be withdrawn. I must remind the House that well over £100 million will be left in for the next financial year, and that will surely assist his constituents.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that where school reorganisation has taken place, and children are bussed compulsorily from one town to another, the parents should not be penalised financially?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Macfarlane: I am glad to have the support of Labour Members, because that will be of inestimable value when we reach this clause in Committee. I certainly shall not forget it. The commitment and undertaking which we hope that local authorities will give when school closures take place was set out at the Dispatch Box on 20 November, and I hope that local authorities will bear that in mind.
    Mr. Kinnock: We note that the hon. Gentleman is now taking refuge in the 15p gimmick that has been introduced—which is the estimation of the flat fare. Is he aware that whether parents now pay is related to the distance they live from schools, whereas, under this proposal, they will have to pay a minimum of £1·50 a week per child, and, of course, £3 and more if they have more than one child? Those who live nearer to schools will not benefit, except by the tiniest margins.
    Mr. Macfarlane: Once again the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) exaggerates the case. I should have hoped that he would use some of his influence—if he has any—in Mid-Glamorgan to urge are consideration of the vote that took place last week and of the prejudice and discrimination that resulted from that vote.

    Educational Resources (Birmingham)
    Miss Wrightasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what reply he has given or intends to give to the Birmingham local education authority regarding its request that the polytechnic school of music scheme be included in the 1980–81 further education capital programme and its suggestion that the Hands worth technical college project might be deferred if necessary resources were not available, and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Boyson: I wish to consider fully all aspects of the situation and I shall reach a decision shortly.
    Miss Wright: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Hands worth technical college has not only the worst accommodation of all the further education colleges in Birmingham, but that it also serves the most heavily deprived immigrant area, where there is considerable demand for further education facilities? Is he also aware that the proper utilization of phases 1 and 2 of the college, which are now being built, is dependent on the rapid conclusion of decisions to go ahead with the building of phase 3? Will he take all those matters into account?
    Dr. Boyson: I assure the hon. Lady that all those matters will be taken into account. The Government place great importance on projects in the field of non-advanced further education, such as the one at Hands worth technical college, where demand greatly exceeds capacity. At the same time, it appears that the Birmingham education committee would prefer to complete its school of music scheme. I have arranged to meet the chairman of the education committee within a week so that an urgent decision can be made. I shall bear in mind the representations of the hon. Lady.

    Secondary Schools (Survey)
    Mr. Formanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the major conclusions drawn by Her Majesty's Government from the recently published survey of secondary schools.
    Mr. Mark Carlisle: The report gives an extensive picture of current provision and practice, the implications of which need to be carefully studied at national
    270
    and local levels. It shows that most teachers and pupils in secondary schools work hard and have solid achievements to show, but that there is a need for some re-thinking of the structure of the curriculum.
    Mr. Forman: Does my right hon and learned Friend accept the implication of the report that the so-called core subjects—especially the sciences and modern languages—should occupy on average more than half the available curriculum time, wherever that is possible? Is that not particularly important for those pupils who leave school at the statutory minimum age but with only modest academic achievements?
    Mr. Carlisle: One of the lessons to be drawn from the report is the need to rethink the structure of the curriculum. The Government propose to do that by issuing their views in the form of a consultative document and we shall invite the views of local education authorities and teachers' bodies on that document.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Minister agree that the report refers to the past? If we look ahead, does he agree that the cutbacks in expenditure that his Department will implement over this year and the coming year will pose an even bigger threat to the curriculum? Does he agree with the headmaster in my constituency who said that the present cutbacks pose a threat to the quality of the service and will result in a reduction of the service?
    Mr. Carlisle: I do not accept that suggestion for the many reasons that I have given in the past about the size of the cutback compared with the drop in the pupil population. However, I agree that one of the worrying features highlighted in the report which should be considered with regard to the future is the shortage of teachers of certain specialist subjects. That shortage must be reviewed in the light of the width of the curriculum.

    Skill Provision and Professional Training
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate he has made on the effects on skill provision and the training of professional engineers, mathematicians, and scientists of the Government's cuts in expenditure on education.
    Mr. Macfarlane: I apologise for the somewhat lengthy answer that I shall give. The Government recognise the vital importance of skill training in these areas. My Department, with support from industry, has encouraged a number of initiatives designed to make engineering training more attractive and more relevant to industrial needs. These initiatives include the national engineering scholarship scheme, funded jointly by Government and industry; the development of enhanced engineering courses in eight universities and two polytechnics and the various collaborative schemes operated by the Science Research Council such as the teaching company scheme and the collaborative awards in science and engineering.
    Mr. Roberts: Has the hon. Gentleman read Her Majesty's inspectors' secondary school survey, which indicated that there is already a shortage of books for many essential courses? Does he accept the widely held view in further and higher education that the cuts will devastate skilled provision and produce an enormous problem in industry in a few years' time because of the shortage of trained scientists and engineers?
    Mr. Macfarlane: Nobody should under-estimate the trend of the past 10 to 15 years in the United Kingdom. As a result of the report, a number of initiatives and inquiries have been set up to find out how the problem can best be resolved. I do not under-estimate the difficulties that face the country in this matter. My right hon. and learned Friend intends to try to resolve the problem and to restore a proper balance for the first time in the better part of two decades.
    Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend consider increasing incentives still further to study science, technology and engineering by increasing the grants available to students of those subjects while at the same time making up the money by reducing grants for students who wish to study subjects such as sociology and other subjects that are favoured by Opposition Members?
    Mr. Macfarlane: The result of the initiatives that were launched in recent years is precisely to do that. The initiatives make money available for students studying those subjects. If it were pos-
    272
    sible to expand that, it would have to be against the level of public expenditure for the next two years. The initiatives launched by industry, the CBI, the TUC and a number of organisations have been taken with a full understanding of the problems that face the country. Many initiatives were taken by the previous Administration, and we shall continue along those lines as fast as possible.
    Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware that at the University of Strathclyde the provision of scientists, mathematicians and engineers will be seriously affected by his decision on overseas students? Is he further aware that for every three overseas students who do not come into the country because of the increased fees, one lecturer will be declared redundant? That means that eight students from this country will not be able to receive the training that they require. Does he realise that the bulk of overseas students at Strathclyde are in the departments that have been referred to?
    Mr. Macfarlane: That is pure speculation and the House cannot place any credence on the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

    Pupil-Teacher Ratio
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what he estimates will be the effect on the pupil-teacher ratio of his request to local education authorities to reduce future planned expenditure.
    Mr. Mark Carlisle: I estimate that the overall pupil-teacher ratio—18·9: 1 in 1978–79—will improve to 18·7: 1 in the current school year and will remain at that level in 1980–81.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: If, as many believe, the overall pupil-teacher ratio is a good indicator of the success or otherwise of Government policy, are not those figures encouraging and do they not indicate the wisdom of concentrating effort in the classroom—if necessary, at the expense of matters on the periphery?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The pupil-teacher ratio in this country is at its best ever level. We intend that it will remain so in 1980–81.
    Mr. Marks: Will the Secretary of State call upon those authorities which are worsening the pupil-teacher ratio to stop doing so and will he write guidelines to that end?
    Mr. Carlisle: We do not propose to lay down guidelines. This is a matter for the local education authorities. I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that the ratio is at its best level ever. Our economic proposals for next year, including the reductions that we look for in education expenditure, will allow it to continue at that level.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's reply, may I ask him whether he agrees that one problem, particularly in secondary schools, is the quality of teaching rather than the pupil-teacher ratio? What will he do about increasing the numbers and improving the quality of teachers, particularly those in secondary schools in the vital science, mathematics and engineering subjects?
    Mr. Carlisle: I accept that there is concern in certain quarters about quality in the teaching profession, and there is nothing new in that. The standards for entry to teacher training colleges and the teaching profession generally have recently been improved, and I hope that as the new teachers come into the profession the overall standard will improve.

    Nursery Schools
    Miss Joan Lestorasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list by local education authority the percentage of children aged 3 or 4 years who are at present attending nursery schools.
    Mr. Mark Carlisle: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will arrange for the latest information, which refers to January 1979, to be published in the Official Report.
    Miss Lestor: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, whatever information he may publish in the Official Report, the action of some local authorities means that many children aged 3 and 4 years will not receive nursery education because of the cuts? Will he therefore consider issuing a circular to local authorities, placing on them a requirement for minimum provision in every area?
    Mr. Carlisle: I do not consider that it is neccessary to issue a circular or guidance. The Education Acts cover the matter, and I am considering the whole situation. May I say to the hon. Lady that the only reason why I could not answer the question fully was that it would require reading out every individual local authority by name. For both nursery schools and nursery classes the answer would have been 18 per cent. overall.
    Mr. Thompson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the best way to expand nursery education is to bow to public pressure and allow local authorities to charge for that service?
    Mr. Carlisle: The Government have received many requests that we should allow charging for nursery education, and we have not yet made a decision.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Is the Secretary of State aware that his ministerial colleague went a little further this morning in Committee when he said that the Government were actively considering the introduction of charges for nursery school places? Is he further aware that that statement will cause a great deal of fear and despondency to everyone involved in nursery education, and that, if such charges were introduced, they would hit hardest those children who would benefit most from nursery education?
    Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Lady would be somewhat surprised if she were not told that the Government were considering their response to the many requests made on this subject. I believe that that is what my hon. Friend said. There have been many requests from local authorities that they should be given freedom to charge, in the belief that by doing so there would be a greater demand for nursery education, which they could then meet. As I said, we are considering our response to those requests.
    Following is the information:
    Full-time and part-time pupils aged 3 and 4 in maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools as a percentage of the estimated population aged 3 and 4 years.

    JANUARY 1979

    Local Education Authority

    Per cent

    Barking

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    22

    Barnet

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    25

    Bexley

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    9

    Brent

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    27

    Local Education Authority—cont.

    per cent.

    Bromley

    …

    …

    2

    Croydon

    …

    …

    6

    Ealing

    …

    …

    22

    Enfield

    …

    …

    19

    Haringey

    …

    …

    30

    Harrow

    …

    …

    15

    Havering

    …

    …

    4

    Hillingdon

    …

    …

    32

    Hounslow

    …

    …

    30

    Kingston-upon-Thames

    …

    …

    32

    Merton

    …

    …

    34

    Newham

    …

    …

    42

    Redbridge

    …

    …

    9

    Richmond-upon-Thames

    …

    …

    9

    Sutton

    …

    …

    14

    Waltham Forest

    …

    …

    31

    Inner London

    …

    …

    35

    Birmingham

    …

    …

    23

    Coventry

    …

    …

    18

    Dudley

    …

    …

    22

    Sandwell

    …

    …

    27

    Solihull

    …

    …

    19

    Walsall

    …

    …

    42

    Wolverhampton

    …

    …

    38

    Knowsley

    …

    …

    16

    Liverpool

    …

    …

    36

    St. Helens

    …

    …

    17

    Sefton

    …

    …

    24

    Wirral

    …

    …

    16

    Bolton

    …

    …

    27

    Bury

    …

    …

    11

    Manchester

    …

    …

    50

    Oldham

    …

    …

    19

    Rochdale

    …

    …

    25

    Salford

    …

    …

    32

    Stockport

    …

    …

    11

    Tameside

    …

    …

    25

    Trafford

    …

    …

    10

    Wigan

    …

    …

    16

    Barnsley

    …

    …

    42

    Doncaster

    …

    …

    36

    Rotherham

    …

    …

    37

    Sheffield

    …

    …

    29

    Bradford

    …

    …

    26

    Calderdale

    …

    …

    23

    Kirklees

    …

    …

    25

    Leeds

    …

    …

    17

    Wakefield

    …

    …

    38

    Gateshead

    …

    …

    20

    Newcastle-upon-Tyne

    …

    …

    30

    North Tyneside

    …

    …

    37

    South Tyneside

    …

    …

    37

    Sunderland

    …

    …

    27

    Isles of Scilly

    …

    …

    —

    Avon

    …

    …

    11

    Bedfordshire

    …

    …

    26

    Berkshire

    …

    …

    20

    Buckinghamshire

    …

    …

    13

    Cambridgeshire

    …

    …

    11

    Cheshire

    …

    …

    17

    Cleveland

    …

    …

    39

    Cornwall

    …

    …

    11

    Cumbria

    …

    …

    17

    Derbyshire

    …

    …

    18

    Devon

    …

    …

    6

    Dorset

    …

    …

    5

    Durham

    …

    …

    29

    East Sussex

    …

    …

    7

    Essex

    …

    …

    4

    Gloucestershire

    …

    …

    —

    Hampshire

    …

    …

    4

    Hereford and Worcester

    …

    …

    5

    Local Education Authority—cont.

    per cent.

    Hertfordshire

    …

    …

    …

    32

    Humberside

    …

    …

    …

    22

    Isle of Wight

    …

    …

    …

    5

    Kent

    …

    …

    …

    4

    Lancashire

    …

    …

    …

    13

    Leicestershire

    …

    …

    …

    22

    Lincolnshire

    …

    …

    …

    7

    Norfolk

    …

    …

    …

    4

    North Yorkshire

    …

    …

    …

    16

    Northamptonshire

    …

    …

    …

    8

    Northumberland

    …

    …

    …

    12

    Nottinghamshire

    …

    …

    …

    38

    Oxfordshire

    …

    …

    …

    12

    Salop

    …

    …

    …

    10

    Somerset

    …

    …

    …

    2

    Staffordshire

    …

    …

    …

    22

    Suffolk

    …

    …

    …

    10

    Surrey

    …

    …

    …

    12

    Warwickshire

    …

    …

    …

    14

    West Sussex

    …

    …

    …

    3

    Wiltshire

    …

    …

    …

    1

    England

    …

    …

    …

    18

    A-level Passes
    Mr. Whitneyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the rate of increase, or decrease, in the number of A-level passes per school-leaver between 1971 and 1979.
    Dr. Boyson: If all school leavers with four or more A-level passes are assumed to have four passes only, the average number of A-level passes per school-leaver in England and Wales would be 0·40 in 1970–71 and 0·39 in 1977–78. Information for 1978–79 is now being collected.
    Mr. Whitney: Does my hon. Friend agree that the statistics, for example in mathematics and English, in the six years from 1972, show a decline of 21 per cent., and that that decline has serious implications for the switch from selective to comprehensive schools and mixed ability teaching in the maintained sector?
    Dr. Boyson: The number of A-level mathematics passes during those seven years was constant at 4 per cent. for school leavers aged 17–18 years, but my hon. Friend's question highlights the fact that we have not seen the improvement in A-level passes that we expected over that period. That may be due to the shortage of specialist teachers in mathematics and science, the move to comprehensive schools, the fact that there is not the limitless pool of ability in the country that we once believed we had, or changing methods within schools.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to reject the findings of his former "black paper" colleague, Mr. Baldwin, the self-appointed National Council of Educational Standards and the views of his hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), and acknowledge the fact that the statistics recently provided show the number of A-level passes as a proportion of all school leavers? Is it not widely known that at a time when there is a rise in the number of school leavers, those who left at 16 did not attempt, and had no intention of attempting to take, A-levels? Does the Minister agree that this whole exercise by Mr. Baldwin and his colleagues is an illustration of A. J. Cook's maxim that figures can lie and liars can figure?
    Dr. Boyson: I confess that I have not yet read Mr. Baldwin's figures. It was a treat that I was saving for the Christmas Recess, and I shall give my comments to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) when I have done so. However, those figures have no bearing on the fact that we have not seen the improvement in the number of A-level passes that we expected over the past seven years.

    Arts Teaching
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the present teaching of arts subjects in secondary schools.
    Dr. Boyson: The recent survey by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of secondary education in England commented on the need for breadth and balance in the curriculum up to the age of 16 and on the implications of this for both arts and other subjects generally. These issues will be pursued in the forthcoming consultations on a framework for the curriculum.
    Mrs. Short: While I accept the fact that there is an urgent need to familiarise young people with new technology, does not the Minister feel that the additional leisure that the Government are increasingly forcing on people requires them to pursue other activities. Does he agree that the downgrading of arts subjects in our education system is of great concern? Will he give the matter urgent attention?
    Dr. Boyson: The report of the inspectorate on secondary education indicates
    278
    that there should be a balanced curriculum throughout, with which I am sure we all agree. That involves the teaching of art. The number of passes in O-level art increased by nearly 20,000 between 1967 to 1977, and the number of passes in CSE art increased five times in that period.

    NUCLEAR SECURITY
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if she will initiate discussions with the Governments of West Germany and Holland with aview to setting up an inquiry, with the purpose of improving security at Urenco, Almelo, Holland, in the light of the Khan incident.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I have been asked to reply.
    We raised the Khan incident with our partners earlier this year. At the Joint Committee in June it was agreed that security procedures should be reviewed and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, appropriate follow-up action has since been taken. The issue is being kept under close review by the Joint Committee.
    Mr. Dalyell: Has Downing Street authorised the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), who will be replying to one of the Consolidated Fund debates, to explain why for four long years the authorities in Britain and Germany were apparently not told of the major security leak that has had more devastating effects than Nunn May and Fuchs and which has probably resulted in an Islamic bomb?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I know of the hon. Gentleman's extreme interest in the matter and how important it is. I trust that he will receive a satisfactory reply from my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Dalyell: Has Downing Street authorised such an explanation?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I said that I trust that the hon. Gentleman will receive a suitable reply from my hon. Friend. Of course Downing Street authorises everything that Ministers say.
    Mr. Whitney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in this truly lamentable affair

    279
    Dr. Khan was never employed by Urenco and that no blame should be attached to what has been a highly successful trinational operation? The blame has to be placed at the door of the Dutch authorities.
    Mr. Whitelaw: These are matters that can properly be raised during the Consolidated Fund debate.

    WINDSCALE
    Mr. Cryerasked the Prime Minister when she next expects to visit Wind-scale.
    Mr. William Whitelaw: I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Cryer: If the Prime Minister visits Windscale, will she explain to the Atomic Energy Authority workers how nuclear inspection standards can be maintained when the Department is reportedly undermanned, and even further cuts are on their way? Is he aware that many people are gravely concerned at the dangers of nuclear generation, and that there is concern about the Government's repeated attacks on the trade union movement? Each year industrial injury causes twice as many lost days as strike action. Is not the message that we should spend more on safety and inspection?
    Mr. Whitelaw: As I think the hon. Gentleman will know, the Health and Safety Executive is undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of safety at Wind-scale. The review team does not expect to complete its task for some time, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that its findings will be published.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my right hon. Friend considers visiting Windscale, will she commission an inquiry into the degree of starvation that is likely to result in Third world countries if agricultural production goes over to producing alcohol fuels instead of food, because the developed countries refuse to produce energy from nuclear resources?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I would be wise to say that I shall call my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. David Steel: As one who has visited Windscale, may I ask the Home Secretary if he will recognise that we do not need to doubt the safety record or the thoroughness of our nuclear industry to be, none the less, concerned about the Government's priorities in putting so much dependence on the expansion of nuclear energy? Is the Minister aware that the Kielder Dam, which is being built near the right hon. Gentleman's constituency and my own, will not have included in it any electricity generating capacity?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will make a statement at the end of Prime Minister's Question Time and I ask him to await that statement.
    Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that it is conceivable that the enemies of this country would dearly like to see us, in the years ahead, totally devoid of any adequate power sources? Does he not agree that there is at least a case for looking into the attempts made by some to exploit the natural concern that is felt about nuclear energy for their own ends, which have little to do with the welfare of this country?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I agree that our future power resources are enormously important. It will be to that precise point that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will direct his statement later today.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Neubertasked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 18 December.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend is visiting the United States of America.
    Mr. Neubert: Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports about the highly successful sale of a wide range of institutions that were part of the National Enterprise Board's stake in International Computers Limited? As this has diversified share ownership, relieved ICL of the burden of a dominant shareholding, and made the

    281
    Government a handsome profit, could my right hon. Friend promise that this is only the first step in a series of acts of denationalisation that we can expect in the New Year?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I understand that this sale of holdings of the NEB has raised about £38 million. That is a substantial contribution towards the Government's overall strategy for industry, and as such it is to be greatly welcomed. I assure my hon. Friend that it will, indeed, be the first of further sales.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, while in the United States, the Prime Minister has given her support to the President of the United States in his efforts to obtain the release of the hostages, if necessary through imposing some form of embargo? If that is correct, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that such a step would, we hope, have the support of all who condemn the wickedness of taking and holding hostages? Does the right hon. Gentleman also expect support for such a step from other civilised countries?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. and learned Gentleman, and the House, probably will have heard the remarks of my right hon. Friend in a radio programme this morning, when she mentioned the support that she was giving to the United States of America in this serious and distressful situation. I do not think that I should add further to what my right hon. Friend said.
    Mr. John MacKay: When the Prime Minister returns from America, will my right hon. Friend show her the article in last Sunday's Sunday Express about the 14-strong Bird family who have lined their nest almost entirely on State benefits? Does my right hon. Friend realisethat many people are gravely disturbed that somebody who could go out to work prefers to stay at home making a cocktail cabinet into which he can put more wines and spirits than the average chap who goes out and does an honest day's work?
    Mr. Whitelaw: There are many who would find a great deal of truth in what my hon. Friend said. Of course my right hon. Friend will look at this article. Indeed, I am fairly sure that she has already done so.
    Mr. Meacher: Will the Home Secretary ask the Prime Minister to take some time to reflect that the increased mortgage repayments, together with the income tax and VAT changes contained in the budget, now mean that the only people who have gained in Tory Britain are those with incomes over £20,000 a year, or precisely 1 per cent. of the population? As Government Ministers are always fond of quoting their election manifesto, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate where, in that manifesto, the Government warned the electorate that 99 per cent. of the population would be worse off after only seven months of their regime?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The people of this country will realise only too well the appalling mess in which the previous Government left this country. We need to put it right and that is the reason for the measures that we have taken.

    PRATTS BOTTOM
    Mr. Stanbrookasked the Prime Minister if she will make an official visit to Pratts Bottom.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the villagers of Pratts Bottom will be disappointed because they wanted to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the Government's success so far? Is he further aware that they also wanted to ask her to contradict the Minister who recently told the press that the election commitment to introduce a register of dependants of immigrants had been dropped? That is not true—is it?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The register and the quota both remain part of Government policy. They require primary legislation. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have made clear, there is no time for such legislation during this Session of Parliament. In accordance with well-established practice I cannot anticipate the Government's future legislative plans.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Canavan asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 18 December.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert).
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the Prime Minister's remarks in America about freedom and democracy, will the Government try to introduce more open democracy into this place, instead of refusing to answer parliamentary questionson the sale of arms, for example? Are we not entitled to know what clearance certificates have been issued to British arms dealers to supply arms to Chile, where the extreme Right-wing military Government are one of the biggest enemies to freedom and democracy today?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I can only suggest that the hon. Gentleman tables that question and then we can see how he gets on with an answer.
    Mr. Canavan: It will not be accepted. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman wait for another three minutes, until the end of Prime Minister's Questions Time?
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In view of the renewed and nasty outbreak of letter bombs, will my right hon. Friend, as he is substituting for the Prime Minister today, take an opportunity to condemn this practice of using the mail to kill people? Will he also recognise the courage of those who have to risk their lives to defuse such bombs?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Everyone in this country will utterly condemn the cowardly way in which people seek to cause loss of life through the use of letter bombs. I should add that although I believe that many will applaud the success of the police operation that was announced earlier this week, which was important, there is no room for complacency. I hope that everyone will take to heart the need
    284
    for every care between now and the Christmas period.
    Mr. Alton: Will the home Secretary find time today to look at the position in Liverpool where, last night, there was a devastating fire that resulted in the total demolition of the whole of the shopping precinct? Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement on whether that was caused by a bomb explosion and also give assurances that aid will be given to the traders whose livelihoods have been ruined as a result?
    Mr. Whitelaw: It is always wise not to say too much until inquiries are completed. However, I understand that there is no evidence at present to suggest that terrorist activities were responsible. The hon. Gentleman's other remark goes rather wide, but I shall certainly consider what he said.
    Mr. Robert Atkinsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 18 December.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert).
    Mr. Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the recent newspaper reports indicating Mr. Frank Chapple's grave concern about the state of the Labour Party and his proposed resignation from it if it continues to move to the Left? Will my right hon. Friend recognise that there is an increasing realism among trade union leaders such as Mr. Chapple?
    Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend and I certainly recognise that increased realism is spreading through many sections of the population. On the other question, it is certainly not for my right hon. Friend or for me to comment on the state of the Labour Party.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to come to the House and make a statement on the increasing danger arising from the receipt of letter bombs? Is he aware that a leading constituent of mine, who has not been involved in politics, Sir William Mather of Whirley Hall, received one of these

    285
    devices this morning? Fortunately he discovered it because of some wires poking out from the letter and the police and bomb disposal team successfully defused it. Will my right hon. Friend give advice to the House and nation on how to deal with this dreadful terrorist activity?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I had hoped that that was exactly what I had already done. I recommend the utmost vigilance by everyone in handling of the mail that he or she receives. There is no further advice that I can give the general public.
    Later—
    Mr. Canavan: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. This arises from a reply that I received earlier from the Home Secretary. Last week I went to the Table Office to table a question to the Lord Privy Seal asking him how many clearance certificates he had issued for the supply of arms—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a long-established custom that if a question is turned down by the Table Office it is not read out from the Floor of the House.
    Mr. Canavan: Then I simply ask the question which I asked the Home Secretary earlier, relating to the number of clearance certificates which had been given to arms dealers who export arms to Chile, and the names of those dealers. I was referred by the Table Office to a reply which was given earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) whereby questions on arms sales were specifically excluded from the questions allowed to be tabled. I tried again this morning to table a question relating to the sale of arms to the Republic of Honduras, and again I was refused.
    I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, following the reply that I received from the Home Secretary, who refused to give
    286
    me any information. In view of recent speculation about collaboration with arms dealers, how can we get the information we want about those who are dealing in arms? The Home Secretary implied that if I tabled the question, I would get an answer. Can I have an assurance from the Home Secretary on that matter?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I have made a mistake, I take full responsibility. But when the hon. Member reads Hansard tomorrow morning I think that he will find that what I have said was that if he sought to put down a question he would then have to see how he got on. In the circumstances that seems to be a very proper way to proceed, seeing that I do not control the Table Office in any way. Obviously if an hon. Member wishes to put down a detailed question, that is the right procedure.
    Mr. Speaker: There is nothing that I can usefully add to that point of order, because if a question is disallowed it is disallowed. Sometimes at the request of an hon. Member a question is referred directly to me. I do not think that in this case the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) made that request. As the House knows, there are some answers that mean that further questions cannot be asked.
    Mr. Canavan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I write to you with the details of this matter, will it be investigated from your point of view in relation to the accountability of the Executive to hon. Members of this House?
    Mr. Speaker: Of course I shall look into anything that the hon. Member brings to my notice. However, I do not want to raise false hopes that he will get an encouraging reply.

NUCLEAR POWER
The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Howell): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on our nuclear programme.
Safe nuclear power and a strong nuclear industry are essential to this country's energy policy. On present prospects, supplies of North Sea oil and gas will be declining in the 1990s. Even with full exploitation of coal and conservation, and with great efforts on renewable energy sources, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to meet this country's long-term energy needs without a sizeable contribution from nuclear power.
The British nuclear power programme has been in decline over the last decade and the structure of the nuclear industry has been under review for nearly two years. If we are to reverse this trend and ensure that the industry is on a sound footing we must act now.
The Government have, therefore, held urgent consultations with those most directly concerned. We believe that there must be continuing nuclear power station orders if our long-term energy supplies are to be secured and current industrial uncertainties are to be resolved.
The last Government authorised the Central Electricity Generating Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board to begin work at once with a view to ordering one advanced gas-cooled reactor station each as soon as possible. This is in hand.
The last Government also endorsed the intention of the CEGB to establish the pressurised water reactor as a valid option by ordering a PWR station provided—and I quote:
"design work is satisfactorily completed and all necessary Government and other consents and safety clearances have been obtained."—[Official Report, 25 January 1978; 942, c. 1392.]
This Government agree that the nuclear and electricity supply industries should now proceed along these lines, and we have made clear to them our wish that, subject to the necessary consents and safety clearances, the PWR should be the next nuclear power station order, with the aim of starting construction in 1982. With the approval of the Government, the
288
CEGB has endorsed the National Nuclear Corporation's selection of Westinghouse as licensor for the PWR, and will shortly issue a letter of intent to the NNC to authorise the design and, subject to the necessary approvals, manufacture of a PWR. In consultation with the CEGB, the NNC will prepare the safety case for the board to consider and submit to the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. Statutory consent actually to build the station will also be needed and an inquiry will be held in due course.
We attach overriding importance to the safety of nuclear power and will want to ensure that the lessons of events at the Three Mile Island station in the United States have been learnt. I am today publishing preliminary assessments of the Kemeny report on this incident provided to me by the NII and other authorities in the United Kingdom.
Looking ahead, the electricity supply industry has advised that even on cautious assumptions it would need to order at least one new nuclear power station a year in the decade from 1982, or a programme of the order of 15,000 megawatts over 10 years. The precise level of future ordering will depend upon the development of electricity demand and the performance of the industry, but we consider this is a reasonable prospect against which the nuclear and power plant industries can plan. Decisions about the choice of reactor for later orders will be taken in due course.
The Government attach importance to the steady build-up of the NNC into a strong and independent design and construction company, fully able to supply nuclear power stations efficiently, at home and abroad.
The boards of NNC and of its operating subsidiary, the Nuclear Power Company, will be brought together into a single-tier structure with full responsibility for the affairs of the company. The supervisory management agreement between the NNC and the General Electric Company will be terminated. The management of the NNC will be built up to suit the needs of our nuclear programme. Lord Aldington, chairman of the NNC, has told me that he wishes to retire shortly. I would like to pay tribute to the valuable and unstinted service which he has devoted to the nuclear industry over the last six years. I will be arranging for a

289
successor to take over the chairmanship in due course.
The immediate task of the NNC is to carry forward its work on the AGR programme, including early commissioning of the remainder of the first AGRs and to complete work on a PWR design ready for safety scrutiny. In addition, it is the Government's wish that the company should take on total project management responsibility for the first PWR, drawing on whatever resources it may need to support it in this role. The company may also wish to consider moving into some areas of manufacturing in due course.
The future success of our nuclear programme is of great importance to the prosperity of this country. I ask all concerned to give their active support to the decisions that I have announced.
Dr. Owen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we endorse wholeheartedly his statement that the safety of nuclear power is the overriding factor? Having authorised two gas-cooled reactors ourselves earlier this year when in government, we continue to support a steady ordering programme of advanced gas-cooled reactors provided that it is carefully adjusted to match realistic energy demand forecasts and is accompanied by increased investment in, and expansion of, the coal mining industry.
We also welcome the right hon. Gentleman's announcement about the single-tier management structure and the termination of the management agreement with GEC. Will he give an assurance that any new chairman of the corporation will be generally acceptable and not therefore associated with any of the major shareholders? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, much though I would like to have as wide an agreement over the energy industry and energy policy as is possible between the parties, particularly following the Three Mile Island incident and reports from France, we have reservations about the wisdom of changing the reactor design to the American pressure water reactor? Does he agree that the onus of proof for any change in reactor design lies with the CEGB in a wide ranging public inquiry?
Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, after such an inquiry and before any final decision is taken, he will ensure that a debate takes place in the
290
House? Will the Government also ensure that the public inquiry's terms of reference will allow comparative safety data from overseas, comparative costs of AGR, PWR and coal-burning power stations, and the import content in the different designs to be taken into account?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that, at the inquiry, all the relevant safety data, published by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, by the CEGB and by the corporation itself, will be published and will be available to the inquiry? Only on that basis can an informed decision be taken about whether to go for the pressure water reactor.
Mr. Howell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the tone in which he has responded to my statement. I shall be glad to try to answer his specific points and questions. First, he mentioned, not as a question but as a belief, his commitment to the expansion of coal. That is a commitment I share. The new coal industry that is arising from the old has an expending and important future. There can be no question other than that being so.
The size of the programme that I have announced, even if fully completed and, indeed, added to where we decide to do so later in the 1990s, would still leave a major and expanding need for coal in our energy economy, not merely for power generation but increasingly to replace oil for petrol and petro-chemicals. On that matter there can be no dissension.
On the question of a new chairman, I recognise the need. I have given an assurance that the new chairman and board and, indeed, the executive management must be of a kind that will command the confidence of all the parties and that will be in a position to overcome the old rivalries—and it will be no easy task —that have held back our nuclear programme and so give confidence to all involved.
I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's feelings on the matter of the onus of proof and a public inquiry. I must, however, remind him, and those who have doubts, that there are operating in the world at the moment no fewer than 153 light water reactors, that is, pressurised and boiling water reactors. A further 180 are being built. In other words, this is a mature system, with up

291
to 400 years operating experience behind it and with a vast worldwide experience and technical back-up. For this nation to cut itself off altogether from the option and opportunity of building pressure water reactors, with that worldwide system in existence and growing, would, in my view, be most unwise. That is why the CEGB believe, as, I understood, the Labour Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member believed, that this option should be kept open. That is why this Government believe that we should now build a pressure water reactor.
On the question of the public inquiry, we are, of course, giving full consideration to the type of inquiry that would follow safety clearance. There could be no inquiry until we had full safety clearance. We have made no decisions on precisely what type of inquiry should be established. I also make no secret of our view that the fullest explanations and the fullest discussion should inform the inquiry when it takes place. I can also inform the right hon. Gentleman that I am assured that all the principal safety documentation relevant to the initial licensing will be made available to that inquiry and published in order that the inquiry can take those matters into account. I hope that that satisfies him that all data on that matter will be published.
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Since it is essential to establish in the public mind the need for the increase in the nuclear programme, and since it is always easier to frighten people than to reassure them, will my right hon. Friend confirm that no one has ever lost his life in a nuclear power station as a result of radiation or nuclear mishap since the programme started?
Mr. Howell: I confirm my hon. Friend's statement. I confirm that this is a very safe industry with a magnificent safety record. Safety is paramount. We intend that it should remain so.
Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that what he has announced is a public expenditure commitment of between £10 billion and £20 billion, which is five times as great as the ordering programme over the last decade and absolutely different from what the generating board sought as late as the beginning of
292
last year? Will he tell the House whether he has abandoned the gas-cooled route, of which we have had 22 years experience, for this programme? If so, would it not be more honest to say that the Government have decided that they want the PWR?
Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that there is no field tested system for storing nuclear waste on this scale and that the German courts have stopped work in Germany until that is established? I should like to reinforce the need for parliamentary debate and for a vote, as in the Windscale reprocessing case, before this programme goes ahead. A crash programme on this scale, with American reactors not tried in this country and now suspect abroad, could put the nuclear industry into the heart of public controversy, following great public confidence over the patient way that we have proceeded with a system that we developed and tried and that has worked well in this country.
Mr. Howell: I am aware of the right hon. Gentleman's experience in these matters. He used the words "crash programme". He perhaps misheard what I said. The programme that I have announced would result, at the end of the 10 years, in about 22 gigawatts—one gigawatt being equivalent to 1,000 megawatts—of electric generation capacity. That would be far short of the sort of level outlined in his own Green Paper published when he was Secretary of State, holding this job, of 40 gigawatts by the turn of the century. It is a limited programme, even by the standards and assumptions of the Department of Energy when he was Secretary of State. It is and should be a limited programme. This is a complex matter, and we must pursue it in a cautious and prudent way. I believe that we must pursue it.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we had abandoned the advanced gas-cooled reactor. I thought that I had made clear, and that he must have heard me say, that until we have safety clearance—until we have got that hurdle out of the way and until the design work for the building of a pressure water reactor has been satisfactorily completed—it will be impossible to make a commitment to a different reactor system, even if we then wish to do so.

293
The aim of our programme must be to see whether we can build a pressure water reactor and provide for and get the satisfactory safety clearances. If we can, the House and the Government can make a decision on which reactor system we should adopt for the necessary and limited programme that I have outlined. There can be no question of rushing from one system to another until we know all the facts and have the safety clearances. I hope that that is clear to the right hon. Gentleman.
As for a debate, I shall call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to that matter. I recognise the enormous public and parliamentary concern about these major issues for our nation.
New forms of storage through vitrification are being developed. However, it would be misleading for the country to assume that the present problems of storage of high-level and high-activity waste are not easily manageable, as at present they are. The storage containers are steel encased in concrete encased again in steel, and they are under water. The waste is limited in volume and the storage systems work successfully. Therefore, while we want improvements in the system through the glassification or vitrification system, which will come in due course, and while there may be a need for it in 15 or 20 years, it would be misleading to indicate that we have an immediate problem and an immediate solution. We do not have such an immediate problem. That aspect is well under control and can be met.
Mr. Penhaligon: How can the Minister justify the Government's obsession with nuclear power after the Three Mile Island incident, the colossal leak at Windscale, the extraordinarily slow progress of research into the disposal of nuclear waste and the current two-year American halt to any development of the industry? Would it not have made more sense if the Minister had said that until a full inquiry into the PWR had been completed and a method of safe disposal of nuclear waste had been discovered, no further expansion of the industry would take place?
Mr. Howell: I think that the word "obsession" is misplaced. We are concerned with a build-up which, at the end
294
of this programme, would lead to about 30 per cent. of our electricity coming from nuclear power, leaving us with a variety of sources for power, light and heat in future.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we should be concerned with this programme. We should be concerned with it because we should be concerned with our children and our children's children, and the question whether they freeze and whether their industries work or not. That is the basis for our concern and for looking a little beyond the immediate future in working out our energy policy.
I have already answered the point about waste disposal. I believe that that problem can be and is being managed. There is no immediate problem there for the foreseeable future. I hope that that meets the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will be aware that there is another statement to follow. It will help me to call many more Members if we can have brief questions.
Mr. Forman: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the relatively high cost of this programme, as foreseen, will not exclude adequate investment by this Government and future Governments in both energy conseravtion and renewable sources of energy?
Mr. Howell: Yes, I can give that assurance. Indeed, I can go further. In my view and in the view of the Government, the development of a nuclear capacity of this kind makes it all the more essential that we have a complementary development of different, smaller, and alternative and renewable sources of energy.
Mr. Palmer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement on the expansion of the nuclear power programme will be widely welcomed by the electricity supply industry, including all the trade unions, which have been pressing for it for some time?
Specifically, what will be the nature of the agreement to be made between the National Nuclear Corporation and the American Westinghouse company for the import of about 25 per cent. of the technology that will be necessary for the

295
PWR? In particular, will any restriction be placed on this country regarding the re-export of pressurised water technology?
Mr. Howell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his general response to my statement. Indeed, I recognise his deep involvement in and knowledge of this industry and the electricity supply industry over the years.
The agreement will be the full activation of the licence between the National Nuclear Corporation and Westinghouse, with the commercial limitations that Westinghouse will impose. Those will be negotiated on the agreement as was done in supplying the original technology to the French and to the Germans when their PWR industries first developed. That will be the nature of the agreement.
Exchange of information with other countries will have to be within the terms of the Westinghouse licence. It certainly would not exclude, for instance, exchange of components or manufacturing information of certain kinds with the French who are also governed, and will be until 1982, by the Westinghouse licence.
Mr. Wigley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread worry and anxiety about the safety of nuclear power stations, particularly the PWR and, if we get to them, the fast-breeder reactors? That is felt particularly in areas where these reactors may be built. Can the right hon. Gentleman give an indication about the locations of these reactors, and the locations for the dumping of nuclear waste?
Mr. Howell: I cannot give an indication on locations. Until there has been safety clearance for a PWR there will be no applications for sites on which to build it. I have received no such applications.
The hon. Gentleman said that there was widespread concern about the safety of nuclear power. I recognise that fully. It is for that reason that I have today authorised the publication of the evaluations of the Kemeny report by the CEGB, the UKAEA and the NNC. I am sure that these documents will be read with interest by hon. Members. On the whole, they support my own assessment of the Kemeny report—it is a fairly wide assessment—that what went wrong at Harrisburg had most to do with the organize-
296
ton and procedures of the American nuclear operations and nuclear operating industry and much less—in fact, very little —to do with the integrity of the system and of the equipment of the pressure water reactor.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Will my right hon. Friend accept that my congratulations to him on reaching a firm decision in the short term on our nuclear programme are not mitigated by my regret that he has not mentioned any future for the fast-breeder reactor? Is he aware that if a commercial type of fast-breeder were started at Doorway immediately, it could not possibly be completed until 1992—the end of this present programme? Will he confirm that the French are going ahead with their fast-breeder reactor and that it is necessary for us to make a decision if we are to produce a reactor that can demonstrate its capacity and thereby become an exportable product?
Mr. Howell: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's qualified congratulations. He is right about the importance of the fast-breeder reactor. I expect a full report fairly soon from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority on how we may best proceed towards a commercial demonstration fast-breeder reactor. I also expect that report to include comments on the possibilities of international collaboration, including collaboration with the French or with the joint French and German programme through the Serena organisation, and on ways in which we can best proceed on that basis. The French are pressing ahead, but these frontier areas of technology are not without severe difficulties. Nevertheless, I believe that the fast-breeder reactor is part of the nuclear future and I shall be receiving a report on this matter fairly shortly.
Mr. Woodall: Will the right hon. Gentleman be a little more forthcoming than he was in his reply to the hon. Member for CAE Narvon (Mr.Wigley)? Surely someone somewhere should have some idea where these nuclear power stations are intended to be placed. If not, something somewhere is sadly lacking. For instance, is there to be a nuclear power station in Yorkshire, which has more than its share of coal-fired power stations? Finally, is this

297
new programme likely to put any coal-fired stations in jeopardy?
Mr. Howell: In fair reply to the hon. Gentleman's perfectly understandable worry—first, we have to decide whether such a nuclear station will receive full safety clearance. Secondly, we have to go to inquiry, which the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friends and others have rightly pointed out. When we do that, and a decision has been reached, the time will come—at theinquiry—to decide where the site should be. Until then, no one will come forward with, or decide upon, a proposal on where a nuclear power station should be sited. We have to take the matter one step at a time. That is in the nature of things, and there is no other way around it.
In future there may be more coal-fired stations. The programme does not rule out other sorts of power stations; it is merely that we believe that it is necessary, as a minimum, to have this commitment to a steady ordering of nuclear programmes to get our nuclear industry going and to make it worth while for people to invest their careers, management and expertise in reviving our nuclear industry.
Mr. Skeet: I welcome the Government's programme, but is the Secretary of State aware that the French capacity by 1985 will be four times that of the United Kingdom, and by 1990 five times that of the United Kingdom? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the cross-channel cable may well be used for the advantage of the French rather than the British?
Mr. Howell: I am aware of the disparities between the British and French plans. Our energy position is different, and it is my view—and the Government's view—that we should build our future energy availability and security of supplies on a variety of resources. We wish to press ahead with a greater nuclear capacity, but we wish also to develop other resources. Even if we succeed fully on all our energy programmes, on estimates that are shared by both the previous Government and the present Government we will still need to achieve a 20 per cent. energy resource to increase energy efficiency and conservation. I hope that that answer gives an idea of the great importance attached to the development of our resources.
298
The cross-channel electricity link is currently the subject of a public inquiry. It would not be right for me to comment on it or on the source of electricity passing through it.
Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Secretary of State comment on the widely held public view about nuclear safety, namely, that what could happen will happen sooner or later? Will he confirm that there is no question of building Harrisburg-type PWRs on the sites that are at present being developed at Heysham and Torness, in my constituency?
Mr. Howell: I cannot comment on possible sites, for the reason that I have already explained. I can confirm not only that the principal safety documentation relevant to initial licensing for PWRs would be made available and published for any future public inqiury, but that the CEGB have undertaken to produce, next year, substantial and full documentation on the safety of the existing advanced gas-cooled reactor. That would be a further valuable contribution to public debate.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the Secretary of State take note that in view of the lack of fixed locations in Scotland already has one of the highest proportions of nuclear-generated electricity at the present time? If there were massive overcapacity, there would be strong opposition to any of that capacity being taken to England or the Continent through the grid. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the growing opposition to nuclear power in Scotland? Will he undertake to keep us from these dangerous plants and waste?
Mr. Howell: I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's Scottish concern. As to strong opposition, while there are certainly some who would strongly oppose these matters, I think that that is different from assuming that there is an overwhelming majority against them. On the contrary, I believe that if we look at the common sense of the Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish people, we will find a preponderance in favour of the sort of power that I am describing today.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call four more hon. Members from each side.
Mr. David Price: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but do we take

299
it from the figures that he quoted that he is persisting in building large power stations of 1,500 megawatts or above? Will he put his mind to the possibility of building a larger number of smaller stations, which would fit in better with his policy of playing all the options? In that context, does that not make the fast-breeder nuclear reactor a little nearer down the time scale than he suggested in his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan)?
Mr. Howell: I do not think that there is an inter-relationship between the thermal programme that I have announced today and moving ahead with the fast-breeder reactor, which we recognise is important. No decision has been made, and no minds are closed, on the size of the actual reactors at the pressure water reactor stations if the safety clearances are given and the inquiry approves their building.
Mr. Abse: Since it will be found to be droll, to say the least, by the British people, will the Secretary of State explain why, at the very moment when nuclear power stations are closing and licences are being frozen by the nuclear regulatory commission in America, we should move forward precipitously into the PWR.
If he is so concerned with safety, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Government are stubbornly refusing to publish the unabridged nuclear safety studies that are available? Today, he is quite clearly proffering only synoptic and inadequate evaluations rather than the full and unabridged text.
Will he spell out whether that means that in Wales there is no intention to move forward at Portskewett with an AGR, and that he is contemplating putting a PWR there? I would inform him that in addition to the Government making Wales an economic desert, if there is any suggestion that he should make it into a radioactive wasteland he will find that the public opinion that he mentions will be different from that which he imagines.
Mr. Howell: I deal with the last of the hon. Gentleman's three questions. The CEGB has informed me that it does not intend to press its application to build an advanced gas-cooled reactor at the Portskewett site. If it did decide to do
300
so, there would be a public inquiry, but it has informed me that it does not wish to press ahead at present.
The hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Kemeny report differs from mine. That report did not recommend the freezing of licencing procedures for pressurised water reactors or nuclear station building in the United States. What was at issue in the United States, as is perfectly clear from the reading of the report—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to study it, because of its vital importance—is that it was regulatory, organisational and institutional patterns that were at fault. Furthermore, the report suggested that it would have been better to have a system closer to that which exists in this country. The hon. Gentleman's argument does not stand on the basis of the Kemeny report and the events at Harrisburg.
I deal with the 1977 generic report on pressurised water reactor systems. A general summary of the report was published, and a more detailed report followed. The hon. Gentleman asked, very fairly, why the whole report had not been published. Predominantly, what is not published is commercial information provided by Westinghouse, which would not have been provided if the terms were that it would be published. The publication was not possible, for commercial reasons. The rest is publishable and is available.
Mr. Edward Gardner: I welcome the decisive statement of my right hon. Friend, but will he tell the House what progress is being made on research into alternative sources of power—that is, alternative to oil, coal and nuclear fuel? What contribution does he anticipate those alternative sources will be able to make to our needs within the next decade?
Mr. Howell: Substantial research is being carried out into alternative sources, in both the public and private sectors. In areas such as tidal barrage or aero-generators, we are so early in the research stage that expenditure is not large. Big expenditure begins when the development stage is reached. Nevertheless, we are on a course that may lead eventually—and decision will have to be taken by future Governments—to spending enormous sums on carrying

301
forward these alternatives, such as aero-generators, wave power and tidal barrage, into full commercial application.
Frankly, I do not see any of these producing a substantial contribution over the next 10 years. By the end of the century it is possible that about 10 million tonnes of coal equivalent may flow from alternatives of one sort or another. In the nature of things, it is early days for the economic considerations. Expenditure is still much at the research level. My hon. and learned Friend must be left in no doubt that we regard the alternatives that he mentioned as an important part of future energy policy.
Mr. Albert Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Why has the right hon. Gentleman failed to mention substitute North Sea gas?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no doubt that that is what the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) would have asked if I had called him.
Mr. Mike Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those who are working in the power generation industry will be extremely disappointed that he does not propose to place another order before 1982? Is he aware that the hardware orders for the Torness and Heysham AGRs have not yet been placed? Will he do something to speed up the placing of those orders, as jobs depend on them? Is he also aware that that very fact will undermine the credibility of his alleged public inquiry and safety investigation strategy?
If the right hon. Gentleman is not proceeding on the AGR front, will he not arrive in a position in 1982 in which he has no option but to order the PWR? Will he give that information to the House? Is it not a fact that the Government have made up their minds already?
Lastly, may I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement on the independent and strong status of the new nuclear corporation and the termination of the GEC management contract? We are glad that over the weekend he had second thoughts on his idea.
Mr. Howell: I can assure the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts)
302
that although he did not ask a question about substitute North Sea gas the matter is much in my mind. It will be an important part of the coal industry's future in providing gas after natural gas declines.
As for orders, there are the two new advanced gas-cooled reactor stations to be built. The orders will be important to British industry. Everything that the hon. Gentleman has said reinforces the need for us to press ahead with the safety clearances and the inquiry to get the next nuclear power station order established. I am sure that that is the right way forward. Today's announcement indicates that we shall go firmly and strongly along that path. That will be in the best interests of the supply industries.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh), and I shall call two Conservative Members when the hon. Member for Don Valley has asked his question.
Mr. Welsh: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are millions outside this ivory tower who, like my good self, do not support any extension of nuclear power stations in Great Britain? Will he give me an assurance that no such plants, even after long inquiries, will be built in the constituency of Don Valley? The Government have a majority vote in the House. If they are successful in implementing the contents of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, will they arrange for one nuclear power station to be built within a few hundred yards of this place?
Mr. Howell: For reasons that I have explained, I cannot make statements or offer views on the locations of the next nuclear stations, or any future power station, until application is made to me and the matter goes, if necessary, to inquiry. I know that there are strong feelings for and against nuclear power. However, if we consider the issue in the way that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) urged—with less emotion and less rivalry and bitterness—we shall recognise the basic need from our children's point of view, and from the next generation's point of view, for safe, low-cost nuclear power. We must look forward if we are to see good government from any party.
Mr. Hannam: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important factor in the nuclear equation is to get and retain the support of the British people for the nuclear programme that he is outlining? What plans has he for keeping the public fully briefed on both the need for and the safety of the nuclear industry?
Mr. Howell: As I have already mentioned, we are undertaking a considerable programme of publication of safety documents relating to Harrisburg, the PWR and the AGR. In addition, it is my Department's intention to send to every hon. Member an information document setting out a great many of the detailed background considerations on nuclear power and its safety and related implications—for example, waste disposal. There is an understandable demand for more information and more detail on these complex aspects. I am open to further suggestions on more publications and more help that can be provided by the Government and by my Department to meet the queries and worries of hon. Members and of the public.
Mr. Rost: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the nuclear programme, which I fully support, could run into serious difficulties? There has been plenty of evidence cited and comments made to that effect from Opposition Members. That will continue to be the position unless we carry public opinion with us. Surely that can happen only if the industry and Government make greater efforts to disclose fully sensitive documents and material. If those efforts are not made, the anti-nuclear lobby will exploit the fears and anxieties of the British people unjustifiably.
Mr. Howell: I agree with my hon. Friend. I shall add to the list that I have mentioned further publications that we intend to make to demonstrate that my agreement is not merely verbal but will be translated into results. There are wor-
304
ries—the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport has referred to them—about waste disposal and certain leaks that have taken place at Windscale. It is our intention to publish the reports of the Health and Safety Executive on the 1976 incident—the leak from the B38 silo—and the 1978 incident that was eventually reported to my predecessor, and to publish a general report on safety operations at Windscale. That is a further example of the Government's determination to ensure that full information is in the hands of Parliament and of the public before and as we make decisions to expand our nuclear capacity, as we must.
Mr. Dobson: How can the Secretary of State talk about a programme that is based on what he described as the cautious assumptions of the CEGB against the background of the technologically and financially disastrous AGR programme? No doubt there were cautious assumptions in 1965 when that programme was launched. The board managed to get one station to work in 15 years. On its own estimates, which it supplied to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) the cost of the delays in the AGR programme amount to £1,200 million. That sum would have provided only the capacity that was not provided by AGRs.
Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman is obviously not in agreement with some of his hon. Friends and other hon. Members who have asked questions. When he talks about the difficulties of the past he is reinforcing the urgency of firm and clear decisions to get the industry on a path that will enable it to know that it will have a programme that will enable the customer to have confidence in the industry and will enable the two sectors to work together effectively. The hon. Gentleman's argument reinforces the need to proceed as I now seek to do.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—

RHODESIA
The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour): With permission Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on Rhodesia.
All parties at the constitutional conference have now initialled the final conference report. Formal signature of the report and of the ceasefire agreement is expected to take place within the next two days.
The conference has thus reached final agreement. The Government welcome the spirit of compromise shown by all the parties and are grateful to the other Governments involved for their contribution towards a settlement.
The House will wish to know that in the light of the requirement for a monitoring presence and its need for self-sufficiency of road and air transport within Rhodesia, the latest estimate for the cost of the pre-independence arrangements is £27 million.
In the interests of reconciliation following a settlement, the Government intend to instruct the Governor to confer an amnesty in the law of Southern Rhodesia which will apply to acts committed in good faith by both sides.
Though many problems still lie ahead, I am sure the House will agree that the successful conclusion of the Lancaster House conference opens the prospect of peace and prosperity in Rhodesia.
Mr. Shore: I congratulate the Lord Privy Seal and the Foreign Secretary on the right hon. Gentleman's statement. The House will not wish to mute in any way its welcome for the successful conclusion of the Lancaster House conference. Despite the vehemence with which rival claims and fears have been expressed, we recognise and salute the underlying will of all the parties involved to compromise and to reach an agreement within the guidelines that were laid down at the Commonwealth conference in Lusaka.
With regard to the hazards and difficulties that lie ahead, is the Lord Privy Seal aware of the great importance of cementing the Lancaster House agreement by rapid action now in Salisbury? While welcoming the amnesty inside Rhodesia, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can assure us that the ban on proscribed political parties will now be
306
lifted, that political prisoners will be released and that martial law will be revoked?
Can the Lord Privy Seal confirm also that maize supplies are moving now to Zambia? Will he give us a timetable for the arrival and build up of the Commonwealth observer force and for the withdrawal of South African troops? Has he considered the possibility of sending an all-party group from the House of Commons to observe and report on the forthcoming elections?
Sir I. Gilmour: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his congratulations and kind words. I am also grateful to him for the co-operation of the Opposition Front Bench during the last few weeks, and in particular for his forbearance yesterday.
Of course, I agree that it is important to keep up the momentum. That is what we aim to do. Proscribed parties will cease to exist as soon as the final agreement has been made at Lancaster House. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, martial law courts have been ended, and martial law will come to an end as soon as it is clear that the ceasefire is taking root.
I confirm that maize is now free to go into Zambia.
As regards South African troops, there can be no question of any foreign intervention in Rhodesia.
The question of an all-party group to observe the elections is for the House rather than for me to decide. No doubt discussion will continue through the usual channels.
Mr. Amery: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal and his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary on the patience and courage with which they have secured agreement for the Lusaka proposals. While I retain grave reservations about those proposals, I hope that the event may prove that I was wrong and that my right hon. Friends were right.
Sir I. Gilmour: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his generous attitude. Needless to say, I also share his hope.
Mr. Russell Johnston: It the Lord Privy Seal aware that we welcome the

307
tribute that he has paid to the parties involved in the negotiations and to the other Governments concerned? As has been said, it is also right to congratulate the Government and their officials on all that they have done to make an agreement possible which many thought impossible. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Governor will be flexible in his response to any requests for additional assembly points, even if that has the consequence of causing the monitoring force to be increased?
Sir I. Gilmour: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and also for his remarks concerning officials at the Foreign Office. Those officials have been incredibly dedicated and efficient during the past few months. They have hardly gone to bed at all, and no Foreign Office in the world could have performed as well.
The House should be aware of what has been agreed concerning flexibility. We have agreed that there should be 16 assembly points, and we believe that that number will be quite adequate for the forces of the Patriotic Front. The question of additional places will arise only if Patriotic Front forces assemble with their arms and equipment in numbers greater than can be dealt with by all the assembly points designated in the ceasefire agreement. We do not expect that question to arise, but if it does we shall deal with it.
Mr. Faulds: Having been somewhat critical in the past, may I offer my sincere congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman, to the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) and to his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary? Does the Lord Privy Seal recognise that that success was due not only to his own persistence, patience and restraint but also to that of the leaders of the Patriotic Front, who have been under considerable pressures from their own people? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that we pray that fair and free elections will crown these protracted negotiations with an independent and democratic Zimbabwe?
Sir I. Gilmour: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's words. I think that he has introduced a new definition of "somewhat". I accept that the conference
308
could not have taken place without the co-operation of the Patriotic Front as well as of the other delegations. However, I stress that the success of the agreement and the success of the future of Zimbabwe will depend upon exact compliance with what has been agreed at Lancaster House. That is vital. All parties must comply with that agreement.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it was a major act of courage and reconciliation that this Government decided to launch into the Lancaster House conference? Does he also accept that the spirit of reconciliation and compromise engendered by the conference must continue after Zimbabwe becomes independent if that country is to avoid the problems of the last 15 years?
Sir I. Gilmour: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Throughout the Lancaster House negotiations we stressed that reconciliation is our aim and must be the aim of everyone in Rhodesia. There must be a spirit of compromise, but I emphasise that no one will achieve what we want—the peace and prosperity of Rhodesia—unless there is full compliance with what has been agreed.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have already risen in their place.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Lord Privy Seal accept that all who wish to see a peaceful Zimbabwe welcome the agreement because it offers that prospect? Will he also accept—I am sure that he does—that the period until the elections is crucial if the agreement is to stick?
What specific action are the Government taking to ensure that South African troops remove themselves from Rhodesia at the earliest opportunity? Will he confirm that the ban on ZAPU and ZANU that prevents them from operating in the country legally will be lifted tomorrow?
What arrangements are being made to put proper limits on election expenses and to provide for the proper accounting of those election expenses? There are widespread reports in the press today that South African commercial interests are intent on pouring money into the support of Bishop Muzorewa's party.
Sir I. Gilmour: As I have already said, there will be no foreign forces in Rhodesia. The only forces in Rhodesia will be Rhodesian forces and those of the Patriotic Front. We made very clear both at the conference and elsewhere that we did not contemplate any sort of purge in the personnel of the forces of either side. It is impossible to go through the forces of either side and to say that this man is a South African or that that man is a Mozambiquan.
Mr. Hughes: On a point of—
Sir I. Gilmour: I am in the middle of my answer.
There will be no foreign intervention during the elections. I agree that the next few weeks are vital for Rhodesia. I confirm what I said to the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore)—that as soon as the ceasefire agreement has been signed ZAPU and ZANU will be fully legalised.
Mr. Dykes: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on this exceptional achievement. Can he clarify whether the ending of martial law means the immediate lifting of censorship on newspapers, radio and television?
Sir I. Gilmour: I did not say that there would be an immediate ending of martial law. I said that the martial law courts had been suspended, but martial law itself would be lifted only when it was clear that the ceasefire was working successfully. We have said—as my hon. Friend will appreciate, it is part of the agreements—that there must be fair coverage by the media of all political parties during the elections.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: As the ultimate successful outcome of the negotiations depends upon having an election which is accepted as free and fair by all the parties concerned, will the Lord Privy Seal confirm that the Governor has power to correct any imbalance which may have arisen because of the present superiority in election organisation of one side within the country? Will he be able to override civil contracts in order to ensure that all parties have proper access to buses, offices and the like for the establishment of their election arrangements?
Sir I. Gilmour: We have said, of course, that the elections must be fully
310
free and fair. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, those are all matters for the election commission, which will be set up immediately.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: Will my right hon. Friend agree that it is not a moment too soon to follow through the success of this imaginative policy of reconciliation with an imaginative policy of reconstruction analogous to that which General Marshall applied to Europe immediately after the Second World War? Does he agree that there is now a great need for economic reconstruction in Rhodesia, and will he bear in mind that one of the major contributors to that economic reconstruction is bound to be South Africa?
Sir I. Gilmour: I entirely agree that economic reconstruction must follow these political agreements and the elections—or, indeed, begin even before the elections. I was in Brussels today and mentioned that there was scope for Community help to Rhodesia, and I hope that that will be forthcoming.
Mr. Concannon: I add my heartfelt congratulations to all concerned with the conference and its successful outcome. The right hon. Gentleman will know that I am particularly worried about the Commonwealth monitoring force and the possibility that it could be sucked into what I may call the happenings which such monitoring forces have historically encountered. Is the Governor aware of the feeling in the House that we would not want this force to be sucked into any mischievous happenings on the part of either side in Rhodesia which could pull our forces into what could be called set battles or anything of that kind?
Sir I. Gilmour: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his congratulations and, if I may say so, the absence of "ifs" and "buts" in what he said. I share his hope and desire, and I can say that we shall have no intention of the monitoring force being drawn into incidents of the kind which he has in mind.
Mr. Alexander: In view of the heartening news brought to the House by my right hon. Friend, can he now indicate the proposed timetable for the withdrawal of power and influence on the part of the present Governor?
Sir I. Gilmour: The ceasefire period will begin to run from the signing of the agreement and should be complete a fortnight after that. There will then be elections at some period in February. The Governor will then be responsible for choosing a Prime Minister and also for setting in hand the elections for the Senate. Once the independent Rhodesia—or, at least the nearly independent Rhodesia—is on its feet, the Governor will immediately withdraw, or, rather, come back to England and resume his normal duties in this country.
Mr. Maclennan: I offer unstinted admiration and thanks to the Government and to all who have played their part in bringing about this agreement. Can the Lord Privy Seal enlarge on what he said about the instructions that he has given to the Governor about the amnesty, and, in particular, will he say whether in these circumstances the Government may feel it necessary during the remaining interim period before the election is held to issue further instructions, or does civil legislative and executive responsibility lie with the Governor? Without doubt, considerable tensions will remain and could give rise to disputes of a kind which might involve the Government directly. Are they prepared to consider these matters?
Sir I. Gilmour: A copy of the ordinance which the Governor will issue will be placed in the Library of the House. I do not expect any further amnesty to be needed in the law of Southern Rhodesia, but obviously we shall keep the matter in mind.
Mr. McQuarrie: In congratulating my right hon. Friend, I can assure him that his statement today will be greeted with great joy by the white Rhodesians and their families in Rhodesia, who have desperately wanted this settlement. Will he accept my assurance also that it will bring similar joy to the many thousands of families in Britain who have relatives over there and who have worried about them over such a long time? I congratulate my right hon. Friend wholeheartedly on having arrived at this happy solution to a dreadful situation.
Sir I. Gilmour: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I trust that the statement which I have made will bring great joy to the white Rhodesians and to their friends
312
and relations over here, but I hope that it will bring great joy also to all Rhodesians of all colours, because the one thing that Rhodesia needs above all else is peace.
Mr. Foulkes: What consideration has been given to the position of General Walls now that the Governor is in post?
Sir I. Gilmour: General Walls is acting under the authority of the Governor.
Mr. Bowen Wells: I add my congratulations to the entire Foreign Office team, both political and professional, on the achievement of this magnificent agreement at Lancaster House. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the economic reconstruction of Rhodesia may begin straight away, and, in particular, has he authorised the Commonwealth Development Corporation to resume its operations in that country?
Sir I. Gilmour: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. I entirely agree that the economic reconstruction must begin as soon as possible, but I think that it will be for the new independent Government to consult with the Commonwealth Development Corporation.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) and the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton), since both have taken an interest in this matter, but they rose after I drew the line.
Miss Joan Lestor: I am extremely grateful, Mr. Speaker.
In adding my congratulations to all concerned in the settlement, may I refer the right hon. Gentleman to something that he said about South African troops? He said that there would not be a purge in the various forces as to whether they were Mozambiquans or South Africans in one or other group. Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that that is not the point? The point is that there are official South African troops on the soil of what is now a British colony. Will he therefore answer the question which was put a little earlier: have they now been instructed to leave Rhodesia?
Sir I. Gilmour: I thought that it was understood that there is no question of the presence of foregin units or South

313
African units in Rhodesia under the Governer.
Mr. Brotherton: What steps are being taken to limit Soviet influence in Rhodesia and, in particular, the use of Soviet money in the forthcoming elections?
Sir I. Gilmour: I can imagine no greater contribution to limiting Soviet influence in Rhodesia than the successful conclusion of these agreements, and, equally, no greater contribution to preventing Soviet influence than the bringing of peace to this country where there has been war. So I do not think that that is really a danger for the future.

NEW MEMBER
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
Richard Page Esq., for Hertfordshire, South-West.

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising on Friday do adjourn till Monday 14 January.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Rooker. Mr. Kaufman.
4.40 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I believe that the House should not rise for the Christmas Recess until we have had an explanation from the Secretary of State for Industry on certain statements that he has made and certain actions he has taken. I should make clear, as you will no doubt know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I wrote to the Secretary of State for Industry on Thursday last telling him that I would raise these matters and asking him if he would be present.
The Secretary of State for Industry is so far not present, nor has he had the grace or the courtesy to write to me, in the five days since I wrote to him, giving any reason why he cannot be here. Nevertheless, I intend to proceed with what I have to say and I hope that the Leader of the House, to whom I also wrote on this matter, will accept from me that a brief and possibly flippant statement by him in which he simply says that these matters will be drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State will not do, in the light of the extremely serious matters which I wish to draw to the attention of the House.
It is crucial that we have a satisfactory explanation of what the Secretary of State for Industry has been saying and doing. I do not believe that the House should adjourn for Christmas until the Secretary of State has made a statement to this House regarding his statement in the House on 2 November on the National Enterprise Board and Rolls-Royce, his speech in the House in the debate on 26 November on the National Enterprise Board and Rolls-Royce, and further statements he made in Standing Committee E on 27 November. Certain written answers that the Secretary of State has made to me since then, when examined together with the statement to which I have drawn attention, call seriously into doubt the propriety of certain of the Secretary of State's action and place in even greater doubt the frankness and veracity with which he has dealt with the House.

315
Next, let me make clear that I am not seeking to reopen a discussion of the merits of the Secretary of State's removal of Rolls-Royce from the National Enterprise Board and of his dismissal de facto of the members of the National Enterprise Board. These matters have been debated in the House. However, it is necessary, in the interests of the House's relations with Ministers, for us to examine with the utmost care certain statements which have been made by the Secretary of State. On 21 November he made a statement to the House about the new arrangements he was making for Rolls-Royce and about the resignation of the National Enterprise Board. My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) asked him:
"Since the agreement between Rolls-Royce and the NEB—an agreement in writing, of the existence of which the Secretary of State and all of us are well aware—gives the right to the NEB chairman to be present at all discussions between the Secretary of State and the chairman of Rolls-Royce, will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us how many discussions, minuted or unminuted, he has had with the chairman of Rolls-Royce without the chairman of the NEB having been invited?"
I should remind the House that the text of the memorandum of understanding, to which the Secretary of State was still a consenting party at that time, stated unequivocally:
"On all major issues affecting RR71's strategy, plans and performance and the NEB's responsibility for securing the efficient management of RR71, RR71 will deal with the NEB…it will…be open to the Chairman of RR71 at any time to seek a meeting with a Minister, provided that the Chairman of the NEB is consulted beforehand and has the opportunity to attend if he wishes".
In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford, the Secretary of State said:
"I was asked how many times I have seen the chairman of Rolls-Royce on his own. I saw him when he came to confirm to me what he had told my permanent secretary a year ago, namely, that he wanted to bring to an end his responsibility for Rolls-Royce at about the end of this year".
When the Secretary of State was further pressed, he repeated what he had said before in these words:
"I answered the right hon. Gentleman's first question. I said that I had had only one meeting privately with the chairman of Rolls-Royce".—[Official Report, 21 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 391–92.]
So that was quite clear. The Secretary of State admitted breaking the agreement
316
but pleaded in mitigation that he had done so only once.
However, when the House debated the issue five days later on 26 November, the Secretary of State modified his previous statement and said:
"I was asked whether I had given the House full information…about any meetings that I might have had with Sir Kenneth Keith in breach of the memorandum of understanding. I have here to correct an error. I told the House under questioning last week that I had had one such meeting with Sir Kenneth Keith. I was wrong. I had two such meetings with Sir Kenneth Keith. I had a private lunch with Sir Kenneth Keith in addition to that. However, that had no relationship whatever to the NEB. I had a private lunch at which I was told something about the business."—[Official Report, 26 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 979.]
I should point out that the Secretary of State did not trouble to apologise for having misled the House by the misstatement he had made in his earlier reply; but at any rate he issued a correction, and, by this admission, he had now broken the agreement not once but three times.
The Secretary of State repeated this version again next day when he was pressed further in Standing Committee E, which is considering the Industry Bill. He referred to what he called
"the three occasions on which I met Sir Kenneth Keith without having warned Sir Leslie Murphy that I was going to do so." —[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 27 November 1979; c. 165.]
But the Secretary of State was still not speaking the full truth, because in a written answer to me on 10 December he admitted that he had met Sir Kenneth Keith four times, at the private lunch he had mentioned the previous day and three times in addition; and he listed these meetings in his answer:
"On 19 September I lunched with Sir Kenneth at Rolls-Royce's office…
On 6 November I met Sir Kenneth Keith at the Department to discuss his intention to give up the chairmanship of Rolls-Royce. Later in the day I was also present at a meeting at the House of Commons when Sir Kenneth informed the Prime Minister of his intention to give up the chairmanship…
On 7 November I met Sir Kenneth Keith at the Department again in connection with his departure."—[Official Report, 10 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 459.]
But even that was not all, because also on 10 December the Secretary of State published, at my request, a letter, to the full text of which I will return, sent to

317
him by Sir Kenneth Keith on October 4th in which Sir Kenneth stated:
"I have just had an excellent talk with Adam Butler."
This referred to a meeting that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler), had had with Sir Kenneth Keith earlier that same day.
When I asked about that meeting, I was told in a written answer from the Secretary of State:
"My hon. Friend the Minister of State met Sir Kenneth Keith for lunch at Rolls-Royce's office on 4 October 1979.…The NEB was not consulted beforehand; neither Sir Leslie Murphy nor any other representative of the NEB was present at the lunch".—[Official Report, 13 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 760.]
It should be remembered that the memorandum of understanding deals not just with meetings involving the Secretary of State but with all meetings between the chairman of Rolls-Royce and a Minister. Those are the words of the memorandum of understanding. So when the Secretary of State told the House on 21 November that there had been only one meeting with Sir Kenneth Keith in breach of the momorandum of understanding, he was understating the true position by 400 per cent.
Yet this information has had to be dragged out of the Secretary of State and, I repeat, he has made no apology to the House for so seriously misleading it. Nor is he yet here—a token, I am afraid, of the arrogance with which he treats these matters, which may have led to the various improprieties which I shall continue to list.
Out of those statements and answers has emerged another issue on which it can be demonstrated that the Secretary of State has acted certainly with great impropriety and possibly ultra vires. I refer to the resignation of Sir Kenneth Keith as chairman of Rolls-Royce and the appointment of Sir Frank McFadzean in his place. The Secretary of State referred to these matters in his statement to the House on 21 November. He said:
"The House will wish to know that, following the recent announcement that Sir Kenneth Keith wishes to retire from the chairmanship of Rolls-Royce after seven years' service, Sir Frank McFadzean has indicated his willingness to accept appointment as chairman."—[Official Report, 21 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 389.]
All that sounds innocuous, but the constitutional position relating to the appointment of the chairman of Rolls-Royce was
318
stated to me by the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall), in a parliamentary answer on 10 December as follows:
"The board of Rolls-Royce Ltd. elects its own chairman. Under its memorandum of understanding with the National Enterprise Board the company undertook to consult the Board before appointing a new chairman. The National Enterprise Board undertook to consult the Secretary of State for Industry. After enactment of the Industry Bill Rolls-Royce Ltd. will consult the Secretary of State."
That is spelt out more fully in the memorandum of understanding as follows:
"Recommendations for changes in the corn-position of the Board of RR71 and for changes in remuneration will be put forward by the RR71 Board for approval by the NEB. It is accepted that, as sole shareholder, the NEB has ultimate responsibility for determining the composition of the Board of RR71, and approving its remuneration, subject to such arrangements for consultation with the Government as the NEB and the Government may agree from time to time."—[Official Report, 10 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 455–6.]
So that we may be in no doubt that that was, and remains, the position, I quote what the Secretary of State said in answer to a question in the House on 21 November:
"The NEB will have the same statutory responsibilities for Rolls-Royce as it has now unless and until the Industry Bill allows the Government to transfer the shares from Rolls-Royce to the Secretary of State."—[Official Report, 21 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 389.]
It is clear that the only role that the Secretary of State has in the appointment or resignation of the chairman of Rolls-Royce is the right to be consulted by the National Enterprise Board. Yet it emerges quite clearly from the Secretary of State's own statements and the answers that he has been forced to give to questions put by me that the Secretary of State, quite unconstitutionally, both accepted the resignation as chairman of Sir Kenneth Keith and appointed Sir Frank McFadzean as his successor.
The first indications that the Secretary of State had been involved improperly in the resignation of Sir Kenneth Keith came in a statement that the Secretary of State made on 26 November, when he said in the House:
"These were two specific meetings about the proposed resignation of Sir Kenneth Keith. He"—
that is, Sir Leslie Murphy—
"was not invited. I was, perhaps—I am not sure—in breach of the memorandum of understanding. I may have been. But it had

319
nothing to do with the relationship between Rolls-Royce and the NEB; it was about the personal decision of Sir Kenneth Keith."—[Official Report, 26 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 979.]
Of course, the resignation of Sir Kenneth Keith had everything to do with the relationship between Rolls-Royce and the National Enterprise Board, as the NEB is the sole shareholder in Rolls-Royce, with ultimate responsibility for determining the composition of the Rolls-Royce board.
The position was amplified in the Secretary of State's answer to me on 10 December, when he said:
"On 6 November I met Sir Kenneth Keith at the Department to discuss his intention to give up the chairmanship of Rolls-Royce. Later in the day I was also present at a meeting at the House of Commons when Sir Kenneth informed the Prime Minister of his intention to give up the chairmanship…
On 7 November I met Sir Kenneth Keith at the Department again in connection with his departure."—[Official Report, 10 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 459.]
The real giveaway had already come in a statement that the Secretary of State made to Standing Committee E on 27 November, when he said:
"On two of those occasions I met Sir Kenneth Keith in my office, the first being the occasion of his proposed resignation and the second being that of my receipt from him of his resignation letter."
However, the Secretary of State had absolutely no right to be involved in the receipt of Sir Kenneth Keith's resignation letter.
Yesterday, in order to avoid all ambiguity on this subject, I made inquiries about the procedure for the resignation of a chairman of Rolls-Royce. First, I telephoned the company secretary of Rolls-Royce, a Mr. Southam, a person who, I have to say—as he is a public servant, paid out of public funds, in a company that is 100 per cent. owned by the National Enterprise Board—most obstructively refused to give me the most straightforward factual information about the articles of association of Rolls-Royce. He told me, quite inaccurately, that this was a matter for the Department of Industry. If that is the view prevalent in Rolls-Royce, it is easy to understand how the Secretary of State's improper actions were not questioned there.
However, I then telephoned the National Enterprise Board. I received from it the following statement:
320
"The chairman of Rolls-Royce is appointed by the directors and can resign by giving notice in writing to the company."
That is the statement of the position by the National Enterprise Board, which, it should be remembered, is the sole shareholder in Rolls-Royce. If that letter of Sir Kenneth Keith was not handed to the Rolls-Royce company, in line with what I was told by the National Enterprise Board, it should have been handed to the sole shareholder, the NEB. That, again, was authoritatively confirmed to me. Yet when the letter was handed in to the Secretary of State, the NEB did not even know of it. That was confirmed by the Secretary of State himself, when he told Standing Committee E:
"Of course, as soon as I had his resignation letter in my hand I informed Sir Leslie Murphy."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 27 November 1979; c. 165–74.]
The Secretary of State's conduct here was quite extraordinary and disgraceful. He had no locus whatsoever to receive or accept that letter of resignation. But, nothing daunted, the Secretary of State went on to commit an equally great impropriety by himself appointing the new chairman of Rolls-Royce—a matter about which he told the House that he had only the right of ultimate consultation by the NEB. I obtained the idea that that might be the case by reading a reference by the Secretary of State to one potential chairman of Rolls-Royce in one of his statements to Standing Committee E. I put down two questions and I received two startling answers. My first question asked him whether it was to himself—that is, the Secretary of State—that Sir Frank McFadzean first indicated his willingness to accept the chairmanship of Rolls-Royce. The Secretary of State replied "Yes". My second question asked the Secretary of State whether the potential chairman of Rolls-Royce, to whom he referred in that Standing Committee, was Sir Frank McFadzean, a member of the present Rolls-Royce board or someone else. The Secretary of State replied:
"I confirm that my reference in Standing Committee E to a 'potential chairman of Rolls-Royce' was to Sir Frank McFadzean who was the only person I invited to consider the appointment."
The situation is even more disgraceful than that. All these actions, certainly improper and possibly ultra vires, were taken covertly and without the knowledge of the National Enterprise Board. The

321
NEB was the sole shareholder and had, according to the memorandum of understanding, confirmed by the Secretary of State, far greater rights than the Secretary of State. The NEB had the only right to appoint and dismiss not only the chairman but the entire board of Rolls-Royce.
Again the evidence comes from the Secretary of State himself. I asked the Secretary of State on what date he had invited Sir Frank McFadzean to consider appointment as chairman of Rolls-Royce and on what date, or dates, the Secretary of State discussed this invitation with Sir Leslie Murphy or any other member or representative of the National Enterprise Board. I asked on what date Sir Frank McFadzean accepted the appointment. The reply that I received from the Secretary of State was:
"I discussed the chairmanship of Rolls-Royce with Sir Frank McFadzean on 25 and 30 October and he indicated his willingness in principle to consider appointment. On 6 November I told Sir Frank that the Government wished him to be appointed and he confirmed his willingness to serve. I informed Sir Leslie Murphy on the same day and the board of the NEB on the following day."—[Official Report, 17 December 1979; Vol. 976, c. 56.]
Here is a confession by the Secretary of State that certainly for two weeks, if not longer, he conspired behind the back of the National Enterprise Board and Sir Leslie Murphy and, having acted ultra vires, informed the person with the proper vires only when he had completed his coup. Sir Leslie Murphy trusted the Secretary of State, but the Secretary of State subverted the position of the National Enterprise Board and betrayed Sir Leslie Murphy's trust.
For a Minister who is constantly subjecting this House to pious statements about the importance of not interfering in publicly owned concerns, that is really extraordinary. On this issue alone, the House has the right to expect the resignation of the Secretary of State.
There is far worse to come. As gross a misstatement as I have ever heard made to this House concerned the apparent dilemma with which the Secretary of State claimed he was faced. The Secretary of State heart-rendingly told the House:
"Let us consider…the choice with which the Government were faced. On the one hand was the decision of the Rolls-Royce board to resign if it were left under the supervision of the NEB."
322
Let us remember those words.
"On the other hand was the categoric assurance by the NEB that if a decision to separate the two boards were made its members would all resign. I should have been criticised whichever choice I had made."
The Secretary of State had a choice to make. He went on:
"If I, by my decision, had lost the entire board of Rolls-Royce, that would have been one lot of criticism.….I also knew that among that small group of people capable of taking on the chairmanship of Rolls-Royce and qualified to succeed Sir Kenneth there was widespread—I do not say total and universal—reluctance to take the chairmanship if Rolls-Royce were left under the supervision of the NEB."—[Official Report, 26 November 1979: Vol. 974, c. 977–78.]
Here again the Secretary of State, who appears to have a congenital inability to tell the House the precise truth, was misleading the House. His later answer to me made clear that he did not canvass a group of people—those are his words—preparatory to making his unconstitutional appointment of the chairman of Rolls-Royce. As he told me in the answer that I have already quoted, he sounded out not a group but only Sir Frank McFadzean.
Be that as it may, the Secretary of State convinced the House, and won the subsequent Division, partly on the basis of having put before the House what he claimed to be his intolerable dilemma. That was either to remove Rolls-Royce from the National Enterprise Board and face the resignation of the whole of the National Enterprise Board or not to remove Rolls-Royce from the National Enterprise Board and face the resignation of the board of Rolls-Royce.
The Secretary of State was not telling the House the truth. He faced no such dilemma. Within 15 hours of making that statement in this Chamber, he made a very different statement to Standing Committee E. He told that Standing Committee:
"I was asked whether I stood by my assertion that I was faced with a choice between the resignation of the National Enterprise Board on the one hand and the resignation of the Rolls-Royce board on the other. It is true that there is a distinction between these two possibilities. On the one hand, I had been categorically told by Sir Leslie Murphy and his colleagues that if the Government carried out their proposed intentions, they would all resign; there was no doubt about that. On the other hand, I have had no such explicit assurance from all the members of the Rolls-Royce board."

323
We should remember that the Secretary of State had earlier told us about a decision. The Secretary of State went on to say:
"I have had a letter. The right hon. Gentleman is on to a good point here. There was a distinction between a categorical assurance to my face and a warning in a letter that the Rolls-Royce board desired to be out of the NEB. I also had the assurance of one potential chairman of Rolls-Royce that he would not take the office of chairman if Rolls-Royce stayed in the NEB. My conclusion from that evidence was that I faced the choice as I have described it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 27 November 1979; c. 167–68.]
So the Secretary of State had changed his story. Instead of a straight choice of the resignation of one board or another, he now claimed that he faced an implicit threat consisting of a letter from the board of Rolls-Royce together with an assurance from one potential chairman that he would not take the job if Rolls-Royce stayed in the National Enterprise Board. However, the letter that the Secretary of State received contained no such threat. It was written to the Secretary of State by Sir Kenneth Keith on 4 October. I quote it in its entirety:
"Dear Keith,
I am writing to confirm what I believe you already know—that is that my Board are unanimously of the opinion that it is in everybody's best interests that the shares in Rolls-Royce should, in the forthcoming bill, be transferred back to your Department.
It would be much better for us, for reasons of which you are already aware, to be responsible to you direct and to deal with your officials than to remain under the NEB.
My Board feel that I should write formally to express this view, notwithstanding the fact that I have just had an excellent talk with Adam Butler."
That was the letter. I am sure that the House will agree that that letter does not contain the tiniest scintilla of a threat of resignation by the Rolls-Royce board. As for the one potential chairman to whom the Secretary of State mysteriously referred on 27 November, he was simply the ubiquitous Sir Frank McFadzean.
It will be clear to the House that all that appears to remain of the agonising dilemma that faced the Secretary of State—the loss of the present members of the National Enterprise Board versus the loss of the board of Rolls-Royce—is the assurance of a potential chairman, Sir Frank McFadzean, that he would not take the
324
office of the chairman of Rolls-Royce if it stayed under the supervision of the National Enterprise Board. There is not much of a dilemma there, but at least there is a straw at which to clutch.
It now turns out that even that straw did not exist, because yesterday I received yet another answer from the Secretary of State. I asked him, specifically, when he had invited Sir Frank McFadzean to consider appointment as chairman of Rolls-Royce and whether Sir Frank had made it a condition of acceptance of the chairmanship that Rolls-Royce should be removed from the National Enterprise Board. The Secretary of State replied:
"My first discussion about the chairmanship of Rolls-Royce with Sir Frank McFadzean was in a general context, and this was one of the aspects raised."—[Official Report, 17 December 1979; Vol 976, c. 56.]
That reply was in answer to the question that I had put to the Secretary of State about whether Sir Frank had made it a condition of acceptance. That was the shifty reply that I received from the Secretary of State.
In place of the Secretary of State's claim that Sir Frank would not take the post if Rolls-Royce remained in the National Enterprise Board, we have an admission that this allegedly crucial ultimatum was nothing of the kind but simply one of the aspects in the general concept. Far from facing the choice between the loss of two boards, the Secretary of State faced no choice whatever. In claiming that he faced that non-existent choice, the Secretary of State misled the House in a serious and culpable manner.
The Secretary of State has shown a reckless disregard for propriety in his dealings with the NEB and Rolls-Royce, and an even more serious contempt for the House in failing to deal with it frankly and truthfully. He now has a chance to explain. He should explain and convince, or resign.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): This is a wide debate, but hon. Members should confine their remarks to why we should not adjourn for the Christmas Recess.
5.11 pm
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: We should not adjourn for Christmas until difficult questions have been answered about the statement in the

325
House yesterday on airports policy. That statement dealt with one of the biggest planning decisions that a British Government have ever been called upon to make. My constituents have had delivered to them a large Christmas present about which not all are enthusiastic. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, in the guise of Santa Claus, has only few friends among my constituents.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) talks about Christmas presents and their importance. His constituents are faced only with the threat of a degree of nuisance. Is it not more grave that the Government's Christmas present to the steel areas involves the taking away of jobs?
Mr. Haselhurst: That intervention is irrelevant to my argument. It may be relevant to the views held by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), which he may be able to express to the House later. We are discussing unconnected matters which hon. Members believe to be of real interest and to be reasons for the House not to adjourn at this time.
Yesterday's announcement begs many questions. Unless answers are given urgently, many people in my constituency and neighbouring areas will be anxious for a considerable time. I welcome the fact that there is to be an early debate in the House, but several weeks must pass with anxious moments for those who believed that a decision had already been made on the location of the third London airport. Those people have a strong sense of equity. The question whether Stansted should be involved in the arrangements for future airports capacity was decided at two public inquiries, both of which decided that Stansted should not be the basis of the third London airport.
There is a feeling of spontaneous anger among many of my constituents because the Government appear unilaterally to have changed that decision. My constituents now raise questions about the system of democratic government. They have been through what they believe to be the proper processes for the determination of this matter, only to find that the decision is thrust aside without further discussion. It would help the ultimate resolution of the problem if such ques-
326
tions could be determined quickly. There must be a speedy end to the uncertainty. My right hon. Friend's statement yesterday must be welcomed in one sense, but although a speedy decision was requested no one expected it to be that speedy.
Two inquiries have reported on the suitability of sites for the third London airport. It was understood that the reports would be published and that there would then be a time—perhaps only a short time—for reflection and submissions before the Government made their decision. However, the announcement of a preliminary decision by the Government, coincidental with the publication of the reports, has taken away the opportunity for various bodies, including Essex county council and the district councils, to make submissions on the reports and to have them taken into account before a decision is reached.
Some people now wonder whether the whole matter was judged before the reports were published. At the end of August, a story appeared in the Daily Mail suggesting that a Government decision on a third London airport site had already been reached. At the request of many anxious constituents I wrote to the Secretary of State for Trade. I received a categorical assurance that no decision had been made and that the reports were awaited.
Suspicion is fanned when a Government decision is announced at the same time as the reports are published and before there is an opportunity for the various interested parties to make their submissions on them. One wonders about the relevance of such reports. They dealt with a two-runway airport, supposedly capable of handling 50 million passengers a year. The Government do not appear to have taken the burden of the advice contained in those reports. They have acted independently. That also gives rise to the fear that the matter has been prejudged.
What are the status and worth of those reports? There are fears that during the compilation of those reports events occur-read which are not wholly satisfactory. I have heard how the report of the Study Group on South-East Airports was finalised. The group met for the last time in October, and at that time the report had not been finalised. A series of amendments was made, but the group

327
did not meet to finalise the published report. I have heard also that the report was put together with various components but without many of its propositions being tested or subjected to cross-examination. That makes one wonder about the status of that report.
The Ministry of Defence gave evidence about how long it would take to remove the gunnery range from Shoeburyness. There was no opportunity, even for those who disagreed with the figures, to contest them. That is worrying. One must take the view either that the reports are not so good, because of that, or that what happened during the compilation of the reports was irrelevant to the decision to be made by the Government. Either of those conclusions is disturbing. The feelings of those who have been anxious about the handling of this important decision are inflamed. They are not helped to take a rational, balanced and objective view of the decision that has been made and which is the subject of inquiry.
In his statement yesterday, my right hon. Friend made great play of the fact that the Government were to some extent to seek a regional answer. I welcome that aspect of his statement. However, I was surprised that my right hon. Friend did not attempt to quantify how many passengers could be handled at the regional airports.
The report of the advisory committee pours cold water on the possibility of there being much diversion of throughput to the regional airports. It would help hon. Members to understand what the Government have in mind if an early statement could be made on how much demand could be satisfied by the regional airports. It would also help if we could be given some assurance of how the data are collected which determine the proposition that 75 to 80 per cent. of the people who use the South-East airports actually begin and end their journeys in the South-East.
I have grave suspicions about how that information is collected. I am not entirely satisfied that it is not done on the basis of the address of the passenger on the night before or after a journey. That would obviously tend to give a bias to an answer in favour of the South-East, because many people could travel from
328
different parts of the country to spend a night in the South-East before commencing their journey from a South-East airport. There should be a more open inquiry into whether it is right that those who use the South-East airports are domiciled in the South-East area.
If those matters could be determined more clearly, those who are anxious about the possible unlimited development of Stansted would be given some assurance. If they knew that there was a real prospect of large numbers of passengers being accommodated at the regional airports, they would know that there was a possibility of a ceiling on the development of Stansted. That would help them to view the Government's proposals with slightly less horror than they do now.
There is another urgent matter that needs to be considered in the light of such a devastating statement as that of the Secretary of State. If 4,000 acres of extra land are to be required, where will those 4,000 acres be located? A diagram in The Times today shows a shaded area adajacent to the present perimeter of the airport site. I need not describe the consternation that that will cause to the people living in the area. They will spend a very worried Christmas, as well as worried weeks and months until there is further clarification. The Government should make clear from where the extra land adjacent to the present airport is to be taken.
There are various points that need to be clarified urgently with regard to the public inquiry announced by my right hon. Friend. I warmly welcome that aspect of his announcement. A wide-ranging public inquiry, as he described it, is a fair way in which the various conflicting points of view can be heard. When will that public inquiry take place? There is a suggestion in the press that it will not take place until 1981. I do not know whether there is a basis for that suggestion, but 1981 is a long time ahead, and the agony and anxiety will be perpetuated. Happily, the problem is not now spread around other green field sites but is concentrated powerfully in one area—that of my constituency and its surroundings. We must be given urgent notification of when the inquiry will take place.
Also, it would be fair, and it would bring great relief to the anxiety that exists, if we could be told more about the

329
terms of reference of the inquiry. Can other sites be considered or will the inquiry be confined to whether Stansted should or should not be developed to the level of 15 million passengers by 1990, with the possibility of further development beyond?
In the published version of his statement yesterday, the Secretary of State said that
"these proposals will be examined under appropriate planning procedures."
What is meant by "these proposals"? If my right hon. Friend means all the proposals contained in his statement, the presumption is that every matter will be open for consideration by this wide-ranging inquiry.
My right hon. Friend also said:
"Our view on the evidence so far available is that none of the green field sites meets these requirements."
Does he mean, therefore, that the wide-ranging inquiry will be able to hear evidence, which apparently has not yet been made available, that none of the green field sites meets the requirements? It would be helpful to know whether all the options will be open and whether people will be able to deploy the best possible case in defence of their interests.
On a slightly lighter note, will we be able at such an inquiry to test the statements that are easily made about Stansted having good road access? Many hon. Members who travel to the foot of the M11 from central London are mildly sceptical whenever reference is made to good and easy access by road to the southern end of my constituency. One of my hon. Friends told me yesterday that it had taken him one and a half hours. It took me over an hour, and on occasion it has taken over two hours to get from central London to the foot of the M11, from which there is such easy access to Stansted airport.
There was almost hollow laughter in the Chamber when reference was made by my right hon. Friend to the possibility of a rail link between the airport and Liverpool Street station. Those who use Liverpool Street station know that considerable changes will have to be wrought before that station will become the southern base of an effective rail link.
I am seeking to find out on behalf of many anxious people, numbering tens
330
of thousands, whether the proposals of the Government are final or whether it will be possible for those who do not believe that Stansted should become in incremental stages a largeairport to deploy their argument as freely as possible when the inquiry takes place.
Some of my constituents are delighted by the news. Many people were worried about the safety of their jobs in the airport and are naturally delighted to know that it will not be closed down. The champagne corks have been popping. I understand also the anxieties of those who oppose the development of Stansted into a third London airport but who do not automatically think that Stansted should be closed down. However, there is a big difference between limited development at Stansted and the unlimited aspect now opened up by the Secretary of State.
Urgent clarification needs to be given on points that have emerged from my right hon. Friend's statement which leave the issue far less clear than I am sure the Government would wish it to be.
5.29 pm
Mr. Donald Coleman: The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) has every reason to be concerned about the House going away for the Christmas Recess before the anxieties of his constituents have been considered. We have been over this course once before. Almost 15 years ago I went to Saffron Walden at the time of a by-election and heard the things that are now being said by his constituents. The constituents of Saffron Walden deserve better, since they return a Conservative Member to the House time after time. But each time that they get a Conservative Government with a substantial majority in this House they find themselves on the butt end of some difficulty. I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, but—
Mr. Haselhurst: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but if he is trying to make a political point I think that I ought to place on record that the decision of the incoming Labour Government in 1974 to cancel the Maplin project was something that turned the screw for many of my constituents.
Mr. Coleman: The hon. Gentleman will know that it was the Labour Government who cancelled the Stansted decision. However, I shall not pursue that matter any further because my anxiety about the House rising for Christmas relates to something far deeper with regard to my own constituents.
A fortnight ago, along with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Davies), I attended a conference in my constituency, at which there were present representatives of the county council, the district council, the trade unions, the chamber of commerce, and the chambers of trade in West Glamorgan. At that conference we discussed the manner in which the county of West Glamorgan was becoming devastated by decisions that were being taken by the Secretary of State for Industry, as a result of which our area faced economic and industrial destruction.
At that time we were talking of redundancies of about 12,000. Of course, we were not then aware of the proposals of the British Steel Corporation in respect of Port Talbot, Llanwern and other steel-making areas in the country. We were concerned with the fact that our area would suffer badly. We were concerned also that the powers and the machinery to bring about the introduction of new industry into the locality were being swept away because of the right hon. Gentleman's decisions in respect of regional policy. We demanded at that conference, and we shall again demand it when we meet him in the next few days, that West Glamorgan's industrial status be restored so that we are able to have at hand the means whereby we can make a positive and constructive move towards introducing new industry into the area.
We have heard talk about problems in other steel-making areas, but the truth is that West Glamorgan is one of the parts of Wales that will become a modern Rhondda Valley. Those of us who represent South Wales constituencies know very well the degradation that our people suffered in those days. Our demand is that we get from the Secretary of State a categorical assurance that we shall have restored to us the means of introducing
332
new industry, so that the people to whom over the coming week of the festive season we shall be extending greetings will not have handed to them something that is hollow, so that the anxiety of their minds can be eased and so that they can be assured that their future will not be the bleak one that it seems to be at the moment.
It would be quite wrong of the House to rise for the Christmas Recess without any reference being made to what is going on in the South Wales industrial scene and in other steel-making areas. I believe that we are entitled to hear from the Secretary of State for Employment what he intends to do, and what he is doing, to try to avert the threatened strike in the steel industry. Letno hon. Member, or anyone outside this House, be under any misapprehension about the seriousness of the situation if that strike takes place. It could well spell the destruction of British manufacturing industry. If that takes place, perhaps some of the purposes that we suspect are in the minds of people such as the Secretary of State for Industry will come to pass, namely, the deindustrialisation of this country.
I am grateful for the opportunity to enter a plea on behalf of many thousands of anxious people at the present time. I hope that the Government will draw away from the policies that are driving us further and further down the road to industrial destruction.
5.36 pm
Mr. John Stokes: I do not believe that the House should adjourn for the Christmas Recess until we have had a debate on foreign affairs, particularly with regard to the extremely serious situation of the American hostages in Iran.
We have become so used to terrorism and disorder in the second half of this century that sometimes I think that our normal, decent sensibilities have become blunted. There is hardly a parallel in history to the long and continuing outrage of the treatment of the American hostages in Iran. To tolerate that behaviour is to make a complete break with history. Even in primitive times, envoys under a flag of truce were always respected. Behaviour of the kind that we now face from the Iranian authorities was certainly unknown in the Middle

333
Ages and in more recent centuries. For example, can one imagine the Congress of Vienna tolerating such a situation for a moment? In those times, even Napoleon was considered a monster and was banished to St. Helena.
The rise of Islam in recent years and the fanaticism of some of the modern Muslims present a tremendous challenge, not only to the West but to the whole world. We in this island sometimes find it hard to understand foreigners. We think that all people are very much the same as ourselves. For instance, the mad mullahs of Islam are not like clergymen of some obscure, eccentric Protestant sect in this country; they are men of the sort of fanaticism that the Mahdi had in the Sudan in the closing years of the last century.
It is deeply disappointing to all of us in the House, and to our constituents, that the United States has had so little support from the rest of the world in its troubles, because the troubles of the United States are those of the entire civilised world. All nations are threatened by Iran's action.
The United Nations has once more proved to be utterly useless. I hope that members of the United Nations Association feel as ashamed of that society as I do. The EEC has been muted in support, even NATO has not said very much or done anything, and the strident Third world, which is always protesting about this or that, has said nothing at all.
I do not necessarily call for sanctions against Iran, but there are all kinds of diplomatic, financial and trade pressures that could be exerted. I am glad that on the occasion of her recent visit to President Carter my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given him such strong support on the matter. Again, the EEC has been particularly disappointing. It continually fails to live up to the high hopes of its supporters and it seems unable to rise to the level of events. It gets bogged down in unedifying trivia about lamb, and so on.
Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman says that there should be the utmost concern about the hostages in Iran. Of course, there should be, and we want to see them released as quickly as possible. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the manner in which the West and certain British
334
Governments gave friendship and alliance to a regime under the Shah—a regime that carried out many atrocities, as we are now learning—is something that should also be condemned? When the hon. Gentleman attacks the Third world, should he not also attack the Governments of the West who consistently supported the Shah?
Mr. Stokes: Whatever justification there may be for that statement, I believe that nothing justifies the actions of the students of Iran. It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman should try to pretend that they can be justified.
We all agree that France has an immense capacity to make an infernal nuisance of herself, if she wants to. I only wish that she would do so on behalf of the American hostages in Iran. There are obviously internal stresses in Iran. No one can predict the outcome, but there is continuing danger to the world and to this nation. The Ayatollah may not be able to control the students. If that is so, let us devoutly hope that it is the last expression of student power that will ever erupt in the world.
I believe that a confidential approach could be made to Russia by the West. Russia is the last country to want any invasion or takeover of her embassies and legations throughout the world, for reasons best known to herself—and to some of us. Whatever happens, the crisis in Iran cannot be allowed to drag on into the new year. If the United States, the EEC and Russia were to adopt a common policy towards Iran, the Iranian Government could soon bring the students to heel and force them to release the hostages. Seldom have I come across an event in foreign affairs that has worried people more deeply. If it is allowed to continue, no embassy in any capital of the world will be safe from similar appalling and outrageous conduct.
I shall mention briefly one other subject of foreign affairs that is also of concern to our constituents and is another reason why I believe that we should not yet adjourn for the Christmas Recess. I refer to the question of aid to the Third world. I recently returned from a visit to a Third world country that has suffered a serious physical catastrophe. I shall not mention the name of the country, because I do not wish to hurt anyone's

335
feelings. I have seen a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), on the subject.
Britain has sent enormous physical aid to the country in question, as, indeed, have many other countries. We have sent enormous quantities of food, medical supplies, building supplies, and so on. To my horror, I saw such supplies piled up at the docks—mostly unopened. The roofs that were blown off the houses in that country are still off, the window panes are still out, the roads are still unrepaired, and the water supplies and telephones are not functioning. However, I came across a unit of Royal Engineers who were not only doing a magnificent job in restoring a small dam but were successful in recruiting some of the local people in that work in order to get them to help themselves. All the people are receiving three square meals a day. There is plenty of food. Unfortunately, the people are not assisting in the reconstruction and recovery.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: A number of hon. Members are listening with deep concern to my hon. Friend's words. It would be most helpful if he told us to which country he is referring.
Mr. Stokes: I shall be most happy to tell individuals privately. I do not wish to name the country publicly, in order to avoid hurting people's feelings. I have just been to the country. I want to help its people. Sometimes it is necessary to be critical in order to help people. Therefore, I have asked the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to stop, for the time being, any more physical aid, but, as far as possible, to send out a small number of people. For example, in the hospital there is a need for an administrator, two RAMC doctors and one or two nurses and orderlies. They would be able to get the hospital going by starting operations, sweeping floors and cleaning wards. The surgeons there told me that no operations can take place because the hospital is filthy. Similarly, we could send more of our troops, who not only get services going but have a wonderful way of getting local people to work happily with them. All that would cost very little, but it would give our troops and young specialists tremendously useful experience
336
and would be much more effective than piling up aid.
Finally, I should like to offer a word of advice to some of our clergy. Week after week they beg and pray for us to send more and more aid to the developing world. Their sentiments are admirable, but that is not the way to do it. What we want is for young people, either on secondment or for a longer period, to work with the local people to supply the middle management and give the leadership that countries such as the one to which I have referred sorely need.
5.47 pm
Mr. J. Grimond: I have much sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) about Iran. I hope that his words will be noted. However, the two matters to which I wish to address myself before the House rises are of a different nature. I hope that the first will interest the Leader of the House because, to some extent, it is part of his responsibility. It is the question of devolution.
The Government's policy on devolution is that they are having conversations with the parties. My first point is that I believe that the Government should cast their net rather wider and have conversations with other bodies besides the political parties in Scotland. Indeed, conversations should be held in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Secondly, I believe that it is time for a full statement to the House or a debate on the matter. I believe that that need is becoming more urgent, because certain questions need to be decided reasonably soon about the future of government in Scotland.
In the abortive Scotland Act, which was to have given self-government to Scotland, my constituency was promised a commission. I am not clear how that matter now stands. I understand that the Government have asked the local councils to put forward their submissions. However, I am not certain about the Government's view on the matter. I do not believe that it is good government to try to pretend that the matter is dead or that it can be left to drag on indefinitely. I do not criticise the Government's policy to have the conversations, but I ask the Leader of the House, because it

337
is a matter within his competence, to confer with his colleagues in the Scottish Office and arrange for a debate or, at least, for a full statement.
Secondly, I want to raise the question of fishing. I would rather have no decision than a bad one, but these meetings with the EEC continue. There is to be a further meeting in January, and we have not had a fishing debate since we returned after the Summer Recess. The industry is in great doubt about the future, and there is anxiety in the fishing communities.
Schemes are being put forward in Shetland and Orkney for regional development of fishing, but we cannot go any further until national decisions are taken. I fully accept that such decisions are not entirely within the competence of the Government as they affect the whole Common Market, but it would be valuable to have an assurance that the House will have an early opportunity to discuss the whole question of fishing.
It would also be useful if the Government would once again affirm their absolute determination to stand resolute on British interests and not bargain them against other matters in the EEC.
These issues should be discussed before we adjourn, because there is to be a further EEC meeting soon after the Christmas Recess. Before that meeting, the fishing community and the British people are entitled to a general assurance from the Government and an assurance that there will be an opportunity to debate this important industry.
5.51 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder: I have two powerful reasons why the House should not adjourn for the Christmas Recess. During the three weeks of the recess, many people may die in Northern Ireland at the hands of the Provisional IRA.
A week ago, on 11 December, the Secretary of State stated in the debate on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order that
"Contrary to what many people genuinely believe to be the case, violence in 1979 has not got a great deal worse than it was in 1978."
He added that
"taking Northern Ireland as a whole, and taking all the indicators of violence together, 1979
338
has seen only a slight upturn in violence since 1978."—[Official Report, 11 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 1093–4.]
I assume that he uttered those words to comfort the hard-pressed people of Ulster and the gallant members of the security forces and to silence people like myself who have had enough of political pussy-footing in regard to the restoration of law and order in the Province and the difficult role of the security forces.
I warned the Secretary of State that his clichés woud upset the people of the Province, who expect more than that from the Government. For 10 years they have withstood bombing and shooting, and murder and mutilation, with great patience and remarkable fortitude. I warned the right hon. Gentleman that he was far too complacent and that the terrorists would laugh in his face.
We have had the answer from the Provisional IRA. With impunity, its members have attacked yet more soldiers in the Province. They have contemptuously rejected the appeals of the Secretary of State for a cessation of violence, as they did the appeal made by the Pope during his visit, when he appealed on bended knees for peace in the Province and stated that murder was murder. Within a few days of the Secretary of State's speech, the Provisional IRA murdered five young soldiers and made nonsense of his words. A civilian who had served in the Ulster Defence Regiment was also shot dead in front of his young son, and another prison officer has been murdered today.
The Government have to be tough with these psychopathic killers. They must act to save lives in Northern Ireland. There is no point in hoping that the Provisional IRA will go away. It has said that it will keep on murdering British citizens in Northern Ireland for one year or 10. The people of Ulster have been patient, but their patience must have a limit. We cannot expect young soldiers to die in the streets and fields of Northern Ireland and the Army still not to be given the power and instructions to enable it to go after these killers and remove them from the soil of Northern Ireland.
These killers are on the backs of people living in what are termed Roman Catholic areas, where there is great deprivation and hardship. The people there want their sons and daughters to be

339
brought up to lead decent lives, and they have no hope of that while the terrorists exist. The terrorists are making fortunes out of the present situation, as well as being satiated with the blood that they spill in such large quantities.
However, quite apart from such action, this Government must also be tough with countries such as the United States. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) has left the Chamber, because he referred to Iran. The United States has not been a friend to this country or to the hard-pressed people of Northern Ireland. Through the news media and political support in the United States, the Provisional IRA collects considerable sums of money to purchase bombs and bullets used for the callous murder of British subjects, either civilians in the Province or soldiers trying to restore law and order. Those people have to face these evil, callous men, who are cowardly but who can laugh when they kill so easily by means of a bomb exploded from a distance by radio control.
I find it extraordinary that our Prime Minister in her visit to the United States pledges full support—I understand that those were her words—to the United States against Iran in all sorts of unspecified measures against the people of that country. Iran is not just the Ayatollah. There are inocent people in Iran, who may suffer as a result of the measures that the United States may be contemplating.
The Prime Minister is prepared to give full support to unspecified measures—a blank cheque—despite the fact that the President of the United States flatly and insultingly snubbed her by refusing her request, made on behalf of this Government and nation, that the United States Government should lift the embargo that they place on a large shipment of arms urgently needed in Northern Ireland. Three thousand automatic pistols and 500 rifles, urgently needed by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, were ordered over a year ago. It is two-faced and hyprocritical for the United States Government to expect the United Kingdom to give full support to strong sanctions against Iran—as far as I know they may even contemplate military measures—and yet refuse to save lives in Northern Ireland.
340
We are sympathetic to the plight of the hostages in Iran and hope that they will be released through diplomatic action, but such measures should be continued without further action at present. The United Kingdom is told that it must support sanctions, and possibly tougher measures, to force Iran to release the hostages.
We should not jeopardise our economy or the lives of British citizens throughout the world, and perhaps create massive unemployment, by throwing our full weight behind the actions of the United States. That may cause some drastic and unacceptable measures to be taken against the ordinary people of Iran. As I said before, there are many people in Iran apart from the Ayatollah and his supporters. If we follow the United States it may set the Middle East alight, which would be disastrous for this country. No action should be taken by this Government on tougher sanctions or any support for military measures until this House has debated the matter and come to a decision.
It is a question not of hostages in Northern Ireland but of life and death. The arms shipment for the Royal Ulster Constabulary was stopped at the request of Irish Republican American Congressmen who would buy votes in the coming American election at the cost of Ulster lives and the lives of young soldiers doing their duty in that part of the United Kingdom.
Before the House meets again, the Northern Ireland constitutional conference will begin, on 7 January. It is truly amazing that at this conference there will be only representatives of those political parties that received support from less than half the electorate. It is not the fault of the present Secretary of State that the Official Unionist Party has decided to boycott that conference. That party gave a number of reasons for its extraordinary decision not to talk. The truth is that the OUP does not want the re-establishment of any Parliament at Stormont.
On the basis of the White Paper, I welcomed the conference, but I am one of four Members in the House excluded from it. It would have been quite simple and easy for the Government to add three more representatives to the list of Members attending that conference, bearing in mind that myself and the hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone

341
(Mr. Maguire) and for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) would be representative of a considerable number of people in the Province.
I asked the Secretary of State to invite us to attend the conference but he said "No". On 28 November 1979 I wrote to the Prime Minister, who said
"I understand the point you make about representation but it does present a very real problem."
She went on:
"The basis on which the conference is to take place has been agreed and made public. To change the terms of the conference while we are in the process of setting it up would lead to uncertainty and I am reluctant to risk this."
All that was said on the basis of what the Secretary of State said when he launched his White Paper. The Secretary of State was emphatic that the terms of the White Paper would in no way be widened. As a result of his firm refusal to extend the terms of the White Paper at the time of its publication, the SDLP refused to take part in the conference and demanded that the discussions be widened to include power-sharing and an all-Ireland republic. The SDLP was so intransigent that its leader, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), resigned the leadership, as he could not persuade his party to attend on the basis of the White Paper.
Now, after a number of private meetings and lengthy discussions, the new leader of the SDLP states that the Secretary of State has agreed to widen the discussion. Indeed, it seems that there will be no limit to what is to be discussed when the three main political parties meet at Stormont. In other words, power sharing and a united Ireland will be included, despite the original declaration of the Secretary of State.
Is this another game of deceit by a Westminster Government, or is it a genuine attempt by the Government to seek agreement on the basis of the White Paper? It is clear that the Ulster Unionist people in Northern Ireland should be represented at the conference not only by the Democratic Unionist Party but by other Unionist parties, such as the United Ulster Unionist Party, and by myself. That is the only way to ensure that the Ulster people have a full say in the discussions at that conference, which is important in view of the fact
342
that the basis of the discussion seems now to have been widened. I trust that we shall have a statement from the Leader of the House this evening that the Government are now ready to invite myself and the other three Ulster Members of Parliament who have so far been excluded from an important conference that may lead to some sort of settlement in Northern Ireland.
Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call anyone else, it will make me feel a lot easier, and make our debates appear more orderly, if hon. Members, in such a wide debate, will occasionally say "and for this reason the House ought not to be adjourned for so long."
6.5 pm
Mr. J. W. Rooker: I apologise to you and the House, Mr. Speaker, for any confusion that I may have caused when you called my name about one and a quarter hours ago and I did not take my place. I did not realise that the motion had been moved. I was momentarily distracted when colleagues said that my name had been called.
I do not think that the House should adjourn for Christmas before we have had an opportunity to debate the standards of conduct in public life. I have raised this matter on several occasions previously, before the present Government came to office. The House has never had an opportunity to discuss the Royal Commission's report on standards of conduct in public life. That Commission sat under the chairmanship of Lord Salmon. The report was published in July 1976, but it has not yet been debated in the House.
I have constantly raised the matter both with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) and with the present Government. The last time I raised this subject was in a written question that I put to the Home Secretary on 15 June this year. At that time I asked him
"what proposals he has in mind to improve the standards of conduct in public life."
The answer that I received was
"To set a good example to others."—[Official Report, 15 June 1979; Vol. 968, c. 343.]

343
That was the considered view of the Home Secretary when answering a serious parliamentary question. It was an answer given, I presume, on behalf of the Government. I assume that all answers that come from individual Ministers can be taken to be on behalf of the Government. Therefore, one supposes that this Government, in the daily activities of their Ministers, are setting a good example to others on how to conduct themselves in public life.
If we are able to have the debate before the House goes into recess for Christmas, there are many issues that I shall raise. I shall not go into all of them tonight, but I should like to raise one issue of which I suspect the Leader of the House is aware. I refer to the recent case that was decided in the House of Lords last week, which is no longer sub judice and which involves Ross Minster and others—there are several respondents. That is one matter that I should have liked to discuss. Within that, there lies the present position of the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees).
Available in the Whips Office and published, I believe, every quarter is a list of ministerial responsibilities. I have the latest one here, which is dated 31 October 1979. It is published by the Civil Service Department and gives the individual responsibilities. I see that in the list for the Treasury it says:
"The Minister of State (Peter Rees, Esquire, QC, MP) deals with case work and policy from Inland Revenue."
So it is clear that the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal—aswe all know, because of the answers that he gives to our parliamentary questions—deals with the case work and policy of the Inland Revenue.
On 9 July, during proceedings on the Finance Bill on the Floor of the House, I raised aspects of tax avoidance and tax evasion, both of which take place on a large scale. If we could have the debate that I seek, I would draw the attention of hon. Members to the points made during the previous debate. In my speech in July I quoted comments that the Minister of State, Treasury had made in a London Weekend programme, in December 1977, on the subject of tax avoidance. Some of his comments were illuminating. He
344
attacked the contents of the film that had been shown to the viewers—a film that included interviews with a number of people who were involved in the Rossminster affair. Mr. Bradman and Mr. Tucker were interviewed, and the Rossminster Bank was mentioned specifically. It was shown that if one circulates the money it goes in taxable and comes out tax-free.
After the film was over, the Minister of State condemned the activities of these people. I quote from a transcript of the programme, in which he said:
"Let me make it clear for a start that no one in public life can responsibly be enthusiastic about quite such stark schemes as you have been outlining."
He was referring to the schemes perpetrated by Rossminster and its associated accountants. Later in the discussion Mr. Godfrey Hodgson said to the hon. and learned Member:
"Presumably you would take the view that the clients of Mr. Bradman and Mr. Tucker were justified in minimising their liability for tax by these avoidance schemes, given the present high rate of tax."
The hon. and learned Member then said:
"I think that's putting it a bit that I'd say they're justified. I think that perhaps in a sense it provides a safety valve…otherwise they might be disposed to go along and sell their talents abroad."
Later he refused to discuss the question in terms of morality because he thought that this was a fine point. He did not wish to be drawn into moral aspects, because everyone could say that he disapproved. Later in the transcript, he said of the programme makers:
"You happened to have isolated some very sophisticated schemes that obviously are only available to those who can pay for advisers."
We are dealing here with tax avoidance—not just small change, but hundreds of millions of pounds. The estimate that has been given to me is that £800 million has been lost in tax revenue. It is not that that money is not taxable—that amount has actually been lost to the Exchequer.
Therefore, the hon. and learned Member rightly condemned the aspects of the schemes. I put these quotes back to him on 9 July. I always said that I would do so if ever he became a Treasury Minister. To my astonishment, at 7.30 am on 13 July—four days after I made my speech—the Inland Revenue raided

345
the homes and offices of various people associated with this little outfit and took away 12 vanloads of paperwork. The seizure of the documents has been the subject of litigation, and last week the House of Lords decided in favour of the Inland Revenue. Clearly the Inland Revenue is now about to embark on what is probably the largest, most detailed investigation of possible tax evasion that has been seen since the Inland Revenue was set up. This massive undertaking is not sub judice—it is not before the courts at present.
This brings me to the reason why I want a debate on standards in public life before the House rises for Christmas. When I took part in that television programme with the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal, and two years later when I raised the matter again in the House, I was not aware that that hon. and learned Member had financial interests, in that he was a professional tax adviser to a set of companies. I was astonished when I discovered this during the Summer Recess, in a small-circulation, fortnightly publication. This fact was not refuted. When The Sunday Times came back, its first issue, on 18 November, carried an in-depth background piece on this matter by journalist Lorana Sullivan, who had been working on the subject for three years. She pointed out facts about the clients of the schemes that had been put together by the Rossminster outfit. Because the schemes were considered borderline, people were very reluctant to take them on or pay the fees necessary to obtain the benefits. She pointed out that clients were never asked to take the schemes from the accountants alone. Each scheme was submitted to one or more members of the taxation Bar for an opinion. If and when leading counsel gave a favourable opinion on the legality of a scheme, this became the major sales tool for the scheme itself.
Later in the article Miss Sullivan pointed out, in talking about one scheme, that
"The major marketing tool for this scheme was leading counsel's opinion provided by Peter Rees, QC. Ironically, Rees is now Minister of State at the Treasury with special responsibility for personal taxation."
It goes much wider than that. The hon. and learned Member is responsible for policy case work of the
346
Inland Revenue, which is now embarking on this major investigation. Some of the documents that were seized on 13 July clearly will be his professional legal opinions about the legality of some of those schemes. In my naivety, I sincerely believe that the position of the Minister of State, as Minister in charge of the Revenue, is untenable. He should be removed from that post forthwith.
When the former Home Secretary, the late Reginald Maudling, was tenuously involved in difficulties with a former business interest, two or three times removed from himself, he removed himself completely from the Government of the day. I am not asking for that in this case; I am simply asking for the Minister of State to be moved to another Ministry. I do not see how the Inland Revenue investigators can do their work properly and impartially if they know that their Minister of State is someone whose papers they will be examining and whom they may wish to interview in pursuance of their inquiries. The fact that the hon. and learned Member did not disclose his financial interests on the television programme and did not, in replying to the debate on 9 July, even add a rider saying that he could not reply to my points because he once had a legal interest is a matter of great importance. I am not accusing him of corruption, but as a barrister he was asked for his opinion of the schemes, and on that basis they went ahead. Also, on that basis the Inland Revenue made its raids.
The Government should have taken action before now. People outside will not have a great deal of confidence in our ability to look after the other half of the Welfare State—the tax end—andpursue vigorously those who abuse the tax system in the same way as the Government claim they are pursuing those who abuse the social security system. How can the public have confidence in Parliament when they read in the press that one of the Ministers in charge of the Inland Revenue was involved in the operation of these schemes?
The Government will have to come clean. If we do not have a debate before the House rises—I do not suppose that we will—the Prime Minister should take the opportunity of our three-week recess to have a reshuffle. She has in her

347
Government a few members of the House of Lords who could be dismissed, and there are some eager Back Benchers who could be promoted. The Government have had a few months now to experience the performance of Ministers, so this change could be made in a normal reshuffle in the Christmas Recess.
This could be done without notice, except for the fact that some of us will be watching for it. It could have been done, I submit, in a much more honourable fashion last Thursday, when the Law Lords made their decision. On those occasions when I have raised the matter, it could be argued that it was held back on the grounds that the Law Lords might come down in favour of the companies and not the Revenue. In the event, the Law Lords came down 4 to 1 in favour of the Revenue.
Midday on Thursday last week would have been a suitable opportunity for the hon. and learned Gentleman to offer his resignation. The Gentleman could not have resigned at 11 am, following the judgment, because with my right hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury he was speaking at a conference on tax avoidance organised by Accountants Weekly. I was sitting at the back listening to what they had to say when the decision by the Law Lords was made.
The position of the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal is untenable. My hon. Friends and I will pursue the matter vigorously until we can show to people outside that this House of Commons is taking seriously the present and continuing decline in standards of conduct of public life, typified by this case.
6.20 pm
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I should not like the House to rise for the Christmas Recess without giving further thought to the English dimension of the problem of the Vietnamese boat people. Time is exceedingly short. I shall not make a speech on the matter, but I should like reassurance from the Government on two important points.
We have done our humane duty as a civilised nation in accepting for settlement 10,000 of these victims of insufferable racial persecution. They have been
348
brought to Britain and given temporary hospitality in a number of resettlement camps, such as Nelson Hall in Staffordshire, where they are being taught English and something of the English way of life, and it is hoped, indeed, expected, that they will be welcomed by local communities for permanent settlement.
I am delighted to say that, in my constituency area, the East Staffordshire district council was among the earliest authorities in the country to offer to house these people. It offered houses to five families who had survived the horrors of the South China Sea and arrived at Hong Kong in the famous "Sibonga". A voluntary support group of active people in Burton on Trent immediately ensured a welcome and a continuing procession of good neighbour, help and friendship activities, which has made sure that the Vietnamese settle happily into the area.
I wish to ask how the resettlement of the 10,000 boat people is progressing. I have heard little of similar activities to those taking place in Burton on Trent, although I have no doubt that they are taking place all over the country. There has not been much publicity. I know that the Ockenden venture, which is doing a superb job at Nelson Hall, has had great difficulty in getting local authorities to offer sufficient housing and some difficulty in getting organised support groups to provide furniture and transport and all the back-up help that is needed to settle these families into local communities.
There must be an inexhaustible fund of charity in the hearts of British citizens, so what is happening? Are all the families spoken for? If not, how many remain to be helped? What is anyone doing about the matter? Which local authorities have accepted numbers of families to be settled? Which have refused? What more can be done to help? We should not simply feel that our consciences are clear because the Government have allowed 10,000 people to settle somewhere in the country. That is not enough. Those local authorities that are able to settle refugees but have refused to do so should be ashamed of themselves. They should be made known.
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend knows of the highly unsatisfactory situation over organised financial aid to the

349
refugees. The Burton on Trent refugees had to sign a promissory note—I have a copy in my hand—to repay 1,000 dollars lent to them by Christian Aid to pay their air fare from Hong Kong to Britain. A repayment of 42 dollars a month is required for 23 months, the first instalment being due on 1 December 1979. Naturally, these refugees, wanting to come to Britain and having being invited to do so, signed the promissory note. Equally naturally, they discovered that they could not repay, certainly in the short term.
These people spent several weeks, or even months, in resettlement camps. Even at Burton, which has been quick off the mark, they have been settled into the town only in the last three or four weeks. They will eventually take up jobs, but obviously sufficient money is not yet available to enable them to begin repaying the instalments. For a time they were extremely frightened that if they could not meet the first repayment on 1 December 1979 they would be sent back.
I raised the matter with Christian Aid. As one would expect of a most worthy and humanitarian organisation, it was greatly embarrassed. It assured me that there was no question of any pressure being put on the refugees to repay by any date and that the promissory note was a necessary formality. The organisation was as unhappy as I was to hear about any distress. It was merely acting as agents for an organisation known as ICEM.
I raised the matter with the standing conference on refugees and I received a letter which said:
"There has been some misunderstanding about this. The Standing Conference first took this up with ICEM in June 1978 and since then with UNHCR"—
which I believe is the United Nations High Commission for Refugees—
"and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Some of the voluntary agencies have since then refused to act as agents for collecting these refunds but Christian Aid has again been asked to do so for the Indo-Chinese refugees. They have now pointed out to the World Council of Churches, their internatinal link, on whose behalf they were asked to act, that they do not wish to continue this under the present procedure.
At a later date when the refugees have settled and may be are earning good money, they may be able to repay some of the fares to ICEM which returns the money
350
to a Revolving Fund, which would be used for travel for other refugees. Some other procedure could certainly be arranged for this. At any rate, I wanted you to know that this matter has been re-opened and I hope the procedure will be discontinued, at any rate in this country."
This is a most unsatisfactory situation, is it not? What is ICEM? By what authority does it make loans to the international indigent? Which international refugee organisation has authorised this procedure? Where does the money for the loans come from? What happens if no repayment is made? Who ends up losing? Why do not the Governments of each of the countries welcoming refugees underwrite transport for them from Hong Kong? These matters require some answer.
I hope that the Government will give an assurance that they intend to take the matter up and follow it to its logical conclusion. I hope that the Minister will make an announcement tonight in the Chamber. I suppose that my argument for detaining the House will not meet with the approval of hon. Members and that we shall adojurn. But perhaps before we adjourn the 10,000 Vietnamese boat people who are in Britain can be given some positive reassurance at this Christmas time that they will be welcomed into the homes of British society and that they will be under no pressure whatever, by any date, to make the repayments on the promissory notes which they have signed.
6.30 pm
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Given the immense scale on which national steel policy is being conducted and given the horrific nature of some of the policy departures, there is a danger that the resultant drama for some steel-making communities will overshadow considerable problems and anxieties in other steel-making communities. I want to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to some of those dangers before the Christmas Recess with the plea that he brings them to the notice of the Secretary of State for Industry.
The dangers that I have in mind relate broadly to steel making in South Yorkshire and Sheffield. They concern, first, the future structure of steel making in that area; secondly, the future investment policy for the Sheffield River Don works; thirdly, the future policy on scrap that will, all too unhappily, arise from

351
the current proposals as they will bring about closures; fourthly, the extent to which steel, especially at the quality end, continues to be embarrassed by the ever-rising level of car imports; and, finally, the embarrassment for steel arising from the unlimited importation of silicon manganese or spring steel.
First, as regards the future structure of steel-making in South Yorkshire and Sheffield, the BSC Sheffield division has emerged unscathed from last week's steel cuts announcements. With world steel depressed, South Yorkshire's top-quality special steel has now become BSC's only money-spinner. Given recent proposals, it seems certain to dominate BSC's production schedules. This extraordinary development is the result not of any massive increase in the steel-making capacity of the Sheffield division but of savage pruning in every other BSC production area.
BSC's Sheffield steel make has been confirmed as 3·5 million tonnes a year in future. That is 10 per cent. up on last year's total output. Only BSC Teesside will eventually rival South Yorkshire, gradually building up to a similar annual tonnage. When the steel produced at Scunthorpe—a further 3 million tonnes a year—is added to the Sheffield total, the new BSC Yorkshire and Humberside division, which will arise from an amalgamation of the two centres next year, will totally dominate production, for the new steel grouping will bring together plants, managements and sales staff in South Yorkshire and Humberside or, more particularly, Scunthorpe. It will replace the current BSC Sheffield division and take from that grouping steel plants at Stocksbridge, Tinsley, Park and Rotherham. The remainder of the Sheffield division—forges, foundries and engineering as well as BSC Stainless—will go into another new corporation offshoot that will be known as BSC Holdings.
These developments, given what is happening to steel elsewhere—notably in Wales—might ordinarily have proved reassuring in South Yorkshire; but, given the outlook and the known philosophy of the Secretary of State for Industry, they have had the contrary effect. They have given rise to fresh anxieties and to speculation.
352
Announcing the reorganisation earlier in the month, Sir Charles Villiers said that the intention was not to create a business to hive off. The House should note that, when announcing the reorganisation, Sir Charles Villiers was quick to add the reassurance that there was no intention to provide a convenient way for hiving off. It was intended merely to provide for more effective ways of making steel. But, if new offers were received for any of the new groupings, Government policy would require Sir Charles Villiers and his colleagues to consider them. That has given rise to anxiety in Sheffield. Bearing in mind its political masters, the BSC will have no alternative but to consider any such offers.
Therefore, I want to bring this matter to the attention of the Leader of the House and, through him, to warn the Government that the widely held view in Sheffield is that there should be no hiving off from BSC and that BSC should remain responsible for its present range of operations. Those operations cover not only steel making but stainless steel production and finishing, razor blade strip manufacture, forging, casting, engineering and a whole range of mainstream operations.
Far from wanting to see steel making split, or any of these operations hived off, BSC Sheffield, to the best of my knowledge and that of my hon. Friends from South Yorkshire, would also be opposed to any wrecking measures. After all, if this is currently the only profitable sector of British Steel, why sell it? People are bound to want to know, or they would not be human. How can anyone contemplate such a step and expect the climate within the industry and the morale of men and management to remain unaffected? Morale is already at rock bottom in the industry, and the Government should be concerned to restore it rather than to undermine it further.
Although BSC has been in existence only since 1967, the present reorganisation is the fourth major administrative reshuffle that South Yorkshire plants have had to face. That in itself is unsettling enough; but if that were now to be followed by a dilution of public ownership, I again warn the Government that that would be regarded in Sheffield as intolerable.

353
I turn now to my second point—future investment policy in BSC's River Don works. It would seem that it has now been granted a breathing space, but that famous steelworks is still being denied the £7 million investment which its heavy forge needs and which could be crucial in its battle to get back to profitability.
Thirdly, what about the steel scrap that will arise from the closed works and what about the policy on that aspect? Clearly, millions of tonnes of prime scrap will gradually become available—not at a cheap price in all cases—and much of it will become available to the BSC.
What about the position of the private sector? The private sector in Sheffield views the position of future scrap supplies with distinct unease, given the expected price rise in the new year and the absence of any restriction on the free flow of scrap overseas.
Fourthly, the public and private sectors of the steel-making industry in Sheffield are concerned about the rising level of car imports, as well as the unlimited importation of silicon manganese or spring steel.
Those are some of the anxieties that curretly affect the steel industry in Sheffield and South Yorkshire. I trust that the Leader of the House will bring them to the attention of the Secretary of State for Industry.
6.41 pm
Mr. John Farr: I feel that the House should not necessarily follow the proposed recess dates. It is easy to suggest that the House should rise later in the year, possibly having a debate on Christmas Eve, but I favour a return a little earlier next year. We could discuss one matter which is not related, as far as I am aware, to the various issues already debated. Many cogent reasons have been advanced why the House should discuss this and that, the conduct of various Ministers, steel, and the Vietnamese refugees, who were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).
I express to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House my concern about the position of the Falkland Islands dependencies, especially the action that the House may take on a matter that I shall reveal shortly. In the recent past the House has from time to time debated
354
the Falkland Islands. Lord Shackleton produced an excellent report which made a number of recommendations—which the Government of the day should have considered—on securing the future of the islands.
The report was published several years ago, but little or no apparent action has been taken on its recommendations. Some of them, it is true, would have been costly to the public exchequer. Others would not have been costly but were considered to be a little daring bearing in mind relationships with the neighbouring Power, the Argentine.
The reason why nothing was done about most of the recommendations was probably that to venture too far along the road of the Shackleton recommendations, and once again to establish, without doubt, in that part of the world that the Falkland Islands are British and intend to remain so, would have caused diplomatic difficulties with the Argentine. Some of the explorations put in hand by Lord Shackleton have proved that there are extremely valuable reserves of raw materials, minerals and oil in the waters surrounding the Falkland Islands dependencies.
I should be glad to return a day or two early. By then there would be an opportunity for my right hon. Friend to send a copy of today's Hansard to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, giving him the gist of the remarks made about the islands. If we returned a day or two early, my right hon. and noble Friend would, by then, have formed some conclusion on any action that might be taken.
Successive Governments have been contemplating the Shackleton report in a passive and inactive way for five or six years. In view of the wonderful achievements of my right hon. and noble Friend in Zimbabwe, it is possible that he would show similar initiative over the Falkland Islands dependencies.
We have had previous opportunities of putting questions to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on the Falkland Islands. I have tabled a number of questions during the past few weeks, following the visit of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to South America, especially the

355
Argentine, in November. He had discussions with the Argentine Government. Questions were put to him in the House about how the discussions touched on the future of the Falkland Islands, especially on how they related to the position in the South Thule dependency where there has been a Falkland occupation depot and camp for two or three years. In his reply, my hon. Friend did not indicate that the matter had been discussed. In a subsequent reply, he said that the Argentine Government had been left in no doubt about the views of Her Majesty's Government.
If we were to return a day or two early in 1980, I should raise this issue, because I am not clear about the Government's views. The previous Government made quite clear their displeasure about the position and indicated that it should not continue. However, the new Government—of whom I am happy to be a supporting member—have made no such forthright statement. I hope that if we return early we shall have a substantive debate. By then, we would have received the benefit of the Lord Privy Seal seeking advice from his office. Do the Government intend to deal with the matter directly and end the illegal occupation of South Thule in the Falkland Islands, by raising the matter either at the International Court at The Hague or at the United Nations? That is why I wish the House to return a day or two early.
6.48 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: I submit that before it adjourns the House should debate the disturbing issue raised by the mounting evidence of death and serious violence sustained by persons in police custody, the need for an independent inquiry into its possible causes and remedies, and the extreme difficulty—not to say the virtual impossibility—of carrying through to a successful conclusion complaints against the police, however overwhelming the evidence.
An enormous amount of documentary evidence, including the statements of several witnesses, has accumulated in the case of Jimmy Kelly, who met his death in Liverpool six months ago, almost to the day, and also in other cases, notably those of Liddle Towers in Northumbria and James McYearn in Glasgow. It is acutely worrying.
356
Kelly, according to witnesses, was severely beaten and kicked as he was arrested by Huyton police. He died within one hour. An independent post mortem found that he had received multiple injuries, that his jaw was fractured in two places by an impact on the chin, which tore the jaw away in one direction while fracturing the other side as the jaw bone twisted, and that he had a crushed vertebra and no fewer than 32 bruises on his body. Six months have passed, yet no prosecutions have been initiated.
It is disturbing that that case and the others that I have quoted are in no sense isolated. Figures given to me by the Home Office show that since 1970 no fewer than 143 persons have died from unnatural causes while in police custody, and that excludes suicide. That is an average of over 15 persons a year. Moreover, the number per year has been steadily increasing. In 1970 it was three persons, and in 1978—the last full year—it was 30 persons. Apart from the rapidly escalating number, there are several other worrying aspects.
First, I am concerned that the Home Office does not keep the figures centrally and does not receive routine reports from chief constables. In the light of the worrying figures that have been collected, I hope that the material will now be routinely collected and monitored centrally. I should like an assurance that that will be done.
Secondly, contrary to what is often asserted in defence of the present system, there is not always an inquest. In 23 of the 245 deaths in police custody since 1970—that is, nearly 10 per cent. of all cases—there was, for some reason, no inquest. However, even when there is an inquest it is still scarcely satisfactory procedurally, because there is no opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. That which happened at the Jimmy Kelly inquest tends to bring inquests into disrepute.
I quote one of the statements made by the Jimmy Kelly action committee:
"On Friday 22nd June at 10.45 a.m. the coroner's officer, sergeant Harvey, opened and adjourned an inquest on the late James Kelly. At that opening a member of the family asked a number of questions, one being what James had died of. The sergeant said he had an idea, but refused to say what his idea was. He was asked if James had any bruises on his body other than what was visual, and

357
said only one mark at the back of his neck and one mark on his leg. He was also asked if there were any internal injuries, and he said no.
The family was not satisfied with these answers and decided to get an independent pathologist. The findings of the independent pathologist were that James Kelly suffered multiple injuries, his jaw was fractured in two places, he had a damaged vertebra,32 bruises on his body, both wrists were heavily marked by handcuffs and he had a lacerated toe. Also it came to light that the first pathologist, Dr. John Benstead, had taken the heart out, left it out and did not inform the family about this."
That shows clearly that the inquest procedure needs to be greatly tightened.
The third factor that worries me about the figures supplied by the Home Office—after seven weeks of waiting I am grateful to have them—is the question of what constitutes a non-natural cause of death. That item includes misadventure in 62 cases, accidental death in 39 cases and an open verdict in 15 cases, as well as two cases of manslaughter and two cases where no verdict was given.
There can be no doubt that the categories are pretty broad and, I think, rather deceptive, although I am sure that they are not intended to be. They are deceptive in the form in which they are given. A great deal more needs to be known about the precise circumstances leading to death in each case before public disquiet at these alarmingly high figures is likely to be assuaged.
Another cause of concern is the dividing line between what constitutes a natural cause of death and what constitutes a non-natural cause. For example, if a man chokes on his vomit, presumably that is entered as a natural cause of death. But what if that followed that man being severely roughed up in his cell? If he died from a heart attack, presumably that would be a natural cause. But what if that followed some severe violence having been meted out to him?
The initial police reaction causes me a good deal of concern. The initial reaction in explaining the death of Jimmy Kelly was to say that he died of a heart attack. Over the past decade the number of deaths while in police custody—no fewer than 66 from natural causes and 36 from suicide—are high enough to warrant further investigation.
My last concern—I believe it to be a matter of public concern—lies in the
358
regional breakdown. For example, why did the Metropolitan area, with one-fifth of the population, have double that proportion of the total number of deaths while in police custody—slightly over 100 of the 245? Certain other areas seem to have an unduly high number of deaths. There were 14 on Merseyside, 11 in Greater Manchester, 14 in West Yorkshire, 11 in the West Midlands and 11 in South Wales. The numbers in those areas were far higher than in other parts of the kingdom. It is important to know whether there are special causes.
Those are the reasons why I ask the Home Secretary to set up an inquiry, before the House adjourns, to establish the full facts surrounding the issue. I have given the figures only for England and Wales. I have recently been informed by the Lord Advocate's Department that over the past four years in Scotland a further 24 persons died from non-natural causes while in police custody. If we take England, Wales and Scotland as a whole, no fewer than 21 persons, on average, have died in each of the past 10 years from non-natural causes while in police custody. I submit that that is a horrifyingly high figure.
We are not talking about South Africa. Our police have a reputation to be preserved. It is not compatible with the figures. For the sake of the police themselves rather than for anyone else, the full facts need to be investigated. Until that happens, I do not believe that public confidence will be fully restored. That view is shared by 110 other hon. Members, who signed early-day motion 255 calling for an inquiry to examine the possible causes of this pattern of violence and to consider what changes in procedure or practice need to be made to reduce it and ultimately to eliminate the trend. I hope that the Home Secretary will heed the demand of so many hon. Members.
I am aware that the Police Federation is opposed to the setting up of an inquiry. That is only to be expected. Mr. Jim Jardine has said that compared with the total number of arrests each year the number of persons who died in custody was "a decimal point". I submit that the families and relatives of the 21 persons each year who have died from non-natural causes while in police custody would

359
not write them off as a decimal point—nor would the great mass of British people. Therefore, I hope that the Home Secretary will set up an inquiry.
I hope, too, that the inquiry will examine three further related matters. One such matter is my proposal to deter violence. The Home Secretary should set up on an experimental basis—for example, in half a dozen areas initially—a panel of visitors with the right of access to police station cells for unannounced visits, or visits with the minimum practicable notice, to take statements from prisoners who allege police violence against them. The panel should seek to validate the truth or otherwise of such statements. I realise that in many cases they may be malicious. The panel should make regular reports to the Home Office on the police authority in the areas in which it is operating. There are many historical precedents for inspections of such a sort to deter maltreatment of persons under guard.
Secondly, the inquiry should be asked to review the present powers of police committees and to consider whether they should be extended to secure proper public accountability of the chief constables, who are the chief executive officers responsible to the committee and the makers of policy.
Thirdly, the inquiry should examine the sheer futility of the present police complaints procedure. Last year 27,000 complaints were made against the police. Half of those complaints were not pursued. Of the 13,000 that were pursued, 4,000 were referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Half of that number involved serious charges of police assault. Virtually none of them was referred for prosecution. Of the 13,000 complaints investigated by the Police Complaints Board, precisely 15 led to disciplinary proceedings being taken. Almost all of these concerned mere technical irregularities in procedure. Only one serious charge led to disciplinary action, and that concerned corruption and not assault.
Of the 2,500 complaints made to the board concerning alleged police violence, not one led to action being taken against the police. In view of that and in view of the now publicly known facts about the death of Jimmy Kelly and several others, it is scarely surprising that the
360
police complaints procedure suffers from a major credibility gap.
For these reasons, I believe that a full inquiry into the issue is now greatly overdue. Before the House adjourns I hope that the Home Secretary, in the face of all the evidence that I have given, will accept that it is his duty to set up such an inquiry.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): I propose to call the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who has been present and trying to catch my eye for most of the debate.
7 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: I have this comfort for the Leader of the House. I agree with his motion that the House should adjourn for the Christmas Recess at the appointed time, because we have been sitting for many weeks and there is a great danger that we can become too claustrophobic. We imagine that all that is important in Britain happens within the square mile around Westminster and Whitehall. Our political life can become incestuous in the sense that we tend to feed on each other's opinions in the Whitehall and Westminster complex, and we are in danger of becoming increasingly unaware of what is happening outside.
The opportunity given by the recess should be used by Cabinet Ministers to go round Britain and see the havoc that their policies are causing. They should get away from discussions, official cars and private secretaries and see the sharp end of the effect of those policies which is to be found particularly in the regions, where it has been felt in a dramatic way.
I was reminded of the analogy of the bunker when I recently watched a television film on the last days of Hitler. There was the bunker, there were the supposedly directing powers, with a propagandist who indicated from time to time to people outside that all was well while those who had caused the chaos were apparently protected inside. I urge the Government to take advantage of the recess and to leave their bunker and go out in to the wider world to examine what is happening.
In particular, I invite Ministers to go to the steel regions of Britain and to witness

361
the anxiety that they have caused by the policies announced last week. For example, in South Wales there is a jobcrisis and a degree of apprehension and foreboding that takes most of our people back to the 1930s—the decade which demoralised my father's generation and led to many of our best people leaving South Wales and going to various parts of the country. That same feeling currently exists in South Wales as a result of the policies pursued by the Government.
Not only is there the immediate threat to 10,000 steel jobs but there is the consequent threat to the number of pits that supply coking coal to the two major steel plants in South Wales. The repercussive effects of that will go down the line, for example, to railway men who transport that coal and to a series of smaller construction industries and manufacturing industries that supply the massive steel plants.
There will be a major depression in South Wales, with unemployment reaching levels of 17 per cent. or more, unless the Government are prepared to visit the area and to see the enormous repercussions of their policies.
The Government must review the wholly unrealistic break-even obligation that they imposed on the British Steel Corporation. The British Steel Corporation put that aspiration forward as a possibility in its report of last year, but it was heavily qualified by the corporation as being dependent on market conditions and on the share of the home market that it was able to hold. Most of those qualifications have not come into effect, and for the Government to insist on the break-even obligation in such a way that they will not fund the operating losses of the BSC after next March can only lead to enormous chaos throughout the steel industry, throughout the steel areas and throughout British manufacturing industry as a whole.
There is no panic other than that imposed by the Government as a result of their policies. There have been substantial and mounting losses by the BSC throughout the years. These losses have been marginally brought down during the past financial year, but they cannot be brought down to break-even point by next March without severe dislocation occurring throughout Britain.
362
I therefore urge the Government to rethink their policy that no cash aid is available to the BSC. That is of relevance to the strike because that strike is developing largely as a result of the Government's policy. It has been called by a union that is known for its moderation and that has taken many body blows over the years but has not fought back. That union has come to the end of its tether and it is responding to those pressures. The Government should be aware of those pressures in steel areas.
Apart from rethinking the time scale of that break-even obligation, the Government should also rethink their regional policy. They are descheduling a number of areas that are about to feel the full effect of their steel policy. They are therefore reducing the possibility for those areas to attract new industry at the same time as they are destroying the regional economies of those areas. What can the Government do? They can reschedule those areas, as they have done in Corby and Shotton, and make them special development areas. However, if every area is a special development area, what does the regional policy mean?
If the Government's policy goes ahead, it will impose a black cloud over the whole of South Wales. That cloud will hang not just over Ebbw Vale, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) knows so well and has fought for over the years, but over the whole of Gwent and West Glamorgan. It is not just the steel industry that feels the draught. Hardly a day passes without a local industry announcing that it is shedding labour.
If the Government persist with those monetarist policies that have led to the imposition of that break-even target, the only fall-back possible would be to make the whole of South Wales a special development area such as Shotton and Corby. What help will that be to the South Wales economy? Where are the Government jobs that could come to South Wales as a result of cutbacks in investment? Where are the private jobs that will come to South Wales as a result of some of the Government's other policies—as a result of the minimum lending rate or the crippling interest rates that have been imposed on major and small industries? Where is the foot-loose industry that is likely to find its way westwards to

363
South Wales as a result of Government policy?
The Government should visit these areas where they have caused chaos and see the deserts that they threaten to create. They should see for themselves whether they can honestly still pursue those same policies. I invite the Cabinet to spend Christmas in West Glamorgan. It will be a bleak Christmas for many of those who are suffering from the effects of the Government's policies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer hails from that county, but there will be no welcome for him in his home county, should he choose to spend his Christmas there rather than in the more prosperous suburbs of London. I hope that other Ministers, too, will go to the same area.
If Ministers go there, they will see in West Glamorgan two nations. The same is true in other regions. The geographical split was seen in the voting patterns at the last election. There was the great blue tide to be seen in the prosperous areas of the South-East, but the more depressed areas, the areas which depended to a large extent on public expenditure and knew that they were menaced—the North-East, Wales and Scotland—by and large remained faithful to their Labour heritage.
As a result of their policies—notonly their regional policy but their policies on public investment and interest rates—the Government are widening the gap between the two nations. One sees this in the deterioration in social services, especially services for the elderly, now being brought about by the Government's cuts.
The Secretary of State for Social Services is wont to talk about civilisation. I put to him a definition—that a civilised country is one which accords high value to the services which it provides for the most vulnerable in its society. On that definition, Britain will be a much less civilised Britain. If the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and his hon. Friends care to laugh at that, let them look at the deterioration in social services throughout the country. Directors of social services are now trying to do their sums. They have already had one directive from the Government to cut back on public expenditure, and they know that there will be a further directive within a month or so to cut public
364
expenditure yet further, and this at a time when the demand for services in rising.
Demographic factors are changing the picture of need. For example, the growth in the proportion of elderly people in the population means that we have to spend at least 2 per cent. more on services for the elderly simply to keep pace. The Government do not want even to keep pace. They have already reduced expenditure for these purposes and they will reduce it still further.
That is the measure of deterioration in social services which is making our country less civilised. I am appalled that hon. Members on the Government Benches think it a laughing matter that they and the Government, with their monetary policies, are intent on creating such a state of affairs.
Mr. Stokes: We laughed because there were those wanting the hon. Gentleman to stop speaking.
Mr. Anderson: I shall certainly not be stopped by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. These home truths are, I hope, unpalatable to them, and they stem directly from the macro-economic policies which they support with such docility in the Division Lobbies.
I therefore ask members of the Government to get away from their official cars and official dinners so that they may meet the real people who suffer—those in the front line who suffer at the receiving end of their policies. There is in this Government a smack of fanaticism. Ayatollah-like, they know that they have the right solutions, and they are determined to force them on the country as bitter medicine, whatever the consequences may be.
If Ministers were to leave the gilded circle, if they were to move out from the Whitehall-Westminster complex and go to the regions, their eyes would be opened to the social consequences of the policies which they now pursue. They might then, if they did that during the recess, be prepared to moderate those policies before it is too late.
7.14 pm
Mr. Stuart Holland: I submit that the House should not adjourn until it has considered, among other things, the case of a constituent of mine. I say that he is a constituent, but in

365
truth he is a former constituent inasmuch as he has now been removed from the constituency against his will. I refer to the case of Mr. Peter Daly, with particular reference to prison conditions, Home Office competence and—this is of general interest to the House—the Countryman inquiry into police corruption.
I stress at the outset that I shall not comment on any sub judice aspects of this case. I shall refer to more general matters. Mr. Peter Daly has been in prison, without conviction, for about 16 months. He was held over, though not convicted, in July this year, when the jury failed to reach a verdict. Another charge was then brought against him. He was acquitted at the Old Bailey in November but was still not given bail. He was removed from Brixton to Bristol and then to Winchester, within a fortnight, with no initial explanation given to either his family or his lawyer, or to me as the Member of Parliament concerned when I simply inquired where he had been taken. He has been put into maximum security now. His privileges have been suspended after a year without, in my judgment, any adequate explanation or reason given.
Mr. Daly was charged yet again two weeks ago at Highgate on a further count and was given bail, but this is a pure formality—a mockery of real bail—since he has been denied bail on the other charges, and all that giving bail now does is simply to relieve the police of the inconvenience of having to produce him at Highgate once a week, which, under humane conditions, would be advantageous to him and to his wife and family in maintaining the sort of human contact of which he is otherwise deprived.
In effect, no sooner is this man acquitted on one charge than he is arraigned on another. Why are not other charges taken into account in such a case as this, which did not initially involve the claim that arms were used? I go no further than that in mentioning details. It seems as though one charge is lined up when other charges fail, in a manner which is hardly in accordance with the customary procedures of our courts or, I submit, the practice of British justice as it is allegedly recognised and known.
366
In protest at what he regarded as harassment, Mr. Daly barricaded himself in his cell before the Highgate charge and was taken out, dragged out, naked and handcuffed, put in a police van and brought to London.
There are other specific matters in this case which give me, as the relevant Member of Parliament, great cause for concern. One arises on the question of this man's retrial. In the first case in which he was tried, two others tried with him on the same evidence were acquitted and he was not found guilty. For the retrial this man is prepared to wait, if necessary, until the spring so that he may have his own defence counsel for the retrial. But the Crown is not prepared to wait until the spring, in which case he will be disadvantaged in the trial since the Crown will retain its original counsel. I repeat that I am not commenting on the details of the case itself. I am raising only the substance of the matter which concerns me.
I submit that as this man has been approached by the Countryman inquiry into police corruption, but has not given evidence in that inquiry, there is a prima facie reason for thinking that he is being intimidated. He is being treated in a manner not consonant with what we know as the normal procedures of British justice.
I am concerned also that, for example, when I first approached the Home Secretary, simply to find out where this former constituent was, the Home Office claimed at one stage, after 10 days, that it could not even trace him. Perhaps one need not be surprised at that, in view of the number of prisons into which he has been pushed. It was about five weeks before I received a reply from the Lord Chancellor's office about his retrial and about six weeks before I had a reply from the Home Office on where he was.
I put the matter now in the context of the Countryman inquiry. It has been put to me—the subject has been well raised over the past two weeks by Paul Foot in the Daily Mirror in commenting on Mr. Daly's case—that it is possible that certain police officers who stand to lose in the Countryman inquiry into police corruption may well be seeking to intimidate this man. If that is so, it is a matter of grave public concern. The

367
impression has certainly been given to Mr. Daly—I have this on direct information to me—that if he is acquitted again on an individual charge, yet another charge will be slammed down against him on the basis of changing evidence.
I regard it as a matter of all the more concern when I note, for example, that it was reported last week that certain police officers have commented on the fact that in a robbery involving some £180,000 the police have tried time and again to pick up those involved, but time and again have found that they have been tipped off.
We are in a situation where the Government are increasing expenditure on the police while it is not at all clear that we are getting an effective police force, partly because of the large-scale corruption in certain parts of the country. I readily say that I am not, by these remarks, seeking to impugn the conduct of the police in general, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) quite rightly said when referring to police behaviour, it is surely incumbent upon the Home Office to ensure that there is proper publicity and that matters such as these are investigated, so that justice is not only done but is seen to be done and so that when we try somebody who may be culpable in a particular respect the public can see that the trial and the conditions of the trial are fair.
I therefore submit that the House should not adjourn unless there is an assurance from the Leader of the House, first, that the Lord Chancellor will accept a postponement of this man's further trial on the key issue until March or April, when he can have his own defence counsel, and, secondly, that the Home Secretary will investigate the other matters to which I have referred. If such an assurance is not given, I submit that the House should not adjourn.
7.22 pm
Mr. David Winnick: My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) has raised a matter of great public importance. He was right to raise it, and I am sure that he will pursue it. I have risen to speak because I believe that before we go into recess we should have an opportunity to debate
368
the problems which a considerable number of elderly and poor families will have in keeping warm and paying their fuel bills during the coming winter.
It is known to the House that electricity prices have increased by 18 per cent. during the course of 1979. Instead of extending the scheme which the Labour Government brought in to assist elderly and poor people with their electricity bills, the present Government cancelled the electricity discount scheme and a pittance of a scheme has been brought in which will be of some help only to pensioners who are over the age of 75 who are on supplementary benefit. I should add that many of these pensioners are already receiving the assistance without the scheme.
The only other way in which the scheme will be of some assistance to electricity users will be in paying families on supplementary benefit where there are in the household children under the age of five. It should be recognised that whereas under the electricity discount scheme well over 3 million people were assisted, under the scheme that is now in force only about 345,000 families will gain.
This is an important matter. We live in an advanced industrial society that is richer than many other countries throughout the world, yet what is the situation facing those most in need? What is the position of so many pensioners and poor people when it comes to keeping warm? They find it increasingly difficult.
In modern Britain we have the situation—and this will happen during the recess and during the winter months after we come back—that pensioners turn off the electricity in their houses during the course of the day and wrap themselves in blankets. The reason is obvious. They are frightened of receiving an electricity bill of £100, £150 or more and being disconnected because they cannot pay it. That is a situation which I feel should be of the utmost concern to us. That is why I believe that we should debate this matter before we adjourn for the recess. Many elderly people suffer from hypothermia during the winter months, and I feel that steps should be taken by the Government to assist them.
I know that it is argued by right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench that we are in economic and all

369
kinds of other difficulties, but what is the position? The richest in our community have been well rewarded, and they will certainly have no difficulty in paying their fuel bills. They have been well rewarded as a result of the Budget and have done very well, yet those most at risk, those with limited incomes—pensioners, those on supplementary benefits and those who were at least receiving some assistance as a result of the electricity discount scheme—are receiving hardly any assistance; and many of them—certainly those under 75—will receive no assistance whatsoever.
I say that that is a shameful, deplorable state of affairs, and I believe that it is right and proper that matters of this kind should be raised. The truth is that the Government are acting in a mean, Scrooge-like manner towards so many of the poor and so many of the pensioners. We know that in the Cabinet there are those who say that they are not monetarists, but it seems to me that those Cabinet Ministers who, for one reason or another, remain in senior office are happy to go along with economic policies that are causing the gravest difficulties. They are causing difficulties on the industrial front, through the minimum lending rate and so on, and they are causing unemployment, yet at the same time they are willing to go along with policies which directly hit the weaker sections of our community—pensioners, those on supplementary incomes, poorer families and so on. Perhaps those Cabinet Ministers who are not monetarists will be able to explain to their consciences why they are willing to go along with policies that cause so much difficulty and hardship to millions of ordinary people.
Apart from electricity bills, poor people find difficulty in coping with inflation at 17½ per cent. Many of my constituents, who in the main earn less than the average income, say to me" Hardly a day goes by without the price of some item of food increasing."
These are the difficulties and hardships that are being faced. Undoubtedly, for many people it will be a bleak, cheerless Christmas and a bleak, cheerless 1980. The people to whom I am referring, those who have such a bleak, cheerless prospect ahead of them, are those with the most limited incomes. Before we go away until 14 January we should have an
370
opportunity to debate these matters, but perhaps what is far more important than debating them is a reversal of Government policy.
Now that the Government know the hardship that is involved—they know this because of the surveys that have been carried out—they should be willing to bring back the electricity discount scheme. They should be willing, in effect, to give the kind of assistance for which so many of my hon. Friends and myself have been pressing during the last six or seven months. I agree that there is not much reason for optimism, bearing in mind the kind of Government that we have in office, but I hope, nevertheless, that there will be some slight change of heart and that the Government will recognise the great hardship they are doing to the poorest in our community.
7.30 pm
Mr. John Maxton: There are two issues that I wish to put before the House as reasons why we should not rise for the Christmas recess. The first of these is the plight of our universities in the present situation. It is my belief that we ought to have a debate on the problems facing our universities as a direct result of this Government's policies before we rise for the recess. Universities are under pressure from three directions. First, pressure is being applied because of the strict cash limits being imposed upon them. Secondly, the cutback in the number of students is putting great pressure on them. They have been told that they must cut back by about 6 per cent. the number of students, but they still need the same number of lecturing and back-up staff to keep the universities going, even though there may be fewer students within the organisation. I have already seen that situation myself as a lecturer in a college of education.
The third factor that affects universities is the demand that overseas students should pay the full economic fees to study in them. The new universities—those that have been established over the past 20 or 30 years—are in most difficulty. They do not have the support of endowments from people who left money to them. They have no cushion upon which they may act in the next few years. They rely almost entirely on Government finance.

371
Many of the students and workers at Strathclyde university come from my constituency. It must cut back its staff by possibly as much as 30 per cent. If it does not do so, by this time next year it will be £1 million in the red.
This afternoon I put a question about this matter to the relevant Minister. I gave him an illustration of the facts presented by Strathclyde university. For every three overseas students who do not take up places there because of the high fees they will be charged, one lecturer must be made redundant. For each lecturer made redundant, eight British students will not receive a university education. Those are facts. The Minister answered me by saying that my facts were pure supposition. He refused to answer the question.
I hope that the Leader of the House will relay these facts to the Minister involved. They were given to me by the vice-principal of Strathclyde university, who is in a much better position than the Minister to judge whether they are correct.
Strathclyde university feels threatened by Government policies. It is not alone. Other universities are involved. They do not specialise in social subjects. Within them the departments specialising in social subjects will not be most hard hit by the overseas students' problem. The technologicial departments, which the Government wish to encourage, producing mathematicians, scientists and engineers, are the departments to which the Government send overseas students and to which such students wish to come. They will be cut back as a result of Government policies. Both overseas students and our people will fail to obtain the technological education that society requires to progress and to redevelop our economy.
I wish to put forward a second reason why the House should not rise for the recess. I refer to the conditions of work of Members of Parliament. Perhaps the Leader of the House will be pleased that this one subject is directly related to his area of responsibility—or perhaps not, if my questions are rather awkward for him to answer.
When Boyle reported in the early summer, I understood that the part of the
372
report that dealt with secretarial and research assistance was only interim and that a second report would be forthcoming. The Government promised that there would be a report in the autumn, but it has not yet been published. It should be published and implemented before we rise for the Christmas Recess, so that Members of Parliament may do their job properly. We believe that the Boyle report will recommend the giving of large amounts towards research assistance. I have been in Parliament for only a short time. However, it is my experience that the sheer bulk of work that the Member of Parliament must carry out today in comparison with what he did in the past has increased enormously. I refer to the amount of legislation, including statutory instruments, that comes directly before the House and the enormous increase in papers and instruments from the EEC. They make it impossible for the Member of Parliament to do his job effectively without proper research assistance. The Boyle report should be published, and we should do something about it quickly so that Members of Parliament can start to do their job effectively.
We must also carefully examine the problems of office accommodation within the House. Perhaps some hon. Members who have been here much longer than myself and have moved on to the Front Benches now enjoy good office accommodation. Therefore, they do not feel the same pressure as hon. Members such as myself feel. I operate in a corridor—that is the only word for it—with 12 other Members of Parliament. I sit at a desk with another Member of Parliament sitting no less than one yard from me. I have one filing cabinet. I cannot operate in privacy. I cannot make telephone conversations about the personal matters of my constituents without other Members of Parliament overhearing what I am saying. I cannot do an effective job of properly monitoring the work of the Government, which is the role of a Back-Bench Member of Parliament, with out proper office accommodation.
Of course, I do not necessarily want to see a fancy building put up on the other side of Bridge Street. That may not be the answer. Perhaps that is too expensive. However, if the Government are cutting back drastically on the number

373
of civil servants operating in Whitehall, surely there will be surplus accommodation available in Whitehall, which could be given to Members of Parliament. Perhaps there is no such accommodation available. Perhaps the cutback in the number of civil servants applies only to those who do the work and not those who operate in Whitehall. Surely there is a case that must be met by the Government for providing better working conditions for Members of Parliament in the House.
I again raise a question that the Leader of the House did not answer when I last raised it. I refer to the question of parliamentary recesses. It is nonsense that we should rise at the end of this week and return on 14 January. Why 14 January? I accept that there is a holiday period for the next two weeks, covering Christmas and the new year. However, my 5-year-old son is expected to return to school on 7 January. He is only 5, but he is expected to do a full day's work. I see no reason why we should not come back at the same time, especially when the Government claim that they are under so much pressure.
The Easter Recess will probably be as long, if not longer. There will be a Whit sun Recess. Then there is the Summer Recess. The right hon. Gentleman did not answer this point on the previous occasion. If the Government are under such pressure, it will probably start in the middle of August, or certainly at the end of the first week in August. That seriously disadvantages Scottish Members of Parliament, as Scottish school holidays run from 1 July to the middle of August. I said previously that I saw no reason why the Summer Recess should not be properly organised so that we finished in the middle of July, returned for a three-week period in September, and then went into recess again for the conference period, returning in mid-October. That makes sense. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will answer that point on this occasion.
For those reasons, I feel that the House should not rise at the end of this week.
7.39 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I am grateful for being called. I was sorry to be absent during the earlier part of the debate. However, the Select Committee
374
on statutory instruments does roll on. Statutory instruments must be examined, as hon. Members know.
There should be a debate on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act before the House rises, in particular because of a person's experiences that were brought to my notice. I refer to the son of one of my constituents, Patrick O'Hagan. An exclusion order was served on him saying that the Home Secretary was satisfied that he had been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. The remarkable thing about Mr. O'Hagan was that he was in prison in Belfast. The exclusion order was served while he was on parole.
This suggests, first, either that the Northern Ireland authorities are singularly lacking in judgment or that their prison service is extraordinarily slack. The contrary, however, is said to be the case. It has been argued vehemently from the Dispatch Box by successive Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland that prison conditions in Northern Ireland are superb in the preventive sense.
Mr. O'Hagan was released on parole on Monday 12 November. He came to this country with the approval of the prison governor to visit his parents while he was on parole. That visit was to be the precursor of his release early in December. He was met at Leeds-Bradford airport by armed Special Branch officers. They arrested him and took him to Horsforth police station.
When I inquired, it appeared that neither an inspector nor a sergeant was present at the police station. A constable had to explain to me that it was nothing to do with the police at Horsforth but was a Special Branch matter. I then received a message that the Home Office was dealing with the matter, and so I wrote to the Home Office asking for an explanation.
I have yet to hear from the Home Office why this decision was made. Mr. O'Hagan was held at Horsforth police station and at Armley gaol until Friday. An exclusion order was then served on him and he was taken back to gaol in Northern Ireland. At no time, therefore, was he out of police custody except for less than half a morning when he was taken by his sister direct from prison to Belfast airport.

375
Mr. O'Hagan is supposed to have committed these dreadful crimes in less than half a morning during most of which he was on board an aeroplane. It is an absurdity that this should have been visited upon him. It speaks badly either of the Home Secretary or of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Either way, I want to know who is culpable in this matter.
Following Mr. O'Hagan's arrest, the Special Branch no doubt believed that it should go a little wider. It arrested his brother, who has been living in my constituency for over two years and leading a peaceful and normal life. He, too, was served with an exclusion order and has now been forced back to Northern Ireland. These are quite extraordinary circumstances.
The O'Hagan family settled here in order to keep its distance from the difficulties and the troubles in Northern Ireland. As soon as one of the brothers of this large family came to visit his parents, he was, in my view, unfairly persecuted and forced to go back. He was never given an opportunity to see his parents, and he is now the subject of an exclusion order, as is his brother.
I want an explanation as to whether the prison service in Northern Ireland is ineffective or whether the prison authorities made a fair judgment in releasing Patrick O'Hagan on parole. If a fair judgment was made, why did the Home Office step in and send him back immediately to Northern Ireland after serving him with an exclusion order for acts which he must—by virtue of the date of that order—have committed whilst he was in prison? This is an important issue and I demand an answer.
7.43 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: Some of my hon. Friends have raised questions affecting the rights of individual citizens as did my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) and for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). They each raised important individual cases, and I believe that one of the reasons why the House of Commons decided not to abolish this part of its proceedings was that it enables such matters to be raised at short notice.
376
I hope that the Government will be able to reply, but if the Government cannot reply immediately there will have to be swift investigation of the questions which have been raised. That is a function of this Adjournment discussion, and the procedure should always be available.
Some of my hon. Friends have raised more general questions touching perhaps on individual cases but in a somewhat different sense. First, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), at the beginning of the debate, made some severe strictures on the Secretary of State for Industry.
I do not believe that that speech can be properly answered by the Leader of the House tonight. In saying that, I cast no aspersions on the right hon. Gentleman's capabilities. I am saying that the Government, and in particular the Secretary of State for Industry, should consider what was said by my right hon. Friend and make a statement on the subject to the House tomorrow. I believe that the Secretary of State for Industry, having read what my right hon. Friend said—and I am sorry that he was not here to hear what he said—will wish to come to the House to make his own statement and comments upon the serious accusations that were made by my right hon. Friend I hope that the Leader of the House will try to deal with the question in that way.
Another important issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I am not necessarily suggesting that a statement from the Minister of State, Treasury is the proper way of dealing with the matter, although it might be. I do not believe that that matter can be left to rest. Perhaps the Prime Minister should come and make a statement on that subject when she returns from the United States. If she is replying to questions on Thursday, she could make a statement on the subject then.
I do not believe that people will forget about that matter. Certainly my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr gave notice that he will not forget it. When my hon. Friend says that he intends to pursue a matter to the end, we who knew him in the last Parliament know that he means what he says and that lie carries out what he says.

377
What my hon. Friend said is a matter of the first importance for the Government's consideration and I hope that they will find the best way of responding to what he said. As I say, I suggest that the best way is for the Prime Minister to make a statement on Thursday.
Many of my other hon. Friends have referred to some of the serious industrial problems that face the country. We had a debate on the question a few days ago, but these matters have intensified in seriousness since that debate. The policy of so-called non-intervention which the Government pretend to adopt in industrial affairs is, I suggest, becoming more and more serious in its consequences.
If the Government proceed in this fashion, we shall be in danger of experiencing a first-class industrial smash-up in this country, and we are heading for it swiftly. I know that the Prime Minister in particular prides herself, and the Government pride themselves, on not intervening in industrial issues. She talks as if this policy has brought success.
Mr. Lawrence: It has been successful.
Mr. Foot: The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) says that it has been successful. The Prime Minister thinks it has been successful in the engineering dispute. It was not very successful. It cost this country hundreds of millions of pounds, it cost many firms thousands of pounds, and it cost many people their jobs. It inflicted serious injury upon our engineering industry. If the hon. Gentleman would look up the figures, he would discover that. If action had been taken much earlier, the dispute could have been avoided. The same applies to the industrial dispute—or, as I would call it, the industrial smash-up—which we are now heading for.
Mr. Lawrence: The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) is being less than his usual fair self. Is he not aware that once firms, whether large or small, get into the habit of thinking that the Government will not have recourse to their bottomless purse and bail employers out, the wage settlement levels will be more reasonable and more consistent with controlling inflation?
Mr. Foot: There has been no sign so far of success on the level of wage settlements on that basis. Wage levels have
378
been soaring up, not down. The hon. Member for Burton and the Government seem not to realise that inflation is running at between 17 per cent. and 19 per cent. It is no good the hon. Member for Burton shaking his head. This is a serious matter. The experience of the last six months is not evidence of how wise it is for the Government not to interfere. The Government's policy has cost huge sums of money in the aggravation of disputes, in the settlements reached at the end of the day and in the injury done to industry.
The engineering industry dispute is a classic example. Many days have been lost and huge confusion and great bitterness between industries and firms have been caused. All that could have been avoided if the Government had said from the start "Let us see whether we can use conciliation or arbitration to settle the dispute." There are many examples of how disputes could have been avoided.
When the Labour Government came to office in 1974 we were threatened with serious trouble in the engineering industry, but we solved the problem. We did not experience the aggravation which surrounds the present dispute.
Because of the Government's attitude, a serious dispute is almost certain to begin on 2 January. My hon. Friends the Members for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and for Neath (Mr. Coleman) have referred to this. That dispute will have serious effects on the steel industry, British industry as a whole, the balance of payments and the economy. That dispute is a result of the way in which the British Steel Corporation dealt with the matter and the way in which it made the so-called offer to the union. Any union placed in such a position, particularly one with such long experience, is bound to react in that way. The union was offered something which, in a sense, was no offer at all. There were possibilities of a settlement, but that was concealed in the way in which BSC presented its proposals. Nothing could be more ham-handed than the way in which the BSC dealt with the matter, unless it is the Government's attitude to the issue.
The Government should have seen what was happening from the beginning. They could have sought a settlement. That is what must happen eventually. There must be a settlement if the country is not to

379
be wrecked by the so-called non-intervention policy. Intervention will have to be resorted to at some stage. However, will the intervention take place before 2 January, or will the Government leave it until the first week or the fourth week after Christmas, when we shall have sunk deeper into one industrial crisis after another?
The Government do not seem to have understood that many other industries are involved. The coal industry is deeply involved. The National Union of Mineworkers in South Wales and elsewhere has made its attitude clear. If there is an attempt to close down a large number of pits as a result of the Government's general policy, there will be a direct clash between the Government's policy and the attitude of the miners. The miners of South Wales and elsewhere will not sit by and allow pits to be closed one after the other. If the House believes that they will, it has another think coming.
We are heading for the most serious industrial crisis for several years. The Government are saying that they take no interest in it. They are injecting the morals and imagination of Pontius Pilate into a system of government. That is how we are drifting into 1980. Apparently no member of the Government has shown a semblance of appreciation of the situation.
Mr. Lawrence: What would the right hon. Member do?
Mr. Foot: First, I should try to ensure that we prevent the strike in the steel industry on 2 January. I should say, and the Government should say, to the British Steel Corporation that it should enter into fresh negotiations with the steel union. The Government should initiate talks and conciliation. Perhaps such talks and conciliation are already in progress. If they are not, that is a criminal act on the part of the Government. I give the Government credit by assuming that someone in the Government has enough sense to realise that we are talking about an event which will cause economic disaster.
One of the issues at stake is coking coal. That product is subsidised by most other countries. I do not see why we should not subsidise coking coal for a period of time. The Government should say that they think that it is madness to
380
allow pits to go out of existence, when the world faces an energy crisis and when the price of oil is soaring again, and that they intend to ensure that coking coal is bought from British pits. The Government should say that they are prepared to take the necessary measures to ensure that that happens. That is one intelligent action which the Government should have taken already.
By itself, that would not solve the problem of the steel strike, but it is a remedy. The spokesman for the BSC uttered rather careless and foolish words, but negotiation could take place in the different plants. An offer other than the 2 per cent. offer could be made. That could be done on a national basis rather than on an individual basis.
If that happened and an intelligent, conciliatory mind were applied, we could avoid the catastrophe of a steel strike on 2 January. If that strike occurs, after all the warnings, the responsibility will rest not with the steel workers or the BSC but with the Government, because they have folded their hands and allowed us to drift into that strike.
Before we adjourn for the Christmas Recess, the Government should make a statement to the House and the country about what they intend to do to prevent the national catastrophe of a steel strike. In order to stop that strike, the Government must give to the steel workers and their leaders the means to stop it. That does not mean conceding everything that they demand. It means that there must be intelligent negotiations and discussions. So far as I know, nothing of that sort is happening at present.
Beyond that, even if we succeed in stopping that strike by intelligent means—that is, with no winner but by a means which allows us to escape—we shall still be left with the BSC proposals and the far-reaching consequences that they have for our coal industry. It would be utter madness, at a time of such a worldwide energy crisis, to allow our coal industry to be thrust into decline and for one pit after another to be threatened with closure. That will happen if the Government proceed with their present policy.
The responsibility for the combined effects of the steel and coal crisis, not only in Wales but all over the country—although the extreme severity of the

381
crisis is hitting Wales—will rest with the Government. It will not rest even with the British Steel Corporation, although that organisation has made many mistakes. It will not rest with the trade unions, which have done their best over many years. No one can say that the steel unions have acted in an irresponsible or shameful manner. They have been the most moderate unions in the country. The Government's conciliatory methods have been so skilled that they have aroused the ire and hostility of the most moderate unions in the country. Anyone who examines the facts will realise that.
Mr. Lawrence: The previous Labour Government left the cupboard bare.
Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman says that we left the cupboard bare. I do not know from where he gets those peculiar metaphors. The cupboard of the country in the next decade will be very much barer if in the next six months we take those steps to wreck our coal and steel industries. In a worldwide slump, a Government with any intelligence would take special measures to protect our great industries and would not inflict upon them the further gratuitous injuries which this Government have allowed to be hurled upon them.
I emphasise that Labour Members are warning the Government and the country that we are heading for dangerous times. So far the Government are saying nothing. Perhaps they can say something by Thursday. Perhaps the Prime Minister should comment on these matters, instead of claiming that these great industries can be left to batter themselves to pieces.
I wish to comment on some other aspects of the way in which the Government are leading the country. I remember the debates just before the Summer Recess. I asked about the Government's proposals to reduce the overseas broadcasts of the BBC and about the way in which one of their miserable little economies would prevent the BBC from carrying out its excellent service of broadcasting to many foreign countries. I believe that the countries to which it broadcasts—I know that the broadcasts are not always in English—are the countries in which the English language is our most precious asset. I was amazed that the Government were prepared to contemplate injuring that precious position. That
382
was only one measure. The total amount of cuts that the Government have made in similar fields is appalling.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) spoke about the cutting off of aid for overseas students at British universities. The Government should be ashamed of such action, which will inflict serious injury. It cannot be estimated exactly in pounds, shillings and pence, because it is more valuable even than that, particularly at the rate of inflation inflicted by the Government. The association between our universities and other universities of the world will be considerably injured. It has always been one of our great strengths that students from all over the world could attend our universities.
The Government are also inflicting an injury upon the British Council, which carries out considerable work all over the world in trying to encourage and spread the reading and use of the English language. To put it on its very lowest basis, the English language is the best trading advantage of this country. This brilliant Tory Government now say that we must cut that service. If their policy is carried out, the teaching and encouragement of the English language all over the world will be injured by the pusillanimous economies that they have forced through.
The Government have also injured the purchase and sale of books. It is almost as if we have a Government of book haters and book burners. The number of books that are not being sold, thanks to Government policy, is mounting. That applies not only to schools but to libraries up and down the country. Books sent out by publishers are being returned to them on a scale that they have not known for generations. The publishing industry is threatened with its biggest crisis for years, primarily because of the tax cuts and policies which the Government are imposing without any consideration of the effects. If the Government have any doubts about the truth and seriousness of what I say, they should examine the letters on the subject sent by the Publishers Association to the Foreign Office and to many Ministers.
The publishing industry has a fine record in exports and in sustaining the reputation of the country. It has a fine record in ensuring that our position in the

383
world shall be sustained by something far more valuable than armies and empires and by methods which are not imperialist or subjugative. It is the most precious possession that we have given to the world. In six months this Government have done more to ensure the injury of the way in which the English language can be taught, spread and honoured all over the world than any Government in modern times.
The Leader of the House should look at all the facts, add them together and try to get this barbarian Cabinet to turn its back on such action. There are so many monetarists in the Cabinet that it is a wonder there is any room for the barbarians. I suppose that there is a great deal of overlapping between the two. I do not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of being in either category, but he is probably the only member of the Cabinet who is not. I hope that he will look seriously at what is happening to the publishing trade and the dissemination of books. After the Christmas Recess, I hope that he will put a proposal to repair the damage already done. When he does so, I hope that he will examine the consultative document on public lending rights. It was a consultative document on a measure passed by the last Parliament, designed to restore at long last the rights of authors.
The right hon. Gentleman agrees with me about the principle of the Act, but what he is proposing in his consultative document would make the principle almost worthless. I do not say that it would be absolutely worthless, because the establishment of the principle is a beginning, but his proposals are miserable and squalid. He has not listened to those who know about these things, such as the people in the Writers' Action Group, who have for years been urging on him how to deal with the matter. Many of the arguments that we have put forward have been set aside in the consultative document.
I give the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of my consultation here and now. I suggest that he should take back the consultative document. He should go back to the Cabinet and say that something much better is wanted. He should bring forward a real proposal for carrying into effect the public lending right,
384
to ensure that authors in this country get their rights under the measure.
I fully acknowledge my own interest in the matter. I am interested in authors getting their rights. I have counted myself among their number in the past and may do so in the future. One never knows. We should not have to argue on this matter. It is a serious one and it lies well within the right hon. Gentleman's power to put it right speedily.
I trust that he will come back to the House after the recess and tell us that he has looked at all the matters concerning the sale of books to children, to universities, to our libraries and to people overseas. I trust that he will look carefully at all the measures taken by his Government in the past six months which have injured this process. I trust that he will produce the few million pounds out of this miserly Government that would put the matter right. It would show that what we say in the House of Commons can have some effect.
Over and above that, I urge the right hon. Gentleman, even before we come to the recess, to ensure that the Prime Minister, when she returns from Washington, will come to the House and tell us whether she intends to allow this country to drift into the sort of steel and coal clash and crisis that I have described, or whether she will do her duty and try to intervene to save the country from the catastrophe which would follow if the Government were to persist in their present course.
8.12 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): I am tempted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to follow the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) into his more apocalyptic passages, but I have a rather more important if less exciting task to perform. I have to answer the detailed points that have been raised by more than 16 hon. Members in the course of the debate.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) was totally unjustified in suggesting that there would not be a serious reply from this Dispatch Box to the points raised in the debate. If he had attended the other two Adjournment debates to which I have replied, he would know that within the limits of the time

385
available I have attempted to answer fully and seriously every point that has been raised by hon. Members. If he received a flea in his ear from the secretary of Rolls-Royce I am not surprised, if he approached him in the way that he approached me. However, having said that, it is Christmas time and I forgive him.
I simply did not recognise general Government policy in the caricature that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale put before us. He compared Government policy to that of Pontius Pilate. It is an easy enough reference to make—and not a particularly original one, if I may so—but the whole essence of the standpoint of Pontius Pilate was a denial of responsibility, whereas the whole policy of the Government is an affirmation of responsibility. While it is the Government's job to create a framework, it is for responsible people, within that framework, to reach agreements that are within their interest, taking into account the national interest as well. The Government stand for a responsible policy, whereas the right hon. Gentleman's Government created irresponsibility by their endless meddling. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the words
"By their fruits ye shall know them."
The fruit of that meddling, intervention and incomes policy piled upon incomes policy was the chaos of last winter. Whatever the shortcomings of Conservative Government policy may have been, we have not reached that stage.
Mr. Maxton: Yet.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman says "Yet" with a certain amount of relish. After all, what everyone in this House wants or should want is the good and peace of the country and the prosperity of the country.
I was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale refer to the word "moderate" as an appalling word. Would be he prefer the word "extremist"? Is that a word that would find favour with him?
Mr. Foot: I was saying that the word "moderate" has been so misused that it has been given a bad name. If one calls a man a moderate he must be an absolute Right-winger, and very few of us are that. The word has been debased.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The right hon. Gentleman cannot determine our vocabulary by the internal schisms within the Labour Party. Words have a wider meaning than that. We cannot devalue the English language—of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke so eloquently a moment ago—in that way. Perhaps I may remind him of the words of Walter Bagehot and at the same time thank him for the review that he gave of my volumes recently in Books and Booktnen. Walter Bagehot said that in England it is the middle principles that matter. I hope that we shall never reach a position in which the word "moderate" becomes a term of reproach and opprobrium.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on his remarks about the English language. I cannot allow him to claim that there is a monopoly of concern on the Labour Benches for the future of the English language. It is one of the great achievements, one of the great wonders, of history that the language spoken by a few thousand people originally on a fog-enshrouded island on the edge of the North Sea should have become the language of international communication throughout the world. That is a great wonder, a great achievement and a great asset for this country. It is a great asset for our trade. It is a great asset in spreading the values for which this country traditionally stands.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the British Council. The British Council has had to make economies, as we have all had to do in every sphere of British life, because we have been living beyond our means for such a long time. But the economies that the British Council is making are not in the teaching of the English language. It is preserving its activity in that respect. The right hon. Gentleman's example was a singularly ill-chosen one on which to base his indictment.
Public lending right is, of course, an important issue, but it is not the main one before the county at the present time. We are following exactly the timetable laid down by the right hon. Gentleman's Government. I know his devotion to public lending right. I attended the party that he gave in celebration of the measure reaching the statute book. I pay tribute to him. I will be more generous to him than he was to me and pay tribute to

387
him for his part in getting that reform on to the statute book.
What is my return for my generosity to the right hon. Gentleman? It is to be denounced for what he called the miserable and squalid consultative document that I published earlier this week. I must ask him for further and better particulars.
What are the miserable and squalid proposals in that document? It is very easy to call something miserable and squalid. Is it miserable and squalid to suggest that foreign authors should participate in this right? That is a strange judgment, coming from the leader of internationalism in the Labour Party. Is it because I suggest that the amount taken out of the fund by any author should be limited to a maximum of £1,000? That is a strange denunciation from someone who I know is the apostle of egalitarianism. Surely that is a provision of elementary fairness, so that someone does not scoop the pool.
Is it because I suggest that there should be a more accurate sample, so that the earnings of authors can be more accurately assessed? Is it because I suggest that in the future reference books should be included, if possible? Are those the squalid and miserable proposals to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? In fact, he has indulged in rhetoric rather than in fact.
Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman asked me a few questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rhetorical questions."] I thought that they might be. I said that the Act was miserable, first, because it does not provide enough money to do the job. Secondly, the proposals in the right hon. Gentleman's consultative document will mean that even that small amount will be divided into even smaller amounts eventually. He also might have looked more carefully at how the expenses of the scheme will take away some of the money from the authors. The bureaucracy is far too heavy.
I am all in favour of foreign authors getting some money eventually, but, as the scheme was started on such a small basis, I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman's generosity would ensure that the scheme worked first in this coun-
388
try and that others could be included later. Those are the answers to some of his rhetorical questions. If he puts down a few more questions, he can have the lot. We could even have a debate on the subject. But I plead with him not to ruin the whole principle and objective by the squalid way in which he is going about this.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I can hardly believe my ears. Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously uttering those sentences and claiming to believe in those sentiments? He said that the amount of money was too little, yet it is the exact amount of money that was written on the face of the Act by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member. That figure is £2 million, which will be raised in accordance with revisions relating to inflation and the change in the value of money. What is squalid about that? The right hon. Gentleman is denouncing himself if he is denouncing me.
As to the cost of running the scheme, that is the exact amount of money that was estimated by the previous Government. It may well be too much, and I shall try to reduce it, but it is no good denouncing me as being squalid and miserable when the proposals that I have outlined are the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman advanced. That is that. QED—quod erat demonstrandum.
I turn away from public lending right. I know of the passionate intensity with which the right hon. Gentleman and myself regard public lending right, but I cannot claim that it is an interest that is shared by every hon. Member. No one would thank me if I turned the debate on the recess into a general debate on the future of public lending right.
I turn to the right hon. Member for Ardwick, who made a ferocious and totally unfair attack upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. He went into a number of details with regard to the statements that my right hon. Friend had made about his meetings with members of the NEB, and so on. My right hon. Friend is quite capable of defending himself—and, indeed, has already done so—against attacks in regard to the points that were raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Kaufman Mr. Kaufman rose—
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Just a minute. It is for my right hon. Friend to reply in detail to the right hon. Gentleman in respect of those meetings by whatever means is open to him. I should like to say a word about the criticism that the Secretary of State accepted Sir Kenneth Keith's resignation, which the right hon. Gentleman said constitutionally my right hon. Friend was not entitled to do. I commend to the right hon. Gentleman a careful study of my right hon. Friend's reply to Sir Kenneth, a copy of which has been published. The letter states:
"I have informed Sir Leslie Murphy that naturally I understand your wish, after seven years' service with Rolls-Royce, to concentrate your energies on your private sector interests."
The Secretary of State did not accept the resignation; he made clear something quite different—his understanding of Sir Kenneth's wish to resign, and he advised Sir Leslie Murphy immediately. I find it difficult to accept that that is a ground for criticism.
The right hon. Gentleman also spoke of the memorandum of understanding between the NEB and Rolls-Royce as though it were a set of rules that were binding on the Secretary of State. If he studies the memorandum with the care that he applied to the other documents that he quoted, he will see that it was precisely a memorandum of understanding between a company and a public corporation.
There is no way in which such a document can bind the Secretary of State, who was not even a party to it. Of course, I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the personal points that have been made in the debate, but with that brief explanation I hope that I have made it clear that the right hon. Gentleman's allegations are far from justified.
The right hon. Gentleman may care to know that the board of Rolls-Royce decided today that Sir Frank McFadzean will succeed Sir Kenneth Keith as chairman of the board.
Mr. Kaufman: In his earlier remarks, the right hon. Gentleman indicated that somehow I was mistaken in believing that I would get an unsatisfactory, cursory and flippant reply. That is precisely what I have received, through no fault of the right hon. Gentleman. All that has hap-
390
pened is that he has had a note passed to him by an official from the Department of Industry, who was placed in the Box by the Secretary of State, who did not wish to attend himself, although he walked out of a meeting of Standing Committee E apparently to come here.
The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he knows nothing whatever about these matters. That is why it is essential that I receive a reply from someone who does. First, the right hon. Gentleman said that I referred to meetings with the NEB. I referred to no such meetings. Secondly, he totally fails to understand the significance of the Secretary of State's accepting a letter of resignation from the chairman of Rolls-Royce without the knowledge of the chairman of NEB, when it was the NEB that had the relationship with Rolls-Royce and the Government did not. Thirdly—[Interruption.] These are much more important matters than the stupid grumbles of the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). The right hon. Gentleman has demonstrated that he is totally unfitted to reply to my speech, because he referred to my having somehow complained that the memorandum of understanding was not observed. It is not a matter of concern to me that the memorandum of understanding—
Mr. Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is this not an abuse of the procedures of the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have listened with great attention. I think that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) was trying to answer some of the points that were put to him, and I hope that he will come to a conclusion.
Mr. Kaufman: I shall indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not a matter of concern whether the memorandum of understanding—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Leader of the House will pay attention, since he was clearly not interested in truth or fact. I was saying before I was interrupted that the point that I wished to make was that the Secretary of State was not telling the truth in relation to keeping the memorandum of understanding, not that he had broken it. It is clear that the Secretary of State did not tell the truth. He should explain that to the House and apologise for it.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sorry that I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman. The repetition of a distortion adds nothing to the knowledge of the House. Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman has learnt nothing from my reply. As to his references to the points raised by other hon. Members, it may be that their points seem of petty importance to the right hon. Gentleman, but they are not of petty importance—
Mr. Rooker: My right hon. Friend did not say that.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I heard what the right hon. Gentleman said. Every point raised in the debate is of importance, and it is of special importance to the hon. Member who raises it.
Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you are in charge of order in the House, it is important that the House should accept that in no way did I criticise the speech of the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). I was responding to the way in which he shouted.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is a novel point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I turn to the important contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) on airports policy. The Government felt it right to make their preliminary views known when the reports of the study group and the advisory committee were published in order to alleviate the anxiety and concern which existed at the five other short-listed sites. The Government have reached a preliminary view only about the public inquiry. The purpose of the inquiry will be to enable the wider social and environmental factors to be properly examined. The conduct of the inquiry and the decision about what is relevant will be matters for the inspector. I expect that he will wish to examine relevant alternatives to the expansion of Stansted.
I do not expect the British Airports Authority to be in a position to submit a planning application before the summer of 1980. Other parties will have time to prepare their cases, and the inquiry may start sometime in 1981. Repeated surveys have shown that about 80 per cent. of passengers using the London airports have origins or destinations in the
392
South-East. That excludes those who spend a night in London solely because they are travelling to or from the airport. The study group report explains the developments that will be needed as traffic expands. Improvement will be made to the railway, and, eventually, a direct link to the airport should be provided. The M25 and M11 will provide a high standard of road access to central London.
I turn to the question of the steel industry, which was raised by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and the hon. Members for Neath (Mr. Coleman) and Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). The object of the BSC is a return to profitability and viability by an early date. The Government welcome that determination. The future of individual steelworks is a matter for the corporation to decide in the light of its need to achieve that target. The Government have shown their determination to help to attract new jobs to Shotton and to Corby. Among other measures, Shotton will become a special development area and Corby will become a development area. We shall give careful consideration to special measures to alleviate the impact on areas that may be affected by further major closures or redundancies. The question of investment in the River Don works was raised by the hon. Member for Attercliffe. I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, but, while it is a matter of concern, it is a matter for the BSC rather than for the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) raised the issue of foreign affairs. He made particular reference to Iran. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the President of the United States yesterday, the United States can count on our full support and understanding in its efforts to secure the release of the hostages. I was delighted—as I am sure many hon. Members were—by my right hon. Friend's strong, friendly and robust support for the United States in this extremely difficult situation. It is what is expected from a friend and ally. People need support when they are in difficulties and not when they are in safe water.
I turn to the question of devolution and fishing, which were raised by the

393
right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). As he will know, I have written to representatives of the Labour, Liberal and Scottish National Parties inviting them to take part in talks about the government of Scotland. All their replies have now been received and the Government are considering them.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern that there should be a debate on fishing, and I am aware that there are a number of Community documents recommended for debate by the Scrutiny Committee. I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has in mind the Government's undertaking to honour such undertakings for debate and will bring the matter to the House at the appropriate time.
I turn to the questions of devolution land and the important contribution made by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), who, rightly, is deeply concerned about the continuing violence in Northern Ireland, which this House wholeheartedly condemns, and about the future of the Northern Ireland constitutional conference. We certainly hope that that conference will succeed, and there will be an opportunity to question the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the matter at Question Time on Thursday.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the United States Administration and Iran, and the failure of the United States to provide arms for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. These two issues are not directly related. Relationships between States that have been firm allies for a long time do not depend on tit-for-tat arrangements. I have no doubt that the House sympathises with the American hostages and their families. However, as to arms for the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Prime Minister left the President in no doubt of the need to bring the present review of the grant of an export licence for revolvers to a quick and positive outcome, and in that she has the full support of the House.
Mr. Kilfedder Mr. Kilfedder rose—
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that I can give way, because I have many other points to cover.
I turn to the intervention of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who raised the question of general standards of conduct in public
394
life—the Salmon report of 1976. He made specific reference to the position of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Treasury and held that his position was untenable because of the career that he had previously pursued at the Bar, and asked that he be removed to another Ministry. That may be the hon. Gentleman's view, but he did not produce a shred of an argument to establish it. My hon. and learned Friend, like many members of the Bar, has advised and appeared for a wide range of clients, including the Inland Revenue. There is no inconsistency in having exercised a professional career in that area as a member of the Bar and his ministerial responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman made specific mention of Rossminster, but I point out to him—it is an important point—that the Revenue deparments do not consult Treasury Ministers on individual cases.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) raised the question of the Vietnamese boat people and refugees. In response to appeals to the Government, permanent housing has been offered by local authorities, housing associations and others. Thanks to the generous response, at present there is sufficient housing to meet immediate needs, but the resettlement programme requires a continuing flow of offers. I am proud of the initiative taken by the Government in that respect and even prouder of the immediate response by so many associations, individuals and local authorities all over the country.
On the question of repayment of fares and promisory notes, we have no present information about refugees being required to sign such notes. However, if my hon. Friend will provide details of any instances I will ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to examine the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) raised the question of the Falkland Islands. We have no doubt about our sovereignty over the Islands and their dependencies. The restoration of ambassadors in Argentina and diplomatic relations announced in November does not affect our position in any way.
A number of hon. Members raised questions concerning the police. They included the hon. Members for Oldham,

395
West (Mr. Meacher), for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) and Keighley (Mr. Cryer). Even though the hon. Member for Oldham, West is not present, the points that he raised are of general interest and affect the points raised by the hon. Members for Vauxhall and Keighley, and I thank those two Members for their courtesy in having waited to hear the answer to the points that they raised.
All deaths of people in police custody are reported to the coroner and an inquest is held unless he decides that it is unnecessary or inappropriate. Any allegations of violence by the police are fully investigated and, in accordance with the Police Acts, the report is submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions for his independent consideration and decision on the question whether a prosecution should be instituted. A report is subsequently sent to the Police Complaints Board for its independent consideratiin on the need for possible disciplinary action.
In the case of Jimmy Kelly, which was specifically mentioned, the investigation report is currently under consideration by the Director. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has therefore concluded that at present there can be no question of setting up a public inquiry, which would be likely to depend for its effectiveness on promises of immunity from prosecution made to potential witnesses.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall raised the case of Mr. Daly. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already written to the hon. Member about the treatment of this prisoner and the reasons for his transfer from Brixton prison. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has also written to the hon. Member about the timing of the retrial.
If Mr. Daly, or the hon. Member for Vauxhall on his behalf, has any complaint about treatment by the police—whether in the context of operation Countryman or otherwise—the proper course is for the hon. Member to bring that to the notice of the chief officer of police concerned, who will arrange for it to be investigated in accordance with the procedures prescribed by Parliament.
With regard to the case of Mr. O'Hagan, which was raised by the hon. Member for Keighley, I will bring the questions raised by the hon. Member to
396
the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and ask him to communicate directly with the hon. Member.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) raised general questions about the effect of Government policy on the regions, particularly Wales. I make it clear that we are prepared to consider the case for upgrading the status of specific areas if there are substantial changes in their circumstances. It is essential for resources to be concentrated on areas with the greatest need. The problems of the Welsh economy are recognised by the fact that 90 per cent. of the working population lives in areas that continue to have assisted area status.
I turn now to the question raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about the problems faced by old people during the winter, particularly the problem of hypothermia. It is a very grave problem for all old people and it is essential that it is recognised as such by as many people as possible. The Government have not played the heartless role that was adumbrated by the hon. Member. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services told the House on 22 October, when we came to office we discovered that the previous Government had made no provision for helping poor families with their fuel bills during the coming winter. We have no doubt that the right course, when one has limted resources, is to concentrate help on those who need it most—that is, elderly people and families on supplementary benefit and family income supplement.
Mr. Winnick Mr. Winnick rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this matter—
Mr. Winnick: Indeed, I do.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not blame the hon. Member for feeling strongly on this matter. However, he has asked the question and must give me an opportunity to answer it.
From 12 November all supplementary pensioner householders over 75 or with a dependant who is over 75, and all

397
supplementary benefit householders with a child under 5, will automatically receive an extra heating addition of 95p. For those who are not already getting such an addition this will mean an extra £50 a year in a full year, as against the average payment of only £7·50 made under last year's electricity discount scheme. That shows that it is much more sensible to concentrate help on those who need it most, so that it can have the maximum effect. Families on family income supplement will get an extra £1 a week. It is estimated that the scheme will cost an extra £16·5 milion and it will benefit 345,000 families and pensioners.
Mr. Winnick Mr. Winnick rose—
Mr. St. John-Stevas: No, I will not give way. I still have a number of points to answer and I am running into the time that should be given to the Consolidated Fund Bill.
I turn to the important points that were raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) about universities. He spoke specifically about overseas students and referred to the university of Strathclyde. On the general points about universities and their financing, I share the hon. Member's concern about the future. The relevant White Paper, Cmnd. 7746, sets out Government policy on financing in a sentence that gives a clear picture of our intentions. It is:
"The resources available for home students in higher education will be about the same in 1980–81 as in 1979–80."
I certainly believe that the universities are the crown of our education system. However, it does not follow from that that there must be unlimited expansion of university places. We have come to the end of that period of expansion. That period would have ended irrespective of the Government in power. It is now a question of consolidating the gains of the past and maintaining high standards rather than moving into a new phase of expansion.
We have had no indication that student levels will drop because of the increased costs, and overseas students already on courses will still be subsidised at the appropriate rates. The hon. Member for Cathcart has told us of his conversations with representatives of the university of Strathclyde. Although I have no direct responsibility in this matter, I retain my
398
interest in the universities and particularly in the position of overseas students. I am assured by those whom I have consulted in the universities that, while the increase in fees may result in a temporary fall in the number of overseas students, the position will soon right itself again because the majority of these students are doing postgraduate courses They come here because of the high standards of tuition that they receive in our universities, and they are unlikely to be deterred by a revision of the fees.
The hon. Member went on to raise important points about the working of this House. I have direct responsibility for that. He mentioned recesses and criticised our arrangements. Goodness knows, those arrangements are not perfect, but I do not think that it is right to suggest that a recess is merely a holiday. It is not. Hon. Members need time to visit their constituencies and to catch up on their reading. Members of Parliament today work longer hours than at any previous time in our history. I believe that we are the most overworked section of the population, although people may not appreciate that. It is a fact that no one else would work the hours that we work. We literally work around the clock. Of course, I agree that the salaries and conditions should be improved. We have improved the salaries of Members, quite rightly, and not before time. I hope that we have now put that matter on a permanent basis.
On the question of secretaries and research assistants, I agree that hon. Members must have the means to discharge their functions. That is not given to hon. Members for themselves. It is given so that we can be efficient servants of the people who have sent us here. We have not yet received the Boyle report on secretaries and research assistants. There is no delay by the Government. The report has not arrived. I have made inquiries from time to time. My latest intelligence is that the Boyle committee is still taking evidence. I can, however, give the undertaking that when the report is received the Government will act upon it quickly.
I share the concern expressed about the conditions under which hon. Members of this House have to work. It is ridiculous that hon. Members should not have their own offices. It is absurd, in

399
a modern legislature, that secretaries should frequently be housed in another building miles away from where hon. Members are working. It is a ridiculous anachronism that there should not be a room for each hon. Member. In some rooms there are 14 hon. Members at desks. That is no way to run a modern and efficient legislature. We are in a situation, however, where we have to face financial constraints. Everyone is being asked to make sacrifices. We in this House have to do the same.
I am doing my best, in conjunction with the Services Committee, to see that within the parameters of inadequate accommodation in which we necessarily move the allotment to hon. Members is made as fairly as possible. We try to improve the accommodation problem as much as possible. I hope that eventually our economic situation will improve, so that we will be able to provide the new accommodation that is the only long-term solution to the problems of hon. Members.
I have dealt with the 16 or so hon. Members who raised points. I do not say that I have answered all their points satisfactorily. I have done what I can. I will now get out of the way and allow the debate on the Consolidated Fund to proceed, wishing hon. Members on both sides of the House, when they depart on Friday, a happy Christmas.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved
That this House at its rising on Friday do adjourn till Monday 14 January.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of Bills of aids and supplies, more than one stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

HOUSE PRICES (PUBLIC REGISTRATION)
9 pm
Mr. Alfred Dubs: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that, whenever a residential property
400
is sold, the price and date of sale are to be entered on a register which will be freely available to everyone.
For most people, the purchase of a home is the biggest single financial transaction of their lives. Yet, as regards the price that they have to pay or are willing to offer, it is the least informed decision that people normally have to make. Compared with the purchase of, say a secondhand car or a television set, there is virtually no information to guide an individual when making an offer to purchase a house or flat.
The simple proposal in this Bill is that there should be a register of the prices of houses and flats, such register to be open to public inspection. There would be four items of information on the register: the price at which a property had changed hands; the date at which that transaction had taken place; whether the property was leasehold or freehold; and, if leasehold, the number of years out standing on the lease. The suggestion is that the register should be freely available—in, say, a local town hall—so that any member of the public could look at it before deciding whether he could afford to purchase a home in that area and, if so, at what price.
It might be said that estate agents already have such information available on their lists; but those lists contain only the asking prices, not the actual prices at which properties change hands. Some years ago, when I was attempting to purchase a property, I was unable to find the going rate in a particular neighbourhood. Only by resorting to the subterfuge of telephoning an estate agent and offering to sell a property of the kind that I wanted to buy was I able to get an idea of the prices of properties of that kind in the area.
The Bill proposes a fairly easy solution. It proposes a measure of consumer protection, because if the consumer has knowledge he is better protected than if he has to act in ignorance.
Technically, there would be few problems about implementing the proposals in the Bill. Under section 28 of the Finance Act 1931, such information, or the bulk of it, is already made known to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. The point of the Bill is to make information already being collected available to the

401
public. Therefore, there would be little additional work for either the Inland Revenue or town hall staffs in making such information available. The most appropriate suggestion is to put the information on the same listing as that on which rateable values are made available for public inspection by the Inland Revenue.
One of the benefits of this proposal is that there would be fairness between buyer and seller. That is important for the buyer, because normally he does not have the help of estate agents or other advisers to guide him on price.
Another benefit is that I believe there would be more stability of prices and possibly less of a tendency towards gazumping.
An incidental benefit would be better knowledge of house prices in particular areas.
402
This measure should be of substantial benefit to people when making what is a major financial decision.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. Jack Straw, Mr. Allan Roberts, Mr. Frank Dobson, Mr. Arthur Davidson and Dr. Oonagh McDonald.

HOUSE PRICES (PUBLIC REGISTRATION)
Mr. Alfred Dubs accordingly presented a Bill to provide that, whenever a residential property is sold, the price and date of sale are to be entered on a register which will be freely available to everyone: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 February and to be printed [Bill 106].
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

  TEXTILE INDUSTRY
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Edward Lyons: I make no apology for being responsible for another debate on textiles, but it is the first one for some time intended to spotlight the problems of the industry in West Yorkshire. There is no alternative for West Yorkshire Members of Parliament but to stress continually to the Government and the civil servants that we cannot allow our area to become depopulated, deprived and a wasteland because of the sickness or death of the textile industry.
  There are rapidly growing fears in the industry about what the future holds. The progress, or lack of it, in the textile industry is taking place against the backcloth of a terrifying and growing de-industrialisation in Britan, which itself proceeds in the face of a stupendous long-term complacency and inertia by successive Governments and the population at large.
  It was reported at the International Wool Textile Organisation conference in London in June that a worldwide shift in textile production was occurring, whereby the Northern Hemisphere is no longer the prime producing area. It was a similar shift that led to the decline of the cotton textile industry in Lancashire. There is anxiety that the Government will trade off the textile industry, a little at a time, for concessions and benefits in respect of sophisticated goods in order to do deals with China and other countries.
  Job losses are becoming not only more frequent but are now running at avalanche proportions. Within five months between May and October of this year, in West Yorkshire alone there were over 2,000 redundancies, including five factory closures. It is estimated that in West Yorkshire there are likely to be 25,000
  404
  jobs lost to the industry between 1977 and 1980.
  The chairman of the wool textile delegation, Mr. Hibbert, said on 16 October this year that the industry's technical and economic base was being seriously undermined. The county council of West Yorkshire has gone on record as saying that it is increasingly concerned at the poor job prospects in textile areas.
  Effluent charges effective from 1 April this year are already having a serious effect on the viability of the combing and re-combing sections of the industry. The CBI and NEDO document published in August, "Trends in Textile and Clothing", indicated an extremely gloomy outlook, with export prospects plunging. The high level of sterling and the prohibitive cost of borrowing are also both unhelpful.
  The sectors most likely to suffer from these trends are heavily represented in West Yorkshire. Therefore, the outlook for the textile and clothing industries is seen to be increasingly precarious. The scenario for the carpet manufacturing industry includes a 50 per cent. reduction of its work force within 10 years. During a recent seminar the West Yorkshire county council stated that it felt that little sympathy was being shown by the United Kingdom Government to the severe problems of the West Yorkshire textile and clothing industries.
  The textile industry is relatively well equipped. If it is given fair competition, it should be able to compete fairly successfully. Wages are not high by Western European standards, and by British standards there is a good industrial relations record in most factories.
  I shall identify a few of the problems and suggest remedies. First, the conduct of retail distribution groups in Britain is one of the reasons why the textile industry needs more money from the Government by means of the Bill. There are 14 groups controlling more than 50 per cent. of over-the-counter sales in Britain. With the honourable exception of Marks and Spencer, which manages to buy more than 80 per cent. of its textile goods from British sources, the rest of the companies seem to be doing enormous damage to Britain and the textile industry.
  Last week the Telegraph and Argus carried out a survey in Bradford shops.

  405
  Bradford is the heart of the woollen textile industry in Britain. It concluded that
  "Cheap foreign clothing imports are gradually killing off the British textile industry as mill after mill closes."
  It acquitted Marks and Spencer, which was found to be an honourable exception. The survey included British Home Stores, Little woods and C & A. There is a feeling that these large retail distribution chains treat the United Kingdom industry as an emergency supplier when others cannot deliver. If a British company cannot deliver at short notice, the retail distribution chains complain that it is not delivering on time.
  It would assist if retail distribution chains were less shortsighted. It should occur to them that if they destroy the livelihoods of their customers there will be no purchasing power to buy their goods. They are putting people out of work in textile factories as plainly as if they were handing out the dismissal notices.
  The dual pricing policy of the United States is wreaking havoc in the textile industry. Oil and feedstock go cheap to domestic manufacturers in the United States. That gives them a substantial price advantage. Every time the world price of oil increases, the advantage of United States producers grows. The textile lobby in the United States is most effective. Imports of polyester textile yarn from the United States have increased from 7½ per cent. last autumn to 29 per cent. now. Those are the latest figures from the Man-made Fibres Federation. They will increase month by month if something is not done.
  The unions in the North-East and the influence of the Southern States of the United States have the Government there all tied up. The textile lobby there did a deal with the United States Government in February of this year. It was agreed that in return for abandoning opposition to the Tokyo round the Government would back the United States textile industry in a great way. Of course, President Carter dare not antagonise the textile vote. The Department of Commerce in the United States has commissioned the prestigious firm of Kurt Salmon to prepare reports on textile industries in 47 countries on how to deal with those industries, and to produce a list of the retail buying groups in
  406
  the United Kingdom and the person to contact in each group.
  The first report was on the United Kingdom. That indicates the degree of pressure that we can expect from the United States by means of its unfair pricing policy. There is no hope that the United States will voluntarily change that policy. On 3 April of this year, after the United Kingdom had put its complaint and evidence to the Commission, the Council of Ministers gave an undertaking that in the event of artificial pricing for energy leading to the threat of disruption to the Community market the Community would have recourse, without delay, to immediate action under the GATT. However, nothing has happened, although import figures show that that threat has become a grisly reality.
  Confronted with that gruesome reality, the EEC hesitates to take any action and has reneged on its promise to take action without delay, although it was satisfied about the artificial pricing policy of the United States Government in April of this year. On 20 November the Council of Ministers agreed to negotiate with the United States, but on 14 December, when it met United States representatives, those representatives filibustered, as one would expect. It is absurd to think that they would take action against their own textile lobby. Britain must therefore stop the Community from shilly-shallying, and it can do that by acting alone, properly and legally, within the rules of the Community, despite the view of our own Department of Trade.
  A codified regulation on import control was published on 8 May of this year by the Community. Article 12 of that codified regulation said that a country could take restraint action on its own in two circumstances.
  Where the imports of a product disrupt or threaten disruption of the Community market for that product and, secondly, where the imports of that product are based on costs or conditions that disrupt or threaten disruption, the Community can take restraining action. But then, according to article 14, those Community powers are transferred from the Community to the single member State.
  If a member State decides to take action on its own to stop unfair imports, it must first give five clear days' notice

  407
  to the Commission and, secondly, it must present to the Commission reasons and justification for, and details of, the action that it proposes to take, and within five days the Commission is required to summon a committee of representatives of the various member States.
  The applicant country—that is to say, the United Kingdom in this case—is required to listen to the views of the committee, over which it has no power of veto. If the committee is convinced, it can take action itself, but first it has to obtain the approval of the Council of Ministers. That involves a delay, and the applicant country, as an interim measure, can take its own action to stop the abuse. If the committee of the EEC is not convinced, the United Kingdom can appeal to the Council of Ministers, and pending that appeal it can also take unilateral action. As a result, by invoking the procedures that the Community lays down, Britain is in a position to impose a complete embargo, within a week or two, on all United States textile imports that contain this inbuilt and found to be unfair advantage, pending action by the Council of Ministers.
  In my view, such an embargo is essential. Although it will not last long—perhaps only a month until the Council of Ministers decides what to do—it will have the effect of jerking the Community into action. The French have done it, as one might expect. In 1977, worried by what they regarded as an unfair import system, they announced that they would take action, and the result was that within six weeks the Commission had alerted the Council of Ministers and the matter had been dealt with.
  What we want from our Government now is unilateral action, operating not on a permanent basis but for a month in order to jerk the Community into taking the required action to stop these unfair American imports which are doing such enormous damage throughout the British textile industry, and especially in West Yorkshire.
  What action should the Council of Ministers take? Britain must press for an immediate increase of at least 20 per cent. in the Community tariff against United States textile imports, covering in addition products such as tufted carpets and other downstream products. In other
  408
  words, Britain, operating within the EEC rules, can achieve its results by courageous and strong action.
  The United States has a tariff of 45 per cent. against our textiles. Our tariff varies but is about 23 per cent. It is absurd that such a rich country should have a higher tariff against our textiles than we, a poorer nation, have against theirs. This cannot go on, and, since the United States Government will not deprive their own people of the advantage which they now enjoy through that unfair policy, it is up to Britain and the EEC, together or separately, to take the appropriate action.
  The United States has kindly agreed to reduce its tariff over a period of eight years from 1982. I do not know how much of the United Kingdom textile industry will be left by 1982—and certainly by 1990, the year by which the United States has promised to reduce its tariff to about 33 per cent. The United Kingdom must, therefore, take action to force the palsied hands of the civil servants in the Community.
  I turn now to unfair competition, which is another aspect of the same matter. The British taxpayer has to give grants to the industry—under the current provisions, £2,800,000, which is inadequate in the circumstances—simply because the industry staggers under the various inequities which prevail, unfair competition being one of them.
  The example of Korea is a blatant case in point. Korea has an 80 per cent. tariff barrier against our textiles, when it permits any textiles in at all. For our woven woollen cloth we have to overcome an 80 per cent. barrier, yet Korea plans to become the world's largest textile and clothing exporter within five years from now, that is, by 1985.
  In September 1979 the authoritative and prestigious textile magazine Textile Asia declared that the Koreans were being encouraged to export to the hilt and to make up losses on export sales by increasing domestic prices. That is a straight invitation to dumping by the Korean Government, and Britain cannot allow it to continue. We must ask for closer parity.
  Brazil has tariffs against our textiles of up to 205 per cent. The situation in Prato in Italy is well known. The Italian

  409
  industry of Prato, by means, it is suspected, of hidden subsidies and low social security payments to its workers, has eliminated the woollen weaving industries in Holland, Belgium and West Germany, and now it is the turn of France and the United Kingdom.
  I do not for a moment imagine that France will allow its industry to be eliminated by anyone, and I hope that the British Government will take a similar view. France itself has export rebates and freight subsidies for its woollen producers which we do not have here.
  It is obvious that something is wrong. There is here no question of, as it were, penalising underdeveloped countries. One has only to look at what is coming from Eastern Europe. Suits made predominantly of wool are coming from Hungary at £14·20, from Czechoslovakia at £12·50, and from East Germany at £15·30. For man-made fibres the prices are: Hungary £14·30; Poland £15·30 and East Germany £11·10. Those very prices from those European countries indicate that there must be an element of loss and State subsidy.
  What the Government and the EEC ought to do is to reverse the burden of proof on dumping and put the onus on those who are charged with dumping to prove that they are not doing so. Furthermore, there must be pressure by the Government on those in the EEC who are investigating the Prato industry to get on with it. They have been doing so since January without result, and it simply is not good enough. The EEC must be pressurised by our Government to adopt speedier arrangements for the investigation of unfair trading practices—including misleading labelling—breaches of quotas and breaches of bilateral agreements. We need methods of quick and thorough investigation and tough reaction to remedy the wrongs that are found. In future agreements we need a social clause to ensure that those who are given concessions treat their own workers properly and pay them decently.
  I have today received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, as I am sure other hon. Members have, saying that the Government are not prepared to assist at all with the unit costs for treating wool scouring effluent.
  410
  The Government will not do anything, despite the fact that costs in this country are double those in France; and in Italy and Belgium there are no charges at all. The argument is that to do so would infringe the Water Act, but the Government could assist from a different standpoint. The multi-fibre arrangement is something the industry needs, and we need a commitment from the Government to improve and strengthen it for 1981, when it will, we hope, be renewed. Furthermore, we need the strictest controls on outward processing. We need a commitment from the Government and the EEC that they will not trade away the textile industry for other advantages internationally in negotiations with other countries. Finally, we need to dispel rumours that the EEC foresees the end of the textile industry and its transfer somewhere else.
  Those are the matters that I wanted to raise. I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to speak in this debate. My reason for applying for this debate was the importance of the subject and the fact that I know that there are hon. Members on both sides who feel equally strongly about it. Living in or visiting their constituencies regularly, they are in a position to know how desperate is the situation. It is because they know it is desperate and because they feel worried that they are not managing to convey how urgent the situation is that a debate of this kind is so worth while.
  The general secretary of the dyers' and bleachers' union is in the Gallery this evening. That union itself is quite rightly pressing Members of Parliament in West Yorkshire very hard to get stronger action from the Government, because the textile workers' union in West Yorkshire is almost disappearing before one's eyes with all these redundancies. It is no good for Britain, it is no good for the industry and it is no good for West Yorkshire unless the present position is reversed. We must have the opportunity to compete on equal terms and not under heavy disadvantages, as is the case now.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Julian Ridsdale: We are very grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) for having introduced this debate on textiles. I am particularly grateful to him

  411
  because I had drawn No. 8 for my subject and the fact that mine linked with his has saved me from a very late night.
  In intervening on what is possibly a Yorkshire occasion, I must say that in north-east Essex, in my constituency there are three thriving small textile industries. Naturally I am concerned about the dangers they face from unfair competition, especially from Eastern Europe and the connection with the Community.
  We know that the industry can face fair competition within the Community. I am speaking particularly of menswear. However, it cannot face the competition and malpractices of Eastern European countries, especially when carried out in association with our partners in the EEC.
  Like the hon. and learned Gentleman, I understand the position of illegal and unfair imports and dumping, especially from Romania, Eastern Germany and Eastern Europe. Recently we saw the closure of five well-known companies, with cutbacks and short-time working in others. We heard strong words from the hon. and learned Gentleman about the position in Yorkshire. There is also short-time working in north-east Essex. One manufacturer of men's outer wear said today that, unless something was done to stop unfair imports, the whole industry could disappear within two years. Indeed, if that is the price we must pay for illegal and unfair imports, it is certainly unacceptable to me, and, I am sure, to the House.
  At present we are witnessing cheap imports. However, if we are not careful we shall be in danger of importing unemployment as well. We must all carefully consider that factor. The textile industry has good labour relations. It is a labour-intensive industry and makes a great contribution to the standard of living of any country. That is why I am especially glad to intervene in the debate.
  People working in the textile industry say that if the industry goes to the wall there could come the moment when the Armed Services must purchase their uniforms from Eastern Europe. Indeed, some Service uniforms are made in my constituency, at Harwich. We used to make police uniforms there. However, as a result of Community regulations, the police contracts have gone to Germany.
  412
  I should like the Community tendering system to be reconsidered. Although it may be fair, nevertheless there may be some method of altering it after careful consideration. Again, I ask whether we are up against fair competition.
  All that underlines the need for action to ensure that there is fair competition. From what I have heard, I am not sure about that. A number of factors contribute to the situation. One is the alarming increase in unfair and illegal trading practices. By that I mean the various forms of dumping that were mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman, origin fraud as a means of quota evasion, State intervention in breach of EEC competition law, notably in Italy and Holland, and the evasion of duty through the abuse of preferential schemes. Dumping is extremely difficult to prove, especially in inflationary times when prices change so quickly.
  Although anti-dumping procedures have been revised to facilitate action, they are still unsatisfactory since the onus of proof is on the importing country. Are we trying to change this? The Government must examine the anti-dumping procedures to ascertain whether certain rules and regulations should be changed.
  Can action be taken against the importation of Romanian suits under our MFA bilateral agreements? The best example of origin fraud is Germany, though Italy is also a source of such fraud. Special East-West German relations make it difficult to police EEC origin regulations, and those relations provide an ideal cover for what the industry believes is large-scale illegal traffic. Our industry claims that well-tailored, 100 per cent. pure wool suits being offered by a West German firm at an ex-factory price of £16 are made in East Germany or Bulgaria with Korean cloth. These suits do not carry an origin label.
  Are this practice and similar practices which the industry has notified to the Department of Trade being investigated? The effects of such practices on the MFA regime are obviously devastating. I was in Brussels the week before last and could tell that the Commission was not adequately staffed to deal with this problem. It did not surprise me to find that the staff of the Commission responsible for enforcing the origin regulations consisted—on their own admission—of one

  413
  and a half people. Surely, something should be done about that.
  We have agreed to become part of a trading community and have seen what happens with the CAP. In a labour-intensive industry such as our textile industry, we now find that there are insufficient staff to enforce the regulations. That is one of the reasons why I raise the subject tonight.
  Apart from the need for more effective certification of origin and stricter enforcement of the origin regulations, the industry is pressing for origin labelling—as mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West—to be made compulsory. There is much to be said for that and I am sure that it is right, but in order to stop unco-ordinated action by member States it would be far better to press for an EEC regulation to deal with the problem comprehensively.
  Urgent talks should take place with the EEC. I welcome the fact that the reason why my hon. Friend the Minister of State is unable to reply to this debate is that he is in Brussels probably dealing at the moment with this critical problem for the textile industry.
  A further problem, not mentioned by the hon. and learned Member, is the extent of State intervention in the clothing industry. I do not wish to make a party political point, but in Italy the underwriting of losses by the State is practised on a formidable scale. That means that the firms concerned are able to operate outside normal market forces. That is a blatant transgression of EEC competition law. The Dutch Government, it is claimed, are also heavily subsidising their clothing manufacturers. This calls for quick action by the Government.
  Preferential schemes have not so far been mentioned in the debate. It is claimed that cloth from the Far East is temporarily imported duty-free into such countries as Kenya for processing and then re-exported to the United Kingdom without duty being paid. That can mean a price difference of about 20 per cent. The textile industry needs much tighter control on imports from preferential areas.
  There is no doubt that unless the Government are determined to deal immediately and effectively with the problems of the clothing industry we face a serious
  414
  crisis. I have been doing many other things, but when I saw that industries in my constituency were in difficulty I examined the problems. I was appalled at the practices against the textile industry in the Community. It is vital to take up this matter with the Community in Brussels at once, not only through our Members of the European Parliament but with the Council of Ministers.
  We have talked about the common agricultural policy protecting the small farmers, but the textile industry also needs protection. I am a free trader. I believe in fair competition, but the present practices are not fair competition. For that reason, I felt that it was right to raise this issue in the House.
  When in Dublin, the Prime Minister was right to draw to the Community's attention our fears about the budget. There are fears about the CAP and about the textile industry. Action is necessary. I hope that the Government will examine the detail of what is happening. Only by correcting that detail can we ensure that the textile industry in particular does not suffer gravely in the next two years. I trust that this debate will draw to the attention of the House and the country what is happening in this important industry.
  9.37 pm
  Dr. Shirley Summerskill: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) on being fortunate in the ballot and on choosing to debate the West Yorkshire textile industry, particularly the wool textile industry—the backbone of life in West Yorkshire. That has been so since the Industrial Revolution and before. The House last debated this subject exactly five weeks ago. On that occasion many hon. Members impressed upon the Government the serious risk involved in the decline in the textile industry. We emphasised that that decline had become even more serious in the last six months.
  I pointed out that between May and October this year 23 textile firms in West Yorkshire had closed. Those closures involved 2,013 redundancies. If those redundancies had taken place in one factory, there would have been a national outcry. However, because they were spread throughout West Yorkshire they

  415
  did not invite the concern of the Government or the public that they deserve.
  What has happened in West Yorkshire since that debate? The steady decline continues. Yesterday in the Yorkshire Post, which I do not usually read, a most prominent advertisement appeared across the top of a page. It consisted of a large notice which stated:
  "Reorganisation of Woollen Company.
  The Dirctors of a West Yorkshire Woollen Company wish to reorganise the Company's business by substantially reducing the scale of its manufacturing operations. This will involve reorganising the Company's work force and disposing of surplus assets. Applications are invited from persons suitably qualified and experienced who are interested in undertaking this assignment."
  It is a tragic sign of the times that a large woollen company in West Yorkshire has to reorganise its work force, which may lead to short-time working, redundancies and a reduction in the scale of its manufacturing operations. There is no sign there of any improvement since the debate five weeks ago.
  There is in my constituency a world-famous carpet company called Crossley and Kosset, better known as Crossley's Carpets. It has twice received the Queen's Award for Exports, and it has an international reputation. Its record of achievement and success is one of the best, if not the best, of all the carpet firms in the country.
  I learnt yesterday that short-time working started there at the beginning of the month. An average of a three-day week is now being worked throughout the factory, and redundancies are a possibility. At one time exports from that factory were 17 per cent. to 20 per cent. of the total output. Today they are only 8 per cent. to 9 per cent.
  I asked a managing director what points I should stress in today's debate. He said that the greatest single problem is the threat from the United States. The implications of that were well put earlier by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West.
  The Minister is today attending a meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers to receive a report on the Commission's consultations with the United States. Surely, while we are waiting for those discussions to come to a head, the Gov-
  416
  ernment should take interim action to stop the flood of imports from America.
  The Council of Ministers will take months to reach any decision. The matter was considered under the previous Government. During the last debate on the matter in the House we were told that we would hear the result of those discussions later in November. At Question Time yesterday we were told that we might hear today that a decision had been taken and that consequently the Government would be able to act.
  The Minister should make a statement when the House returns after the Christmas Recess about the action the Government propose to take. It is no good waiting for endless discussions while the jots and livelihoods of people in West Yorkshire are at stake. Not only have jobs already been lost, but those who are still working in the textile industry are under constant threat. What steps are the Government taking to find alternative employment for those made redundant?
  I asked the Minister a question about the possibility of training services division support for retraining of redundant weaving over lookers in West Yorkshire. The Minister said that support could not be justified at present because of the lack of employment opportunities in the industry on completion of training. This reply is not only negative but demonstrates the Government's regrettable lack of confidence in the future of the industry as well as their refusal to provide positive assistance. They clearly think that there is no point in retraining if there are not employment opportunities in the industry on completion of training.
  I come to another possibility—the provision of alternative jobs, if necessary outside the textile industry. This is a regrettable alternative, but the people in West Yorkshire must have jobs. If they are being made redundant in the wool and textile industries, they must look elsewhere.
  The latest employment figures were announced today. Nationally, they show a rise. These are mirrored in the local figures for my constituency, which also came out today and which show an increase in the unemployed. The number of vacancies is reduced. We are told that this is not only a seasonal picture. It is not simply a winter figure. The prospects are not good anywhere, but in West

  417
  Yorkshire in particular they are certainly not good. We are being changed from an assisted to a non-assisted area. Therefore, the small firms which stood to gain from this assistance—usually the textile firms—will be hit in that way as well. The prospects in machine tools are not good. We certainly do not have a flood of new industries in West Yorkshire to which people can go.
  I ask the Government again in this debate—as I did in the last debate, when I received no reply—to state their response to the report on the scheme for textile area regeneration. I should like to know from the Minister what is his attitude to that report and what are the Government's proposals. So much for help with jobs.
  We have heard from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West that another totally negative and disappointing reply was received from the Government to pleas for help from the Yorkshire wool scouring industry concerning the trade effluent charges made by the Yorkshire water authority. Here is another barrier or another insuperable difficulty facing the wool textile industry, with no positive help forthcoming.
  The Minister, in replying to the Supply day debate on regional aid, after a series of speeches from each side of the House, still did not appear to appreciate the gravity of the problem. He said:
  "I discovered not a dying industry"—
  this was when he went to look at some mills—
  but one that has carried out massive restructuring over recent years".
  But is the Minister still unaware that, as I pointed out in the debate, it is not only the old satanic mills that are closing but also many of the modernised ones of which he is so proud? Why are the modernised ones closing? The crisis is hitting the whole industry, yet the Government appear to be extremely complacent about it.
  The Minister also told the House that the industry is
  "dominated by small firms needing advice and counselling on how to improve their production methods. The small firms division of the Department of Industry has a nation-wide system of counselling which is always at the service of the industry."—[Official Report, 13 November 1979; Vol. 973, c. 1229–31.]
  418
  I am sure that we were all pleased to hear that, but the Minister must surely realise that at the moment the industry needs more than advice and counselling to solve its problems. It needs practical, tangible assistance, not words. That is what we are asking for tonight. In the face of the facts which have been stated. the Government's attitude to the wool textile industry should be to offer practical assistance.
  In a recent debate on the subject, several policy proposals were suggested, but I shall not go through all of them this evening. However, as this is a debate on the Consolidated Fund, we should emphasise the urgent need for increased selective financial assistance to the industry, particularly as virtually the whole of West Yorkshire—with some exceptions such as Bradford—has been reduced from an assisted to a non-assisted area. We should like that assistance in the form of loans, grants or in any other way possible.
  Ministers keep stressing that the wool textile industry is a cyclical industry. That makes it essential that, if it is to survive during times of depression, it should receive increased Government support. If the Government really believe that the West Yorkshire textile industry should not be allowed to decline, they must support that belief with urgent practical help.
  9.51 pm
  Mr. Gary Waller: We have debated this issue on many occasions and at some considerable length. I suppose that some might claim that we were in danger of repeating ourselves, but, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry is very much aware, there are strong feelings among those of us who come from the West Yorkshire area as well as among those who work in the industry that it must not be allowed to die. It is one of our oldest industries, which goes back many centuries, and it would be a tragedy to those working in it, as well as to the country as a whole, if it were lost.
  We live in a period of change. I believe that the industry accepts the inevitability of change within it. There must inevitably he some contraction, and that would have taken place come what may.

  419
  There have been changes in fashion to man-made fibres. Even with fair competition, I do not think that anyone can deny that some contraction in the industry would have taken place.
  The industry also accepts that poorer nations will want to develop their own industries. What it objects to is the use of unfair methods by relatively well-off nations. We have in this country relatively well-organised, highly developed distribution networks. Those countries which practise unfair methods of trade have those systems of distribution wide open to them and, therefore, find it very easy to enter our markets compared with most other markets in the world.
  The hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) referred to the Italian industry. I am sure that most of us would agree that the Italian industry benefits from the relaxed approach to tax and social security benefits. That could be regarded, and ought to be regarded, as a hidden subsidy. We must look to the Commission of the European Community to use its muscle with regard to this matter.
  There are only two possibilities—either the Commission has not got the will to do anything about it, or it does not have the resources to deal with it. If it does not have the will, Ministers must make their voices heard far more stridently in defence of our interests and in defence of the industry than they have until today. As we have already heard, the Secretary of State for Trade is today taking part in a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, and we shall all be interested to hear the outcome of that meeting.
  If the Commission lacks the resources, as has already been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale), there should be a strengthening of the agencies concerned with monitoring fair trade and ensuring that it takes place. Many people in this country feel that the Commission seems to be very good at imposing controls that people do not want. Perhaps, without imposing any further bureaucracy, it might be possible to transfer some of the resources that are used to impose controls that people do not want to controls that are absolutely necessary and for which everyone is crying out.
  420
  We should admit that the industry has some faults. It is sometimes slow to point out individual cases of abuse that could be dealt with. On the other hand, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich has pointed out, there is great difficulty in producing proof of unfair practices. I agree that there is a good case for changing the procedure so that the burden of proof rests on the industry to prove that it is not dumping or using unfair trade practices.
  The all-party group within the House has been working on a united basis. It is good that on this issue we have been able to put aside most of our party differences and fight for the industry, with which we are all concerned. I do not deny that there are one or two differences—perhaps I should not gloss over those. Conservative Members do not want special subsidies for industry. Unless the industry is capable of surviving on its own feet, it is not worth proceeding with it. There is little point in pumping in money unless it is to alleviate a short-term problem. Therefore, it is better to concentrate on dealing with basic structural problems. We cannot hide those by pumping in money. That will only drag out the procedure, and we must get to grips with the real problem.
  In this industry and in most others relatively little would be gained from import controls. In a moment, I shall say why I believe that the imposition of import controls could adversely affect the carpet industry in West Yorkshire. We are a country that lives by its trade. If we start on that path, we shall be the losers in the long term.
  The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) referred to the question of restoring regional grants. I agree that there is a case for refining the system. Few would argue that there are not places within Kirklees or Calderdale—which have textile industries—which are worse off in many ways than places in Bradford, which benefit and will continue to benefit from the regional grant system. The system is a blunt weapon which contains many anomalies. Under the previous system, 40 per cent. of the country took advantage of the grants and relatively few people were any better off. That was a blunter instrument and one that we do not wish to see again.

  421
  I have spoken of the differences that divide the House. On the whole, we agree on far more. I see that the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) is in the Chamber. When this matter was last debated in the House, we heard an impressive speech from the hon. Gentleman. He referred to nine developments that he believed would help the industry. Conservative Members would agree with most of those proposals. Today, I also received the letter from my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that has been referred to in the debate. We recognise his problems, but I am sure that I speak for all my colleagues when I say that the letter was a cause of considerable disappointment.
  We should like a clear statement of intent about preliminary negotiations on the multi-fibre arrangement. We have been told that that desire is premature, but most of us feel that the industry looks to the Government for an indication of their determination to renegotiate the munlti-fibre arrangement. We often hear the plea from the Government that they cannot give a firm statement, and it is difficult to understand why that commitment cannot be entered into.
  I refer to the contraction that has taken place in the industry. In my constituency of Brighouse and Spenborough, we are relatively fortunate in that it has taken place over a much longer period than in many other parts of West Yorkshire. Looking at photographs of the industrial scenery 20 or 30 years ago, one sees Brighouse, Cleckheaton and Heckmondwike alive with mill chimneys. Most of those have now gone and we are left with relatively few firms in that industry, many of which are in the carpet trade. Several of those old buildings are used by engineering firms and entrepreneurs have set up small companies, seven or eight of which frequently occupy space that would have been taken up by one textile company. It is an excellent example of redeployment. These firms are providing employment, and we should not fight such changes.
  Last weekend I visited one such firm and was interested to hear that, in spite of the present depressing outlook, this firm, like many others, has more business than it can cope with. I welcome the fact that so many small businesses are stepping into the breach, but I am afraid
  422
  that they could not span the enormous gap that would be left by the total loss of this industry, which is gravely threatened at present.
  The textile industry can be compared to an animal. It is not just one industry but many, which can be taken to be the limbs of the animal. There are two ways in which it can die. It can be wounded again and again, until, through loss of blood, it simply collapses, or the total loss of certain limbs might completely cripple the whole creature—and that is more likely at present. The activities—the limbs—within the textile industry are closely interrelated. I have already referred to the loss of scouring, and that would bring about inevitable reactions in other areas of the textile world.
  I wish to conclude with one or two detailed words about the carpet industry, which, as I explained, is important for my constituency. It will be looking closely at the results of the meetings held in Europe today. We have heard reference to dual pricing and imports from the United States. United States manufacturers of tufted carpets can buy their raw materials for 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. less than our producers. They have a further advantage in that, because of economies of scale—the sort of yardage with which they are dealing—their labour unit costs are low. Even after paying import duties to Britain, they are able to export carpets to this country at £1 a square yard less than the price at which our manufacturers can produce carpets. If the Americans are not prepared to change their tune, I hope that the European Community will take a firm line and that countervailing duties will be imposed.
  Today I spoke to the director of a long-established company—Firth Carpets—in my constituency. He explained to me that whereas in the past at this time of year there has been an upturn in the industry, this year, almost for the first time, there has not. That is very much the message coming from other carpet manufacturers. Profits are down and a large part of the industry is not working full-time, or is shedding labour.
  It is interesting to note that the more expensive part of the carpet industry, the Wilton and Axminster trade, is doing far better than the cheaper, tufted carpets. This, again, points to the dangers represented by American imports. People

  423
  working in the industry are well aware of how other home markets have been overcome by imports—I think here of the motor industry—which gradually increase until eventually the home industry is threatened.
  There is a danger to the carpet industry from import controls. The carpet industry depends on imports of continuous filament nylon. If we were to take unilateral action against, say, American imports of raw materials, which can be obtained 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. cheaper than from home producers, it could be the death blow to tufted, synthetic carpets in Britain. If such imports were stopped, it would be detrimental to the industry. We must take a broad view before rushing into precipitate action here.
  Mr. John Watson: I have listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) and concur with what he said up to the present. I did not follow his last point. Is he saying that the purpose of import controls would be to increase the price of imported raw materials and that that would inevitably damage the domestic market? If that is so, that does not seem to follow.
  Mr. Waller: I believe that if our home manufacturers had to pay an even higher price for raw materials they would be in a poorer position to compete. That is one reason, among many others, why I would prefer joint action with our European partners rather than unilateral action on our own behalf, which might, in the long run, be more damaging.
  President Carter recently told the American people that the United States textile industry was not negotiable and that under no circumstances would that industry be allowed to die. The most encouraging news that our industry could receive would be an unequivocal statement from one of our Ministers—preferably the Prime Minister—that the same applies here. We need to be told that in 10, 20 or 30 years we shall still have a viable textile industry. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, I hope that we shall hear some news that indicates that we are at least pointing in the right direction.
  10.7pm
  Mr. Frank R. White: I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons), who were successful in initiating this debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Certainly the textile industry and illegal and unfair imports go together. I apologise for not having been present all evening. Indeed, after my contribution I shall have to return to the Standing Committee on the British Aerospace Bill. I apologise to the Minister for that, but I shall read his comments with interest.
  It appears to me that we have been here before. I entered the House in October 1974 and in almost every debate on textiles since then I have managed to make a contribution. The same problems exist, despite assurances and statements of good intentions.
  I take issue with the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller), who spoke about the unnecessary proposition of putting money into the industry. If he went back to his constituency and talked to management, unions and men, he would learn that the one thing they would gladly welcome back would be the Labour Party's temporary employment subsidy. That subsidy was given during a period of depression in the textile industry. When we had the temporary employment subsidy, we could at least see an end to the recession and some light at the end of the tunnel, but the present mood of the industry is one of utter dejection.
  Since August this year, there have been 6,250 redundancies in the spinning and weaving industries. In addition, about 2,000 workers are engaged in short-time working. We are experiencing severe problems caused by imports from America—imports arising from the dual pricing policies which subsidise energy and feed-stock, which are used to produce synthetic fibres and other products.
  In my constituency, only this month Kirklees mill, in Tottington—a mill that had fought off South Korean, Japanese, Hong Kong and Taiwan imports and, indeed, those from everywhere east of Wigan—announced that it would close. Why? It is because over the hill comes John Wayne and the cowboys. As a result, this mill has served 90 days' notice

  425
  that it will close and the workers will be made redundant.
  On 19 November, the EEC Council of Ministers decided to hold formal discussions with the United States to talk about these damaging effects. This does not go far enough. The case has been proved and the Community should act now by imposing an immediate countervailing levy. Discussions take too long; action is required. To put it the American way, we do not want to be short on action and long on discussions.
  A further problem facing the industry is that of outward processing—the export of cloth to an underdeveloped country to be made up. It is then reimported into the EEC. This is damaging and must not be allowed to continue into 1980. It is a straight export of jobs from the United Kingdom.
  We in the all-party group urge the Government to give a firm commitment to renegotiate the multi-fibre arrangement during 1982 on more stringent terms. If the Minister would give us a statement along those lines tonight, it would do as much as anything to restore a degree of confidence to the industry. Under the current MFA, provision is made for a 6 per cent. growth in the volume of imports each year. We all know that at present domestic consumption is increasing at a much lower rate than 6 per cent. This has the net effect of simply increasing import penetration.
  The new MFA should have a recession clause incorporated in its terms. That would allow the importing country to suspend or reduce quota allocations. It is absolutely hypocritical and preposterous to expect a depressed home market to accept increasing numbers of imports of foreign goods, disproportionate to the home market consumption.
  I believe also that the new MFA should include a social clause under which it would be a condition of the exporting country that it should provide decent terms and conditions of employment for its workpeople. How can we compete when textile operatives in some Third world countries are earning only £6 a week for a 50-hour week and working 51 weeks a year? We cannot possibly compete with those labour costs. Let us make it quite clear that no one in the North-West or in Yorkshire would deny workers in the underprivileged countries
  426
  the right of a decent wage. When the American civil war was raging, the Lancashire spinners refused to spin slave-picked cotton.
  During the civil disturbances in India, Gandhi banned Indian cotton exports and put our people out of work. But the textile workers of Lancashire lined the streets and clapped when he came to Lancashire. Our record of humanitarianism for Third world countries goes back generations. We believe that if we are really concerned about passing some of our prosperity and maybe some of our jobs to some under-privileged people, it is not only jobs but the conditions, the environment and the working wage that should go to them as well and not simply to a few textile barons.
  Between now and the next MFA, the Commission must stop retreating from principles which are incorporated in the present arrangement. It must be prepared to act decisively against unfair trading. Hon. Members could cite many examples of quotas which have been exceeded. The United Kingdom Government and the Commission should consider imposing sanctions in the form of cancelling quotas from those countries when these abuses have been deliberate.
  There must also be greater control on free circulation. As hon. Members know, this is the way in which low-cost imports are able to pass from one EEC country to another. The Government should support the argument that imports from Mediterranean countries should be subject to controls on free circulation despite any possible argument by the Commission that such action would not be legal.
  A disturbing event took place when the EEC reached agreement with China in July this year which brought about breaches in the global ceilings of seven of the eight most sensitive categories of imports. It appears that China plans to double its textile output by the 1990s. It will be looking for a market for these goods in exchange for capital equipment. Assurances are needed that the textile industry of this country will not be sacrificed further to take an increased share of Chinese textiles in return for capital goods exported to that country.
  A matter of great concern is the Mediterranean associate countries. Restraint agreements have been reached with Malta

  427
  and Cyprus in breach of the global ceilings on the most sensitive products. The agreements are at the highest level of penetration yet achieved. Portugal has been allowed to increase its shipments in 1979. In addition, Greece and Spain have been given authority to export larger quantities than have been agreed.
  An example of how reluctant is the Community to act is the case of Turkish cotton yarn. The ceiling for Turkey was 2,940 tonnes, yet by September of this year imports of cotton yarn from Turkey were 4,835 tonnes. It took the Commission six months to act on the matter despite assurances given in April this year that it would act promptly to avoid disruption. What is the definition of disruption? Twenty-four factories have closed down since April. I have mentioned that over 6,000 jobs have been lost.
  Last week in my constituency, the Mule Spinners Union, a union that had been operating for 150 years, closed down. It closed because there were only 14 spinning mules left in Lancashire. They were being exported to a museum in Belgium. I accept that technology has done away with the mule and made it redundant, but the men who last week closed down those mules were no nearer to seeing a future for the industry than were their 50,000 colleagues who in 1918 came back from the bloody trenches of the Somme and Ypres and started the Lancashire mules in 1918 to spin a land fit for heroes. Less than 30 per cent. of that industry is now left. Those people last week were no nearer seeing a future for the textile industry than were their predecessors in 1918. "We shall avoid disruption"! Deeds are not matching words. These are hollow words from hollow men who apparently buy their suits in Taiwan.
  As I have tried to illustrate, and as other hon. Members will further illustrate, 1979 has been a year of contraction in the textile industry—lost jobs, lost factories, lost opportunities. That is not because we are uncompetitive. The majority of the industry that remains is highly invested and productive and it has excellent industrial relations. Carrington Vyella has a spinning unit in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) and a weaving unit in my constituency. Those two units are the most efficient and modern in
  428
  Europe and in terms of output can rival the world. That is no exaggeration. Yet those two units are under pressure.
  What other industry in the past 10 years has lost 263,000 jobs? It has negotiated and faced with fortitude and resolution the reform of the industry to meet the challenge of Third world countries. We do not deny any country the right to become industrialised and to develop a textile industry. All we ask is that the Government define what the British textile industry should be in size and volume and give it some support. We ask not for money but for action.
  The next decade had better be better than the 1970s for the textile industry, otherwise there will be no industry left. The 1980s were prophesied to be the decade of the microchip. Chips will not clothe people. If we support the textile industry, it will do so.
  10.22 p.m.
  Mr. D. A. Trippier: I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) on his good fortune in being drawn in the ballot and instigating this debate. I am grateful to him for leaving the wording of the subject in the terms of the textile industry instead of the woollen textile industry, because it allows me to speak about cotton, as the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) has done.
  I think that I can claim a slightly closer relationship with West Yorkshire than my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale), because from the borders of my constituency I can see the barbed wire that divides Lancashire and West Yorkshire. Many of my constituents cross that barbed wire on occasions to work in West Yorkshire, and people from West Yorkshire cross it to work in Rosendale.
  In this cross-party debate, many hon. Members have made clear that there is great dissatisfaction in the textile industry. The Secretary of State for Industry, the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and the Secretary of State for Trade and his junior Ministers could hardly be unaware of the fact, because there have been several lobbies and they have already met several delegations and undoubtedly had thousands of letters from all over the country from people who are concerned about the future of the industry.

  429
  In a sense, I am a little sad that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry will be responding to the debate—I said that five weeks ago in the textile debate—because much of what has been raised in this debate concerns trade, not specifically industry. But, having said that, and as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows that I have a high regard for him, I welcome the fact that he is to reply to the debate, because he has great knowledge of the textile industry. Indeed, he visited my constituency recently, so he is familiar with the problems that we face.
  I refer to the reluctance of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and his hon. Friend the Minister for Trade in seemingly not wishing to mention that horrifying term "multi-fibre arrangement". I thought that we had overcome that problem in the debate on textiles five weeks ago, but seemingly that is not so. Yesterday, in answer to my parliamentary question, we heard reference to orderly marketing procedures. It is not good enough because, psychologically, the use of the term "orderly marketing" instead of "multi-fibre arrangement" is having a drastic effect on the cotton and wool industries. Those industries believe that there is something sinister in the way that my right hon. Friend is avoiding using that term. I hope that we can clear the matter once and for all when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry replies.
  I listened carefully to the point that was made yesterday at Question Time by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). He asked whether the Minister for Trade was aware that, as the multi-fibre arrangement had to be renegotiated in 1981 and the bilaterals the year after, and as we were so near to the beginning of 1980, we had better start weaving immediately. That is probably the most opportune word that I could use in the debate. Work should begin on 1 January 1980, because time is running out.
  Seemingly, however, my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade does not accept that there is great urgency in the matter. In his reply to my question, he referred to today's meeting—which is the reason why he is not in the Chamber this evening—and said:
  430
  "I will be attending the Council, and will ensure that our interests are taken into account in the discussions on the action to be taken."—[Official Report, 17 December 1979; Vol. 976, c. 21.]
  All hon. Members know very well that my hon. Friend is a good politician by any standard. If he had really written the answer to that question and it was his and his alone, he would have said that he would fight for our interests and not merely take them into account. That is what the House is asking for in the debate—a more aggressive attitude on the part of Government spokesmen when they bang the drum or table when speaking to the Council of Ministers in Brussels or wherever. I, like other hon. Members, will be interested to see what has transpired at the meeting that my hon. Friend has attended today.
  I was genuinely sorry that my hon. Friend was pilloried during Question Time yesterday by questions from both sides of the House. I say that quite genuinely, because I hold him in high esteem and have great respect for him. Even though he must have felt discomforted, that would be nothing compared to the discomfort that will be felt by the work force in my constituency and other constituencies throughout West Yorkshire if many more people are laid off. People will be laid off in my constituency who work for the Loveclough Printing Company, whose workers are represented by the general secretary of the Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers Union. That will be a sad day indeed.
  My hon. Friend should be congratulated on the many things that he has done. First, he has implemented the basket extractor mechanism—which has not been mentioned so far in the debate—no fewer than 11 times. I understand that at the meeting of the Council of Ministers on20 November he was effective in banging the table. He made it perfectly clear that under GATT the European Commission was not prepared to put up with the unfair import competition through the dual pricing policy as propounded by the United States. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) gave me that fact. With great respect to my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, his press relations for meetings of that sort could be better. I do not blame him for this. However,

  431
  I blame someone within his Department. The information is not filtering through. Hon. Members should not have to go to enormous lengths to obtain it.
  On previous occasions I have referred to the unfair import competition that is coming from America. It is a relatively new factor. In the past we have thought of unfair competition as coming from Third world countries and underdeveloped countries. We are now facing dual pricing. I cannot imagine that there has ever been a time when the textile industry has been so threatened. Probably that is why so many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
  United States dual pricing means that there are artificially low prices. The EEC now accepts the textile industry's case that there is a breach of international trade rules, but, as the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West said, from 20 November to today nothing has been done. There has to be a greater sense of urgency. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade reads the report of the debate when he returns—he is responsible for many of the negotiations—he will realise that the situation is extremely serious.
  There is a feeling in the textile industry that the future is uncertain. For as long as that feeling prevails, no one in his right mind, whether in West Yorkshire, Lancashire or elsewhere, will apply for a job in the industry. No one in his right mind will take a job in which there is no security. Today my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has the opportunity to give us all the confidence that we need. He has the opportunity of injecting confidence into the industry as a whole. I sincerely hope that he does just that.
  10.33 pm
  Mr. K. J. Woolmer: The debate is formally about industry assistance schemes. One of the remarkable features was the good value for money that we obtained from the wool textile industry schemes. For a mere £30 million, an additional £100 million was invested in the wool textile industry. If other industries that have sought and seek Government assistance could ask for only £30 million and provide the export and productivity performance of the wool tex-
  432
  tile industry, we should all be extremely pleased.
  One of the reasons why we are debating the wool textile trade is that, despite the industry schemes and the hopes that were expressed when the schemes were introduced, optimism has proved to be misplaced. I shall quote what was said two years ago, when the wool textile industry scheme was being evaluated. It was said:
  "Though market conditions have been un favourable in the recent past, despite this there are clear signs that modernisation has enabled companies to widen their markets and to compete in higher quality markets and so on."
  It was hoped and expected that the multi-fibre arrangement would
  "help to stabilise import penetration into the United Kingdom."
  The truth, as many hon. Members have said, is that those hopes of a mere two years ago have proved ill founded.
  We had a period of stability in 1977–78, but since then we have seen a considerable decline. In West Yorkshire, when the industry was reviewed thoroughly in 1969, the report of the review—the Atkins report—was reporting on an industry which had more than 140,000 workers. Today, the industry in my county has fewer than 60,000 employed. That is a reduction of more than 70,000 employees in one industry in one county.
  If such a reduction were suggested today—as it has been, to my great regret, in the steel industry—there would be up-roar and concern in the nation. But in West Yorkshire the industry has suffered a halving of employment in each decade over the past 20 years.
  Our problems come from all quarters. It has been said tonight that we have a fine all-party approach in the Chamber. and with my colleagues from Bradford I agree that such an all-party approach should be followed as far as possible. But I am bound to say that when that all-party approach fails to penetrate the Front Benches, sooner or later it will be increasingly difficult to attempt to pursue what I believe always to be the right and reasonable course.
  The serious job loss which is occurring is causing intense worry and now, I believe, a feeling of betrayal and frustration among the workers in the industry. I appreciate that hon. Members know this to be so, but it cannot be said too often

  433
  that, whatever might be thought of another redundancy or another closure resulting from another month of getting nowhere in negotiations, each redundancy means another worker on the dole. If we ourselves were being put out of work because the EEC Commission ground very slowly, we should be extremely angry.
  I pay tribute to the trade union leaders and to some of the leaders of the industry for the work which they are trying to do. The workersinvolved—who, after all, are the ones who bear the brunt of redundancies—often do not know of the efforts being made on their behalf, and I think that tribute should always be paid for work which we know is being done. That having been said, however, hard work and perseverance are no substitute for action, as has already been said.
  One of the remarkable features of events over the past few months has been the willingness in West Yorkshire of all parties in the industry—the employers and trade unions, the clothing side and the woollen textile side—the local authorities, the Members of Parliament and the European Members of Parliament to come together and work together for the good of the industry.
  In Bradford today, what I believe to be a unique meeting has taken place. Representatives of all those bodies and interests—both sides of industry, local government, British government and European government—have met in what is called the Wool Textile and Clothing Action Committee to consider a united front in the West Yorkshire area in the interests of the wool and clothing industries. I shall come later to one or two of the matters which are most immediately in their minds.
  I turn, first, to some of the issues which we raised only a few weeks ago and on which we seem to be getting no further. As regards the carpet industry, I shall not go into detail because it has been touched on already, but what is clear to the workers in the industry is that talks in Britain, talks in Brussels and now talks between Brussels and Washington are no good at all if carpet factories are closing week by week.
  The West Yorkshire carpet factories are closing or declaring redundancies weekly. If no action is taken, very soon there will
  434
  be no carpet industry left. We are now down to a few thousand workers. If nothing is done soon, that industry will no longer be there to protect. I understand that TUC officials are meeting Common Market officials on Friday. My suspicion is that they will get no further than the Minister did in his discussions today.
  I refer next to the Prato affair. After many months—indeed, years—of argument, the Government referred the matter to the Commission in January or February this year Since then, the investigations have been grinding their usual slow progress through what I assume must be the usual channels. Officials from the EEC eventually visited Bradford last week. It took from January or February until December for the EEC Commission actually to come to my county to see what we were talking about. In that time further redundancies have taken place. Those officials will return to Brussels and report back. That will take a bit longer. They will then consider what to do and eventually report to the Ministers, who will discuss the matter. In the absence of a ministerial assurance, I know that it will be many months before a decision is taken. I shall return to the implications of that.
  There have been complaints about Italian wool competition. Wool scouring was referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller). Here is another disappointment. The previous Government investigated the matter and came to the same conclusion. One section of the letter we received said that the EEC did not regard it as its duty to comment or intervene on different charging practices for trade effluent. In other words, the Commission was prepared to sanction unfair competition when it suited the EEC. But when we talk about unfair competition as it affects us, the EEC Commission appears to be unwilling to take action.
  Next I come to the question of outward processing, which is a serious matter. If we export the making of cloth to third countries, eventually the cloth production will go there. Then the spinning will go there. We shall be left with no industry. I refer to employers' hypocrisy over discussions and negotiations. Many producers are setting up assembly operations in third countries. Some employers in the EEC, especially in our country, are

  435
  exporting jobs to other countries. They are able to retain their profits. It does not matter to a business man whether he makes his profits in Brazil or in Yorkshire, but it makes a difference to the workers in my constituency. Outward processing means a loss of jobs to Britain. It does not mean a loss of jobs to the producers, who are getting their cake and eating it. It is the workers who are affected.
  The same is true in terms of imports of suits. Many importing firms are the erstwhile producers of suits. The greatest difficulty in the discussions is to persuade some of our producers to clamp down on the imports of cheap cloth and suits from other countries, because those producers are engaged in the trade. I shall come to Portugal and Greece later. It is well known and understood that in Portugal there is heavy investment in the wool textile trade. There is machinery there ready to produce at considerable capacity, and those products will be ready to come into the EEC market.
  Who is investing the capital in those units? It is the textile producers within the EEC. We must, and do, recognise in this House that there is always likely to be a conflict of interest between producers and workers in the industry in any country. I am concerned that on occasions the producers and the employers are somewhat divided on the merits and demerits of particular policies.
  We heard earlier that carpet producers favour the import of cheap materials but want a ban on the importation of cheap carpets. The spinners, of course, do not want cheap materials imported. Some employers and producers want protection for their section of the industry but would deny protection to other parts of the industry. From the workers' point of view, it is six of one and half a dozen of the other.
  When the Minister replies, I should like him to touch on a specific matter—that is, the question of the control of import documentation procedures as they apply in this country. In my discussions with the chamber of commerce and industry in Leeds, I find that it has examined the matter in considerable detail. In its report, which I shall be forwarding to the Minister, it set out as clearly as possible, bearing in mind the
  436
  unwillingness of people to reveal the names of who is doing precisely what, that the controls of import documentation as to certificate of origin are simply not being applied on imports from the EEC.
  It is widely rumoured and, I suggest, widely known in the industry that textile goods are coming into the EEC from outside the Community and getting into this country by free circulation as a way round quota regulations. The practice is said in the trade to be so widespread that, unless the trade is foolish and does not know what it is talking about—I do not believe that the Minister would suggest that that is so in this case of any sensible, hard-headed business man—the matter should be investigated.
  The Leeds chamber of commerce went as far as to say—and in this time of cutting back on the work of bureaucrats and civil servants it is a remarkable thing to have said:
  "Chambers of commerce believe in the reduction of documentation required for overseas trade. It would go against the grain for them to argue for the introduction of proof of origin for imports into the United Kingdom from EEC sources. Nevertheless the Chamber of commerce want more bureaucrats. They actually want more people for this work."
  I ask the Minister to indicate a view on this issue when he replies. The Irish, the French and the Italians have increased the number of bureaucrats for textile products, and the chamber of commerce believes that this country has no choice but to follow suit if a true picture of import penetration is to be built up and action taken when agreed levels of imports are raised.
  Is the Minister prepared to ensure that our import regulations, in terms of certification of origin, are fully and properly put into operation? Is there a proper unit in the Departments of Industry and Trade to monitor and control unfair import penetration from within the EEC? I ask that because the feeling in Yorkshire is that, whether we are dealing with the MFA, carpets, wool scouring or Prato, it is not good enough that Britain should continually have to say that the issue is stuck in Brussels. Time and time again we are told that the British Government would like to take action but that they cannot do so because the matter has been referred to Brussels and agreement is required throughout the EEC.

  437
  Everybody else ignores the rules while we play the game by the rules. Some months ago, I said that we played by the rules of cricket while everyone else played the game by rugby league rules. I think that we are playing by croquet rules while everybody else is playing by rugby league rules. We should use the same ingenuity to find ways of protecting jobs and creating real productive wealth as is used in the City of London for tax avoidance and the creation of paper fortunes.
  Incredible ingenuity is involved in creating fortunes through abstruse schemes to drive wedges through tax legislation and take advantage of loopholes. The Germans, French and Italians use the same ingenuity in the EEC for their industries. We play by the rules of the game with a straight bat and a stiff lip while our industry goes down the drain.
  Will there be a renewal of the MFA on no less favourable terms than at present? If the Minister will not give that assurance, we must have a clear explanation. Will he please say that consultations will begin on the new MFA in January? If he will not give that assurance, will he say why not? He was asked by the TUC's textile, clothing and footwear industries committee on 29 October for that assurance. That was two months ago.
  May we also have an assurance that the short-time working compensation scheme will be continued after 31 March, when it is due to expire? It has been said that we want not money but action. I suggest that unless the scheme is continued after 31 March many more thousands of workers will lose their jobs. In West Yorkshire, between 7,000 and 10,000 more workers could lose their jobs. An early statement should be made.
  It is neither fair nor reasonable for employers and workers to be kept waiting until the last week or month before they know whether the scheme is to continue. If we were all officially on short-time, ready to be declared redundant in March, we would be demanding to know now whether the scheme will be retained.
  The foreign exchange rate for sterling is a real problem. It is not enough for us in this Chamber to complain about the problem of a 20 per cent. difference in American feedstock prices and the drastic effect that that has on the carpet
  438
  industry if we then pretend that a 20 per cent. change in the exchange rate has no effect. Of course, it is having an effect. The high value of sterling—bolstered largely not by our manufacturing competitiveness but by the hoped-for value of North Sea oil—is causing severe problems for manufacturing industry. It is common sense that a 15 to 20 per cent. improvement in the value of sterling must have an effect upon the import and export competitiveness of our industry. It is of paramount importance to our manufacturing industry that the exchange rate of sterling should, in a controlled manner, be brought to a level that reflects our manufacturing industry's competitiveness and not our North Sea reserves.
  The minimum lending rate is causing severe problems. Having listened to everything that has been said in the debate so far, I have been extremely surprised not to hear Conservative Members complain about the 17 per cent. minimum lending rate and the borrowing rate of over 20 per cent. for industry. In the textile trade credit is very important, and this high rate is causing severe problems concerning working capital for financing the movement of materials and also in terms of investment.
  My discussions with industry generally have indicated that a widespread postponement of investment decisions is now occurring and that there will be a significant slump in investment in manufacturing industry in two or three months' time as the figures come through. Minimum lending rate must be brought down, and brought down quickly. As always, it is the small firms which are getting squeezed.
  The industry requires two things. First, there should be a statement from the Government on what they see as the future of the industry. We cannot go on from hand to mouth from week to week, from month to month and from year to year without knowing whether the Government of the day have faith in the future of the industry.
  Second, and most immediately, we need not only to talk about multi-fibre arrangements, wool scouring, carpets and so on. We would all be more than satisfied if we were told by the Minister in his reply tonight that he and his colleagues are determined to act in the next few weeks in the interests of our British industry and to find regulations which can

  439
  be used in our interests, as suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) and by the trade unions in the industry.
  I am sure that there are all kinds of clauses in the MFA, the EEC regulations and GATT which, if there were the will to identify them, could be used in the interests of our British industry and our British workers. We should like to have a clear statement from the Government tonight that, operating within the rules of international agreements, they will seek to use those rules speedily in our interests, in weeks and not in months and years. We ask them to try to find the loopholes to protect our industry. If they would do that, I accept that it would be perfectly reasonable for the Government to come back in a month or two and explain to us how those loopholes and regulations can be used in our interest. I should like a statement as to whether the Government are examining the treaties to find the methods whereby, perfectly legally, we can protect our industry.
  This is an important debate. In my county area, the industry accounts for between 50,000 and 60,000 jobs. Less than 10 years ago, that figure was 70,000. No one wants to come here in 10 years' time and say that yet more mills have gone and that, in effect, communities have been swept aside in the name of EEC diplomacy that has sold the textile trade down the river for the sake of wider Common Market designs on political influence throughout the world.
  11.1 pm
  Mr. Donald Thompson: I shall not repeat many of the points that have been made so ably from both sides of the House. However, I reserve the right to cobble my answers to correspondence and for press releases from those speeches.
  Last week, some of my constituents in Sowerby lost their jobs when a textile firm closed, and others are on short time. Let no one minimise the tragedy of events such as that, but I should like to pay my respect to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the help that he has given, and is currently giving me, with various textile problems in Sowerby.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Has he created many jobs?
  Mr. Thompson: Not all those problems are problems of recession. It is only fair to say that many textile firms are buoyant and expanding. Many textile firms are exporting well and are busy. Many cannot find skilled machinists to take on the work that is flowing into their factories. We in this House ought not to delight in talking down this great industry, because many people in the industry are frightened that we shall talk it into a decline.
  Other hon. Members have spoken, as I did on 13 November, about unfair competition. They have spoken about things such as outward processing, a problem that was well pinpointed by Lord Rhodes in another place and by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) tonight, when they both described it as "exporting jobs". Many hon. Members—this will be my main point, and almost my only point—have called for a renegotiation of the multi-fibre arrangement. They forget the history of that arrangement. They forget that it was negotiated in 1974 under the GATT framework in an optimistic spirit. Then, we were looking for consensus and ont confrontation.
  To my mind, the key point of that arrangement was the 6 per cent. increase per annum of imports into this country. That is not what we want now. At that rate, by 1990 there will be no textile industry in this country. We do not simply want 10 years in which to wind up. The MFA is an importer's dream. Its renegotiation during 1977 was based on a series of hasty, bilateral arrangements and always depended on what the Commission in those days called "a hyper-sophisticated, statistical set-up".
  That set-up, even now, does not exist. The Minister must do better than the present MFA. We have at least 25 separate agreements with different countries of various degrees of effectiveness. Surely a better marketing policy is what we are looking for, not a renegotiation of the same leaky net which allows to Portugal, Greece and others the unfair competition about which we have heard against this country.
  We want another set of agreements that make, for instance, the Eastern bloc responsible for its own dumping. The Minister has told us that he is seeking orderly marketing arrangements. Perhaps

  441
  he should take note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier) said and call it "MFA Mark II". Then, at least, there would be some confidence.
  The agreements will be welcomed by my constituents who live by exporting, especially those who do not export textiles. Many of those people fear a purely protectionist lobby. They also fear the renewed threat of their jobs being stolen by other regions in the country where industries are in steep decline. Too often in the past, their jobs have been stolen and taken, dare I say, to Wales, New-castle and Liverpool when West Yorkshire should have been expanding. They fear that public expenditure will not be cut back far enough to allow industry to breathe. West Yorkshire is still strong, but it must receive fair play. It looks to the Government for that fair play.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member, I should tell the House that some hon. Members who are now serving on a Standing Committee have indicated to me that they will seek to catch my eye in the debate. I say that in case hon. Members feel that it is unfair when an hon. Member walks into the Chamber and is called to speak shortly after his arrival.
  11.6 pm
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: There has been so much worthwhile comment and expertise in the Chamber tonight, not only on the broad sweep of the canvas but also on the minutiae and detail of the problems that face the textile industry, that I cannot hope to go over the ground that many hon. Members have covered with so much knowledge and understanding.
  However, I should like to put a different slant on the debate by trying to look at the textile industry as part of the total economic picture of the country. To do so is realistic. The textile industry does not exist of itself but exists within the national economy. We must understand its general as well as its specific problems. There is tremendous pressure on all our manufacturing industry.
  I believe that the House is becoming perilously close to the breakdown of any all-party agreement on the textile industry because of the Government's attitude on
  442
  the broad industrial strategies which they are pursuing. Those strategies hurt, harm, injure and destroy many industries—whether they are steel or textile industries. The Government's beliefs and philosophy mean that for many areas Government aid for industry no longer exists. Regional policies have been swept away and there is no positive side to industrial strategy. There is merely the negative belief that all industry must look after itself and compete in a free enterprise system.
  The Government believe that all industries must decline inevitably and that if they decline they deserve no help. In the West Riding or in South Wales—which, Mr. Speaker, I know that you hold close to your heart—industries have declined and towns have been destroyed overnight in terms of future prospects and the lives of individuals on the dramatic scale that we have seen in Corby and Shotton. I believe that the Government's attitude will have the same effect on the textile industry, only a little more slowly.
  When Conservative Members talk about industry, they appear to take a negative attitude that we do not understand. The policies of the Labour Government were positive and gave management and workers a belief in the future of industrial production in this country.
  The steel industry is a parallel example. The Labour Government would not countenance closures in the steel industry at Ebbw Vale unless they were previously agreed between management and workers. That is quite different from the closures introduced by this Government. We accepted closures only when there was agreement, and, as part of positive government, we then introduced investment at a high level in the infrastructure of Ebbw Vale and other areas affected. At Ebbw Vale the figure was £40 million.
  Mr. Walter: The hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting that we should support declining industries indefinitely. If he is saying that, the implications are that money that should be spent on new investment in industries that can prosper and develop is being thrown away in propping up declining industries. I do not believe that the textile industry should be put in that category, but the hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that we should prop up any declining industry ad infinitum.
  Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands my point. We should not support declining industries for ever and a day, but we should have compassion and look to the future. We should help to transform declining industries and towns so that they grow again. Government is about compassion and the representation of citizens in need, in both the long and short terms.
  I have given the more dramatic example of the steel industry to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the textile industry faces similar problems. We all understand the decline that has taken place since 1945 and perhaps before. On this side of the House, we believe that the Government must act positively to help to tackle the problems and not merely offer consolation.
  A careful analysis of the reasons for the decline of the textile industry must concentrate on purchasing patterns. When considering the present purchasing patterns in this country, I am reminded of what I think of as that very poor novel "The Tribe that Lost its Head". I do not believe in compulsory import controls introduced by a Government in a heavy-handed manner.
  I believe that our colleagues in France, Belgium and Germany understand our position when they look at our consumption patterns, which are so different from those in our competitor countries. It is about time that we realized that the consumption patterns of our fellow countrymen pay little regard to the long-term interests of us all.
  One of my constituents came to see me recently and expressed great concern that his daughter could not find work. It is no comfort to a 16-year-old lass leaving school to have no prospect of employment. This is one aspect of employment in Huddersfield that is on my mind: unemployment among young girls is twice as high as among young men. The reason for this is the declining textile industry, which has traditionally provided jobs for girls leaving school. Many have gone into the mending side of the industry, but now, in order to cut costs, many producers are sending mending out to out-workers, who do it at cheap rates.
  It is not only the textile industry that is declining. Large shops are employing fewer people. The youth employment ser-
  444
  vice reminded me last week of a local shop which once employed 25 young girls as shop assistants. Now, it employs only three supervisors full-time. Everyone else works part-time. So, once again, there are no jobs there for school leavers.
  The gentleman who came to see me about his daughter had parked a V-registration Japanese car outside. I pointed out to him that there was something that we could do about our own consumption patterns; there was a relationship between that car standing outside and the problems facing his daughter and other youngsters in the job market. We sometimes underrate the fact that many of our competitors have considerable national concern. It was once called nationalism—the identity one feels in belonging to a nation. That kind of latent nationalism, which once manifested itself in an abhorrent way during the war, now lingers on in the form of consumption patterns. It is very difficult to sell British goods in Japan, France or Germany, but it is easy to sell foreign goods in our stores. Many hon. Members might care to stroll down Oxford Street—if they can stroll in this pre-Christmas shopping bonanza—and they would see the great stores where the counters are crowded with buyers eager for foreign goods.
  Most hon. Members have discussed detailed figures and the problems of import control. I should like to stress that the purchasing patterns pursued by British folk are a great danger to our future. You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that a cloud lies over the steel towns of Llanwern and Port Talbot. Those great steelworks produce castings. But this country now produces so few cars that communities hundreds of miles away from car manufacturing plants are feeling the cold wind of unemployment and a bleak future.
  I do not wish to adopt a jingoist approach or to suggest that by rushing around the country and saying that if one follows the flag and buys British all will be well. But it is the responsibility of hon. Members on both sides of the House to lead and educate public opinion. It is our duty to emphasise that faith in products manufactured by our own people is vitally important.
  I should like to turn to what I term the Consumers Association syndrome. Hon.

  445
  Members representing textile areas have been annoyed by a recent publication of the Consumers Association which suggested that consumers would be even better off without such guarantees as the multi-fibre arrangement or the agreement reached in terms of complex international trade with the rest of the world. The association argues naively that the British man and woman would have a better deal if there were no controls and if imports were allowed of as many cheap, dumped products as we could lay our hands on. I shall not use the language that I had intended. I merely observe that it is an armchair critic's attitude to consumption that one looks around the market, investigates, reads the best journals and takes the best buy regardless of where the product is made and regardless of those who gain employment by the purchase.
  It worries me a great deal that we take less notice of the effect of our consumption on the jobs of our fellows than we take of the argument that only buying the best will teach British manufacturers to be more efficient and more competitive and that in the end all of us will be better off. That is false logic. It is logic that will destroy the British textile industry and the British car industry and at the end of the day make all of us poorer.
  Many hon. Members represent constituencies such as mine. My predecessor said that those living in Huddersfield worked in chemicals, textiles and engineering. Those were the three main employers. Now, we also have the administrative and service industries. They do not produce anything. That is unusual in my constituency. It is a relatively new growth area. People in service industries do not produce anything for their fellow citizens to consume or for people abroad to buy.
  Huddersfield and West Yorkshire are exporting communities. That is the message that I hope the Government Front Bench will get tonight. First and foremost, we are exporting and manufacturing communities. Secondly, we have our share of service industries. In a sense, people in service industries live parasitically on the manufacturers—those who make the cars, the steel and the textiles. It worries me that such people can sit in their armchairs and say "We are going to buy whatever is best, whether it be from Japan, Belgium or Hong Kong." If we do not provide each other with jobs,
  446
  a bleak future will face all of us, whether in the manufacturing industries or not.
  I agree with many of my hon. Friends who have talked about the weakness of import control of another kind. Last week I was talking to an Italian manufacturer about the EEC regulations on slaughterhouses. That matter has cropped up in my constituency. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will know that the EEC regulations on slaughterhouses are causing the closing down of many small slaughterhouses, both municipal and private. The industry now feels that, having invested a vast amount of capital to update slaughterhouses, it cannot compete. The Italian said "What interests me is that the British take EEC regulations seriously. We have not even started to take note of EEC regulations on slaughterhouse updating and control."
  I should like to emphasise that point in the context of the textile industry and the control of imports. I believe that our fellow members of the Common Market approach the various EEC regulations in a very different spirit from us. I refer specifically to the way in which imports are controlled informally even within the European Community. I can give instances of the ways in which imports into Italy, Germany and France are subject to informal controls. A marvellous import control is to look at and investigate every bale of cloth. A good way of slowing down textile imports is to have very few ports through which such imports can come into the country.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) that we are still playing croquet or cricket when our competitors are playing rugby league football. We should investigate the informal mechanisms which are at work within Europe. A dramatic example of the difficulty of selling British goods abroad is Japan. There we face not only resistance to buying foreign goods but a sophisticated structure of informal controls preventing our goods appearing in Japanese markets. I suggest that we shall have to learn to play in a more professional way. We must cease to be gentlemen if we are to compete with some of our rugged competitors in international trade.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: May I assist with an illustration of how clever the French are in dealing with the EEC? They have

  447
  help of about £5 million and no one raises an eyebrow, whereas if one asks for £50 million there is a close investigation. They have arranged for Martinique and Guadelope, their associated territories, to apply under EEC regulations for sums of £2 million or £3 million, with the effect that at the end of the day no one seems to notice what is happening. Every inhabitant of Martinique and Guadalope receives £1,500 a year from EEC funds, built up gradually. It is a miraculous piece of sleight of hand operated by the French, and virtually no one knows that it is happening. That is the way to deal with EEC regulations and the system.
  Mr. Sheerman: I am grateful for my hon. and learned Friend's intervention, which gives a specific example of the way in which our competitors play by a different set of rules.
  I turn to another aspect of concern in the debate. With the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller), I believe that realism has to be injected into any debate on textiles. I do not wish to deny that there is some area for improvement in design and marketing. We should be better and more responsive in design and quicker to learn what the French, German and American consumers require. We should be quicker to learn that traditional products will not suffice and that our marketing must be more aggressive. I have great doubts about the efficacy of our representation abroad in our embassies, trade delegations and so on in helping the textile and other industries to be effective.
  It may strike a chord with hon. Friends and other hon. Members that I have a special interest in the quality of management that we are bringing into the industry. Many speakers have talked of the problem that once an industry ceases to expand and be dynamic, a natural corollary is that the industry ceases to attract talent on the shop floor, in the mills—the spinners and the weavers—and ceases to produce the right calibre of management.
  Management has always been a problem in the textile industry, possibly because genetically, as we know, bright fathers, do not always produce bright sons. They may send them into Parliament and they may be successful parlia-
  448
  mentarians, but they do not make successful entrepreneurs or successful managers. Let us be honest and admit that the textile industry has suffered from dull sons going into positions that they could not hold successfully.
  In a more modern society, any Government should be in the business of producing good management. As someone who has had many years as a university teacher, I saw at first hand that we produced too many theoreticians in our universities and not enough good managers for the textile industry, the chemical industry and others. The country does not need a smaller higher education sector but one that is larger and more relevant. The work being done in the universities and polytechnics in West Yorkshire is an example to the rest of higher education in its relevance and in its building up of expertise—for example, in the Huddersfield polytechnic—in textiles. So we need a great deal more initiative and development in design and marketing.
  The importance of the industry in this country leads me to consider how it is seen by the Government. If the industry were to fail, it would be a serious blow to current Conservative philosophy. The industry seems to satisfy all the criteria that the Government could possibly lay down. It is composed mainly of small competing firms. It has shown an amazing readiness to rationalise, modernise and adapt. It is a remarkable example of free enterprise. There is very little State control. It has excellent industrial relations, as anyone who knows the industry will bear witness. But although the industry, which is a model industry in so many senses, scores extremely well on all those criteria, it still has difficulties.
  Mr. Watson: I notice that the hon. Gentleman has been giving us the benefit of his wisdom for over half an hour. Is he trying to reach the 9 a.m. deadline single-handed? If he is, I can assure him that there are plenty of Conservative Members who would be glad to help him out.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Have mercy on the rest of us. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 31 minutes.
  Mr. Sheerman: There was a great demand for me to take my time this evening.

  449
  I am surprised that the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Watson) should be unable to control his impatience. He will no doubt be called to speak at some future time.
  I wish to deal with the responsibility of the Government to ensure the future of the textile industry, whether wool or cotton. We have stressed the urgency of the position. When we debated the industry five weeks ago and during questions yesterday, we heard a voice from the Government Front Bench that did not convince us that the Government have a satisfactory commitment to the future of the industry. If the Government do not abandon their negative attitude to the industry, it will decline catastrophically as the steel industry has done. When I said that during. questions yesterday, I was accused by the Government of making an irresponsible comment.
  I do not believe that the maintenance of a facade of all-party agreement on the future of the industry is worth allowing the Government to think that it is not desperate for our workers and the industry's future that we have a different sort of debate in future weeks. I still just cling to the agreement across the House of trying to find common ground in the interests of the industry, but I find it difficult to continue to do so.
  The crux of the matter is the Government's attitude to the Common Market. The EEC makes it easier for international capital to flow where it wishes. There is no longer much patriotism in capital, whether in West Yorkshire or South Wales. There was more patriotism 50 years ago.
  The Common Market is an instrument to avoid control and to prevent the ability to retain employment and industry in our own country and to aid an industry in temporary trouble. The Common Market is at the root of the present troubles of the textile industry. A stronger line on the Common Market and a more effective policy in respect of our fellow partners is essential if the textile industry is to survive.
  What we want in West Yorkshire and Lancashire is fair competition and Government action rather than words. We also want to be convinced that the Government are willing to take a positive step towards safeguarding the textile industry
  450
  if there is a demand from both sides of the House that we should maintain some form of temporary employment subsidy in the short term so that in the longer-term perspective, until we have renegotiated the MFA, we can have a new structure for the industry that will give heart to the manufacturers and the employees and will make sure that this vital exporting industry, which employs men and women doing the useful job of making things that people want at home and abroad, can survive.
  11.43 pm
  Mr. John Watson(Skipton): I came into the Chamber to listen to the debate and not to participate, but I have become motivated to take part by some of the comments of the past couple of hours, particularly on import protection.
  Five weeks ago, hon. Members on both sides of the House pressed the Minister who was replying to a textile debate to be more specific about his intentions for the renegotiation of the MFA. We said that it should start to be renegotiated forthwith, that the new agreement should be much more in Britain's interests than is the existing agreement and that there should be a greater sense of commitment and urgency.
  The Minister was reluctant to commit himself, at least in public, to the assurances that would have satisfied hon. Members. I wonder why he should have been so reluctant. I suppose that he might have been mindful of many of the normal arguments against the general concept of import protection. I guess that somebody in the Minister's Department said to him "If we say now that we shall be much tougher with the next MFA, we can expect retaliation from the countries that export their textiles to us."
  With great respect, I ask the Minister to consider that argument with the greatest scepticism. The majority of countries that export cheap textiles to Britain do not import a great deal from us. The one exception is the United States. It imports a great deal from us, but at present its import tariffs on our exports are considerably higher than the MFA arrangements against its exports to us.
  Someone in the Minister's Department might have said "If you go further in the direction of the MFA, you will remove

  451
  choice in the shops and increase consumer prices." The textile industry that we still have continues to have the capacity to provide as much choice as is reasonably needed. I cheerfully concede that domestic prices would be slightly higher if we were to have a tougher MFA. The increase in consumer prices would be but a small price to pay for the jobs that could thereby be saved.
  I suppose that somebody in my hon. Friend's Department might have said "if we bring in a tougher MFA and protect our textile industry, they will merely use that to keep in being machines that should already have been thrown out of the window, and keep in operation restrictive practices that are basically at the heart of our uncompetitivity in the world." There are many industries to which that general argument could be applied, but with great respect I do not think that it can be applied to the textile industry. By and large, the machinery in the textile industry is modern. Restrictive practices in the industry exist, but they are nowhere near as prevalent as in other industries.
  I am bound to conclude that it was a general fear in my hon. Friend's mind that by renegotiating the MFA in a way more beneficial immediately to the United Kingdom he would be moving us further down the road towards import protection. That general suspicion and fear prevented him five weeks ago, and in answers to questions subsequently, from giving us the assurance that we require. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend and everyone at the Department of Trade will say to themselves "We are a trading nation. We are over-populated. We cannot feed ourselves. To survive, we need to import, and to import we need to export to raise revenue." In the long term, how can anyone in the Chamber disagree with that general concept?
  However, I submit that in 1979 we have practically ceased to be a trading nation. We are self-sufficient in energy but we still have a chronic balance of payments deficit. Many of our industrial competitors have to import virtually all their own oil and some of their other energy raw materials. In spite of that immense burden, they are able to run a balance of payments surplus.
  The manner of existence by which we have lived for the past 150 years—selling
  452
  overseas the benefits of our industrial technology—has come to an end. I hope that that is a temporary cessation. If that is so, we must institute policies that will lead to the regeneration of British industry, so that before this century comes to an end we can once again pay our way in the world.
  I do not disagree in any real way with the Government's policies, but I wonder whether we shall regenerate British industry as long as we have the minimum lending rate so high, as long as we have a currency based upon the existence of North Sea oil, which is, therefore, overvalued, and as long as we have a level of domestic demand which, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) explained, is all too easily satisfied by overseas suppliers. That leads me to think that probably an additional economic ingredient is required. Should not the leaders of the Government, especially in the Department of Trade, occasionally drop their blinkers to the concept of import protection?
  To regenerate British industry we need, first, to restore the dominance that we once had in the management of the marketing function and the production planning function. I do not think that we shall do that with the present climate.
  Second, we need to ensure that greater capital investment takes place. I am not talking here so much of the textile industry—indeed, I almost except the textile industry—as of British industry generally. Many elements in the CBI are now calling for a more specific kind of import protection. Surely, if we could put on the table the possibility that such protection might temporarily be granted to them, it would not be too much to ask that in return they should give some guarantees about capital investment.
  Finally, there is the question of restrictive practices. We on these Benches are fond of talking about Britain's industrial relations problem, and we seem to speak of it as though the principal problem is strikes. I do not believe that it is. Our strike record is in fact—perhaps somewhat amazingly—rather better than that of some of our competitors. Where our industrial relations record is worse is simply in the number of people we find necessary to produce a given quantity of goods.

  453
  In the stated policies of the trade union movement and many trade unions, it is normally said that they would prefer a greater measure of import protection, and at the same time they resist attempts to reduce over manning in British industry. The Conservative Party over the past 20 or 25 years has usually said that it believes in free trade and at the same time it believes in the dismantling of such restrictive practices.
  Surely there is here, fundamentally, scope for a larger deal for British industry whereby we on these Benches could say "We are prepared temporarily to give you the protected economy which you have wanted for so long. Will you, in return, give some kind of guarantees that retrictive practices and overmanning can at last be dismantled?"
  If we do those things, there is, I believe, at least a sporting chance that within the next 20 or 25 years we shall reestablish our competitiveness in the world. If we do not adopt that approach, then, frankly, I see little opportunity for our doing so.
  I recognise that the views that I am expressing are at present profoundly unfashionable in most spheres of politics. I acknowledge that, but I believe that they are becoming the prevailing idea. I believe that the long summer of world free trade is drawing to an end. We are now entering upon an autumn of more restricted world trade. The first leaves of that autumn we see in the French attitude towards our lamb and the Japanese unspoken attitude towards all imports. We see it even in our own Government's attitude to the Common Market in Dublin, and certainly we see it in the nature of the presidential campaign now taking place in the United States.
  I believe that that, motivated by world high interest rates and a world energy shortage, will be the direction of the next five or 10 years. Perhaps we can go on burying our heads in the sand and saying that our interests do not lie in that direction. I believe that if we adopt that attitude we shall in 25 years be in an even worse state than we are now. But if we can recognise that that is the direction in which matters are moving and that we must at least be part of it, perhaps generations in the next century will say that in the 1980s at last the British
  454
  people realised what the problem was and did something about it.
  11.54 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I am glad to have an opportunity to speak in this debate, and I am pleased at the choice of subject by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West(Mr. Lyons). He is to be congratulated because it gives those of us who were not called in the last textile debate, alas, the chance to make some of the points which might then have been made and give them, perhaps, a certain freshness.
  Last Friday, I attended a meeting of about 50 people in Liversedge. This was a fairly remarkable occasion in any event' today, but it was called by the Labour Party there and the purpose was to discuss the position of the textile industry. The concern of the people of the West Riding is indicated in that such a meeting was called with such a subject, since the textile industry has been an all-pervading part of the background of the West Riding about which people did not expect anything dramatic to happen or to see any quick changes. Yet that meeting took place, it was held on a rotten night, when the rain was extremely heavy, and people turned up at a distant school to attend it. That is an indication of their concern.
  Their concern is also indicated by the fact that about three weeks ago Bradford district council and the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council, which, although of the same political hue, do not normally talk in terribly affectionate terms of each other, had a joint meeting. At that meeting there was at least one representative from the Department of Trade and one from the Department of Industry. It was decided to form a textile action committee to consider what could be done amout pressing the Government to take action to preserve the West Riding wool textile industry.
  The wool textile scheme, which was introduced in 1973, produced, although not entirely, a largely modernised industry with a high level of investment. It is a pity that in the post-war period our textile machinery industry has not produced a sufficiently high level of innovation and design development. Most of the £70-odd million spent on the scheme was not spent in the United Kingdom

  455
  but went abroad. However, that is water under the bridge.
  We have seen an alarming decline in the textile engineering industry. We are concerned to ensure that the manufacturing industry does not follow suit. The modernisation scheme did not, as the Yorkshire Post industry corespondent, Mr. Robin Morgan, suggested on Tuesday, 14 November, result in a crisis in the industry. The Department of Industry carefully monitored that scheme and produced a report. The scheme saved and preserved jobs because the quality of output was improved and the quantity was increased. There was a slight increase in the numbers of people employed in the industry following the extensive implementation of the scheme. That is not the cause of the problem. I wanted to make that clear in view of the misleading comment that the Yorkshire Post contained as recently as 14 November.
  The industry depends on the temporary short-time working scheme. In Keighley about 350 jobs, although not exclusively in the textile industry, are dependent on the temporary short-time working scheme. I know that the Minister can say only that he will bring my words to the attention of the Department of Employment. Will he make sure that he does that? I am pretty sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned to ensure that the temporary short-time working scheme should be continued after 1980, when it is planned to end.
  That would meet the request of the Conservative-controlled West Yorkshire metropolitan county council, which said in "Economic Trends No. 13" in September this year:
  "Wool Textile firms are particularly dependent on the Government's temporary employment schemes. Earlier this year some 79 applications (out of 102), made by firms under the Temporary Employment Subsidy and Short-time Working Compensation Scheme, had been approved over the previous 12 months. A further 21 applications were still being considered. It might be expected, in the context of a deteriorating world market, aggravated by a stronger Sterling exchange rate, that employment will decline still further (and faster) in the remainder of 1979."
  That emphasises that, in view of the difficulties facing the textile industry, the wool textile industry is particularly dependent on the Government's temporary employment scheme. I emphasise the importance of continuing this scheme.
  456
  I deeply regret the Government's decision to downgrade only one section of the Bradford metropolitan district area—that of Keighley. At the moment, Keighley has intermediate area status. As the Minister should know, it is dependent to a significant degree on textiles. Tonight we are talking about the difficulties of the textile industry. Yet, concomitant with an acknowledged difficulty, the Secretary of State for Industry has downgraded Keighley, although very sensibly keeping intermediate area status for the rest of Bradford. We say that he should reverse that decision and retain the whole of Bradford as an intermediate area, especially in the face of the textile industry's difficulties.
  I mention the EEC briefly and I quote a criticism to the Minister because it is relevant:
  "There is concern about the effectiveness of the EEC anti-dumping mechanism. It is relatively new and traditions on the Continent for tackling dumped imports emanating from outside the Community are rather different from our own. We will, of course, insist that the EEC anti-dumping section is properly staffed and equipped to handle applications without delay. There remains a continuing need to strengthen and speed up the procedures in this field. A particular problem exists with the COMECON countries—and other State trading nations which indulge in 'political' pricing. I have spoken on earlier occasions of our attitude to trade with the Communist bloc countries but it seems to me that this is a particular area where a shift in Government attitudes is required".
  That expression of concern about the EEC and the products from the COMECON countries came from the present Secretary of State for Trade as quoted in a Conservative Party briefing for the last textile industry debate.
  In case any Conservative Members wonder why the Secretary of State, or the Minister, expressed reservations about import controls, let me say that it is because their manifesto stated:
  "Just as we reject nationalisation, so we are opposed to the other Socialist panacea—import controls."
  That really is nonsense, and most Conservative Back Benchers readily recognise that. The hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Watson) certainly did.
  What we on the Labour benches are asking—and, I suspect, some Conservative Members are asking with some force—is that the Government should put force and pressure on the EEC Commission to

  457
  carry out the MFA to the letter of the agreement. That pressure is needed to ensure that quotas are observed, to ensure that the basket extractor mechanism is enforced and that the circumventing of the MFA by member States of the EEC through devices such as outward processing and subsidies to the Prato district of Italy is brought to an end.
  I know that the Government are in difficulty about this because they are one stage removed from the problem. It is not the Government acting as a Government; it is the Government pressuring another body to carry out the terms of the Treaty. All I ask is that the Government press as hard as they can with consistent determination. Believe me, they will need it. Pressing the EEC Commission is like pressing a wet sponge into a particular shape. The Commission never wants to go the way it should.
  During the referendum, the employers in the textile industry took advertisements in the local press urging people to vote "Yes". Mr. Tom Hibbert, chairman of the wool textile delegation, has now expressed strong reservations about the EEC because he sees the failure of the EEC to carry out the obligations which were negotiated in good faith by the last Labour Government.
  What will the Government do about renewing the MFA? The weasel words which the Government have used and the statement that we shall need some kind of organised trading in the future are not exclusive to this country. When statements are made in this Parliament, they are read in Brussels. The EEC can see a lack of resolve and determination by the Government as a chink in the door through which it can push to make sure that the MFA is not renewed.
  The MFA was renewed largely at the insistence of the Labour Government. The Minister may not accept that; he may think that it is partisan. I am partisan. I can assure him that the Labour Government used their utmost strength and determination to ensure that the MFA was a reasonably tough undertaking by the EEC Commission. Commissioner Davignon suddenly broke off negotiations to insist on the tough mandate required by the British Government.
  We tried as hard as we could to ensure that the EEC carried out its obligations. At that stage it was clear in our
  458
  minds that the EEC was lacklustre and lukewarm about a tough MFA. It had the backing of such countries as West Germany. If the EEC hears lacklustre words from the Government, the Commissioners will use that as a pretext for saying that the present Government have not the spirit of the last Labour Government and that, therefore, they can allow the issue to slip.
  I hope that there will be a clear statement from the "PUSS-Ind"—the Under-Secretary of State for Industry—to use a technical term. I hope that he has a message from the Secretary of State for Trade and that he has approval from No. 10 to make a hard statement. If he cannot do that, he must know that pressure will continue in the Chamber from both sides for that firm statement. Jobs are at risk. We are determined to protect jobs in the textile industry.
  I turn to the question of a social clause in future negotiations. The wool textile industry claims that it can deal with fair competition. That is probably right. Indeed, the British Textile Confederation has demonstrated that by and large production costs in the United Kingdom are lower than in any other European country. There has been modernisation and innovation to a degree, and the industry is reasonably modern. The industry has employment protection—what is left of it—health and safety legislation and decent working conditions negotiated by a trade union which can exist freely. That is not so in Hong Kong or Taiwan. Hong Kong applies about 26 of the International Labour Organisation articles whereas we apply 79. We should use the desire of certain countries to enter a wealthy and important market to urge them to improve the standards of their workers and reduce exploitation, so that they are more in parity. The Government have the power to do this because such countries want to be part of our wealthy market.
  When I talk of improving and tightening the quota control, I do not mean that we should put up huge barriers. I am talking about the enormous import penetration of textiles and garments. I do not want to reduce consumer choice. More control would leave a proportion of the market for United Kingdom manufacturers so that they could continue to exist and so retain jobs. I am talking

  459
  about a combination of imports and United Kingdom manufacture. That is all that the industry seeks. We seek simply that the industry should not be wiped out by cheap imports.
  The Government are having talks with China about selling Harriers and other hardware. May we be assured that there will be no barter deals under which the Government exchange an enhanced aerospace industry—which they are busy selling off to private enterprise—at the expense of the textile industry by negotiating a deal with China under which China may export large quantities of textiles to us? That must be watched carefully.
  I am also receiving reports of certificates of origin being available in European countries purporting to guarantee that goods are of British origin when they are not. I cannot give the Minister any more details at the moment, but this has been brought to my attention by a constituent and I am writing to Germany for authentication of the claims which are made. I hope that the Minister will be able to do something about it.
  I hope that the Minister will draw to the attention of the Minister for Consumer Affairs the need for better marking of garments. If anyone says "You were in office for five years, why did you not do something about it?", I shall agree that this is something we should have done. We did some good things and there were also some omissions. We should have made better arrangements for the clear labelling of United Kingdom origin.
  People in Bradford are able to buy garments on which the labels are tucked inside the pockets. Only a week ago my wife bought a pair of gloves. She looked for the label and could not find it. When she got home she turned the gloves inside out and found, deep inside, a label reading "Made in Taiwan", after being assured that they were United Kingdom goods. That is not good enough. The labelling should be quite clear and distinct. The Government could usefully deal with that matter.
  I shall not pursue the question of wool scouring to any great extent. It is a knotty problem. There are 2,000 jobs involved in the West Riding of Yorkshire. The import of tops from France has in-
  460
  creased enormously over the past few months. The French industry is receiving a considerable subsidy. As usual, the EEC Commission has turned down the possibility of giving a subsidy to the wool scouring industry to make it equal to its competitors. I am not sure which body shows the greater enthusiasm—the Commission which turns us down or the civil servants who go to the Commission and encourage it to do so in the first place.
  We should look at our own system of charging, and I hope that the Minister will bring to the attention of the Secretary of State for the Environment the need for the National Water Council to make up its mind. The council has been reviewing charges for probably 12 months. It is one of those constant reviews in which Governments seem to be constantly immersed. Whenever Governments are asked about anything, they always say that they are reviewing the position. Certainly the National Water Council has been reviewing the question of water charges for too long.
  The Minister concerned in the last Labour Administration received a delegation in, I think, March this year and promised to bring pressure to bear on the council. There has been a general election since then. Will the Government apply a little pressure so that the effluent treatment charges in the wool scouring industry can be made a little more bearable, enabling that industry to be retained as an integral part of the West Riding woollen industry?
  I hope that after these few remarks the Minister has got the message. If it has sent him off to the Box to consult his civil servants, I suppose that that is an indication of something worth while being done. But the very loud and clear message is that the West Riding textile industry is a worthwhile industry in its own right. It is also worth while because, at a time of a diminishing number of jobs, there are too many people being put on the dole. It is all right people talking about rationalisation schemes, and so on. Let us have the jobs in the West Riding before there are any more mill closures. Keep people in employment. Keep an important and valuable traditional manufacturing industry which has been modernised. Give people in the West Riding some confidence. That is the message from the Labour Benches of the

  461
  House of Commons. We shall continue the pressure until we get results.
  12.14 am
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). He has made a very useful contribution to the debate. I just regret that from time to time he made a few intemperate comments about Ministers of the Crown which I believe to be unjustified. As history unfolds in the next year or so, I think that the hon. Member will find some of his criticisms of my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade to have been very unfounded indeed. But I find myself in agreement with most of the points made to the Minister this evening by the hon. Member.
  I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons), on achieving the number one spot in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate. I am sure that a number of hon. Members will think that this debate has gone on long enough, but, as the hon. Member for Keighley highlighted, we are talking about people's jobs and about the standard of living of a large number of people in important areas of the United Kingdom, not least the North-West as well as West Yorkshire. We are also talking about the industrial base of this country.
  I hope that when he replies my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will pay some attention to the way in which the industrial base of this country has been severely reduced in recent years. I was privileged to meet and have a very full discussion with the trades council in Macclesfield on Friday evening. That meeting lasted well over two hours, and we covered a great deal of ground. Labour Members may be surprised to hear that there was a great deal of common ground between what the trades council thought and the views that I expressed about various vital industries in my constituency.
  My own constituency's manufacturing base has been reduced because of the decline in textiles, paper and board, so that now only about 35 per cent. of those who work in the constituency are employed in manufacturing industry. To a great extent, manufacturing industry has been replaced by service industry. I believe, however, that there is a limit to the extent to which we can allow our manufacturing base to contract and be replaced by services without its being
  462
  detrimental to our economic performance and our long-term prosperity. When he replies to the debate, I hope that my hon. Friend will turn his attention to that matter, which I believe is of great importance indeed.
  Letme say straight away that I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is as determined as anyone—certainly as determined as I am—to ensure that there is a successor to the multi-fibre arrangement, and that when the arrangement comes up for renewal there will be another positive system of orderly marketing in textiles to ensure the future of this vital and strategic industry.
  I should like to be specific for a moment. I am gravely concerned about the way in which, under the existing MFA, the global ceilings appear to be breached time and time again. I want to relate my remarks initially directly to the woollen textile industry, which is so important to the West Yorkshire area of our country.
  Let us look at several statistics to see exactly where we are going. Is my hon. Friend aware that in the first nine months of this year Hong Kong sent to the United Kingdom 213,440 woven suits, compared with only 61,996 in the comparable period of 1978? That is a "ginormous" increase. In the case of the Philippines, the number of woven suits from there rose from 3,000 in the first nine months of 1978 to 28,710 in the first nine months of this year. The State trading countries such as Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia have also substantially increased their suit exports to Britain.
  That will have a direct impact upon the work force in this country and the viability of industries, which in the long term will inevitably affect employment. Between January and September of this year, Britain imported from the State trading countries that I have mentioned 482,626 woven suits compared with 380,885 in the same period in 1978. That substantial increase must damage the potential of firms in West Yorkshire and elsewhere. Such firms have been in receipt—rightly so—of funds from the Government in order to improve their equipment and to rationalise.
  The industry, with its responsible work force, has co-operated with successive Governments in seeking rationalisation so that it can compete with other countries.

  463
  The position is not, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) described in his long contribution, like that of the British car industry. That industry has a shocking record of industrial relations, often because we have been unable to produce cars of the quality that people overseas want in the numbers that are required. The textile industry does not suffer from that problem, but it suffers from unfair competition. The British car industry suffers from self-inflicted wounds. Therefore, to equate it with the textile industry is unfair to the 750,000 who work in the various sectors of the textile industry.
  The Mediterranean low-cost countries are posing a serious threat to the British textile industry. Portugal has stepped up its exports of suits to Britain from 60,269 in the first nine months of last year to 183,994 in the first nine months of 1979. Cyprus recorded a 112 per cent. increase in its exports of woven suits to this country over the same period—from 10,248 to 21,742.The situation is serious and it relates directly to the subject which has been chosen for debate by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West, who represents an area of the country that is famous for its wool industry.
  The Clothing Manufacturers' Federation, which liaises closely with all hon. Members, has noted with great concern the increase in imports from Common Market countries which are not of genuine EEC origin. The garments are being offered in the country at what I can only describe as unusually low prices. A considerable quantity of suits from West Germany are manufactured in East Germany under the outward-processing system. I mentioned that fact five weeks ago in the House but I did not receive the sort of reply that I would have wished. I do not seek to cover the same ground, but I hope that the problems that are occurring are appreciated by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
  A prominent member of the Clothing Manufacturers' Federation has advised me and other hon. Members that his firm was offered by a West German firm a well-made woollen suit for the small sum of £16. That compares with the factory-gate price of about £27 for a similar British suit. That shows the unfair competition
  464
  faced by the clothing industry in this country. The Government must deal quickly with the problem.
  I was interested in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr: Watson). He and I do not agree on many issues, although we sit on the same side of the House. However, I found myself in agreement with his argument. Precedents have been set by previous Conservative Governments that limited import controls—not general or widespread controls—can be of great benefit not only to our balance of payments but to the regeneration of industry in the country.
  I am particularly concerned that an industry such as the textile industry, which has sought to co-operate with successive Governments and to rationalise and, as hon. Members on both sides of the House clearly stated, has a fine record of investment and industrial relations, should be allowed to be destroyed by unfair competition. The Government have a responsibility to ensure that this industry is given the climate of fair competition to invest and expand. It would then help to save on our balance of payments and provide jobs in areas where it is the traditional large employer. If it disappeared from those areas, the problems of unemployment would reach grotesque proportions.
  Italian export tactics are also of grave concern to the Clothing Manufacturers' Federation and the British textile industry. Three-piece suits from Italy are currently offered for sale in this country for less than £20. The Clothing Manufacturers' Federation has discovered that these suits were made in Romania and exported to Italy at a landed price of only £8. The Italians re-export these suits to the United Kingdom, taking advantage of the Common Market regulations permitting free circulation. I also raised the subject in the debate some five weeks ago. Grave problems can result as there is no firm regulation agreed by the EEC on free circulation, and because of that these suits do not count against Romania's quota to this country. That is causing grave disruption, the closure of mills and the loss of jobs.
  I should now like to change tack and come closer to home, to Lancashire and Cheshire, where we are much more involved with shirts and spinning and weaving than with suits and the woollen side

  465
  of the textile industry. I support the views expressed by the hon. Member for Keighley. It is important that we do not exchange employment and orders for the aerospace industry for the many thousands of jobs in the textile industry.
  I want to see British Aerospace sell the Harrier jump-jet to the People's Republic of China, but I do not want a barter to be set up in exchange and for the People's Republic of China to flood this country with textiles. If that happened, the exchange would be unfair. Although temporarily the aerospace industry would benefit, the manufacturing base and the economy of this country would suffer immensely.
  The People's Republic of China is emerging as a great threat to the industry. In the first nine months of this year, Britain imported 369,027 woven shirts from China compared with 225,009 in the comparable period last year, which is a jump of some 64 per cent. I have a number of shirt manufacturers in my constituency, and there are many more in Greater Manchester, Lancashire, North Wales, which has also suffered from the closure of the Shotton steelworks, and Scotland, where they will take their share of the problems of British Steel. How can that jump be explained under the multi-fibre arrangement if there is genuinely a system of orderly marketing in this country?
  However, 64 per cent. is nowhere near the highest percentage increase for woven shirts. The Philippines tops the league of low-cost exporters in percentage terms. From January to September of this year, 545,857 woven shirts were imported from the Philippines as against a mere 20,988 in the same period of 1978. That represents a staggering rise of 2,501 per cent. This is a grave problem. The MFA is doing a job, but it is not a good enough job. Whatever system replaces it must be much more effective if the textile industry, which is so important to this country, is to survive.
  I acknowledge that my hon. Friends the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and the Minister for Trade are doing a good job in trying to protect the interests of the British textile industry and to guarantee it fair competition in future.
  I now refer briefly to the United States. There is no doubt that there are concern, frustration and anger on both sides
  466
  of the House that the EEC has not acted more quickly against the dual pricing policy of the United States which has placed thousands of people out of work in this country, particularly in the wool and carpet sectors of the textile industry. At the same time, we must realise that we are inhibited in the way in which we can act.
  I am pleased that the Council of Ministers has decided to introduce anti-dumping duties against the United States in the case of acrylic fibres. Although it is a bit late in the day, the decision taken by the Council of Ministers on 20 November is welcome. I am confident that the Prime Minister, in her discussions with President Carter, will persuade the United States Administration to remove this system of assisting their industry. If they do not, the EEC will be forced to erect tariffs of between 8 per cent. and 25 per cent. which will enable our industry to compete fairly with the United States. Unless the United States acts quickly to reduce the disparity, these tariffs will be erected some time in February.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade in particular. I have found it necessary to be in regular touch with him in my capacity as chairman of the all-party group for cotton and allied textiles. He and others in his Department have been ready to assist me and to talk to me at any time. I am convinced that he is working as hard as any of the hon. Members on both sides of the House who are desperately keen to ensure a good future for the British textile industry. I believe that he is fighting to get the best possible arrangements for the successor to the MFA and that he will ensure that the new MFA will be effective and do the job that the people of this country demand. We are talking about human lives and a responsible industry. I believe that this Government will stand by them and do what is right.
  12.35 am
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). His knowledge of the textile industry is great. The hon. Gentleman has great expertise. He covers a wide canvas. This means that one can shorten one's own speech. I had intended to make a short speech, but I am happy to inform

  467
  the House that it will be even shorter as a result of the hon. Gentleman's interesting contribution.
  The hon. Gentleman covered unfair competition from China and from the United States. He gave important figures and evidence about unfair competition and breaches of the quota arrangements by countries all over the world. I do not intend to try to match his statistical knowledge except to say that the Minister should have no illusions about the seriousness of the crisis facing the Lancashire and Yorkshire textile industries.
  There has been debate after debate in the House over the years on the crisis facing the Lancashire textile industry. That is a tragedy. As the hon. Member for Macclesfield has stated, the textile industry has done a great deal to help itself. It has modernised. It has rationalised. It has shed labour. The industry has responded to most of the demands made upon it. Yet, in 1979, it faces one of the most gloomy prospects ever. I would not wish the Minister, who is not a man given to wild statements, to imagine that this is an alarmist view of my own. It is the view of trade unions and of employers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) and the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier) have covered the prime points that I am sure are now well established in the Minister's mind. The hon. Gentleman is Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Industry. I should like him to know that one of the problems that faces the industry is the removal of regional aids from North-East Lancashire. My constituency of Accrington and other areas of North-East Lancashire had the benefit of intermediate area status.
  I do not expect any firm assurances tonight. But the Minister will know that North-East Lancashire is most concerned about the diminution of regional aid because it affects the textile industry so severely. It is likely to add to the burdens that have been outlined by speaker after speaker in this debate. So great is the concern that this point is top of the agenda at a meeting on Friday of the North-East Lancashire Development Association. I feel sure that the Minister will take the matter seriously.
  468
  Hon. Members have dealt with the issue of import penetration. I should, however, like an assurance that the Government recognises the importance of negotiating a tough new multi-fibre arrangement in 1981. I am not sure whether that is the Government's intention.
  The present multi-fibre arrangement is the strongest that there has been, but it is abused repeatedly. Country after country ignores the arrangement. Speaker after speaker in the debate has given examples of quotas being exceeded over and over again. If the Minister is to negotiate a new multi-fibre arrangement, he must have the will to ensure that it is properly monitored and enforced, otherwise it will be mere verbiage. It will be another arrangement that the EEC and contracting countries do not take seriously.
  It would be wrong of me at this time in the morning to delay the House any further, because all the points have adequately been made. However, I assure the Minister that the Lancashire textile industry is facing a most serious problem. I am not saying that it is the fault of the Government. It is not. It is an accumulation of problems. But the Government's policies have not helped. Certainly high interest rates, the overvalued pound and the undervalued dollar have not helped either. The immediate problem is that of import penetration. I hope that the Minister will reassure the House on that problem and give me a particularly favourable reply as I have been so brief in my observations.
  12.41 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. David Mitchell): The debate was started by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons), who was indeed fortunate to have secured a place in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate. Clearly, he opened up the opportunity for many hon. Members to contribute, and that is an indication of the widespread nature of the unease that is felt about the situation facing the textile industry.
  Among those who contributed were the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), my hon. Friends the Members for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) and Rossendale (Mr. Trippier)—I understand better the problems of the industry

  469
  since my hon. Friend took me to see a number of mills in Rossendale—the hon. Members for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White), Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) and Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby Mr. Thompson), who was characteristically and straightforwardly outspoken about the problems of the industry as he saw them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) is to be congratulated on having persuaded the initiator of this debate to allow him to attach his position in the batting order for the Consolidated Fund to the first debate. He would probably be here at 7 o'clock this morning were he not so fortunate.
  The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), the hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Watson) also contributed to the debate. The hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford), who is chairman of the all-party wool committee, has listened to the proceedings but has not spoken.
  It is clear that there is all-party concern about the state of the textile industry and the number of redundancies and closures. "Redundancy" is a hard statistical word, but the reality is that the way of life for a whole village, valley or community may be suddenly and totally disrupted. In Committee recently an Opposition Member said "You have read your brief. Now speak from the heart". I think that all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate have spoken from the heart about how they see the realities of the consequences of decline in the textile industry. However, I disagree with one hon. Gentleman who suggested that a closure did not hurt employers. I think that everyone in the industry is affected. A closure is a tragedy for all concerned, and I have no illusions about it.
  A massive number of issues have been raised. I shall endeavour to cover all of them. If I miss any, I hope that hon. Members will write to me. As the hon. Member for Halifax has joined us again, I shall mention that I have referred to her contribution to the debate and that the hon. Member for Bradford, North—although he has not spoken—has been in the Chamber throughout the debate
  470
  as chairman of the all-party wool committee.
  The issues raised have covered the minimum lending rate, the level of sterling, the current and future state and size of the industry, unfair United States competition in the tufted carpet market, unilateral action suggested against the United States, illegal and unfair competition of outer wear, Romanian imports, imports from Romania via Italy, alleged fraud from East Germany, mislabelling, the Prato arrangements, the scouring industry, the social clause and the future of the MFA. I shall endeavour, even at this late hour, to deal with as much of that as I can. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if at a quarter to one o'clock there are a few matters that I slide over quickly.
  The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe talked about the last 14 mules left working in the Lancashire industry, which stopped last week and were taken straight out of the factory to be exported to a museum. I should not like that to be the picture carried away from the debate as the state of the industry, but rather the hon. Gentleman's reference to firms able to compete anywhere in the world. He asks the Government to determine the size and shape of the industry for the next decade.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough asked for an unequivocal statement that we should always have a viable and prosperous industry. I regret to say that I am unable to give that assurance. It is not that I have no crystal ball, not because I am not united with hon. Members on both sides in their objective but because the Government's job is to hold the ring and to see that there is fair opportunity and fair competition. It is up to the men and the management to produce at a price that customers are prepared to pay. It is not only a matter for the Government.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East likened the position in the industry to that in the British steel industry and said that it was in trouble partly because British people were buying foreign cars. He sggested that we ought to take more notice of the effect of our purchasers on jobs in this country. I sympathise with that view, and as the hon. Member was speaking I pulled out my tie to see where it was made. To my consternation, I

  471
  found that it was not made in this country Like so many others, I buy what seems to be the best value for money. I am afraid that that will have to be the basis upon which this industry and all other industries earn their daily bread. While one may achieve a marginal benefit from a desire for British people to buy British goods, it can never be any substitute for the best value obtainable.
  I turn to the question of the tufted carpet industry, which was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West in his opening speech. A number of other hon. Members have also spoken on this issue. In the carpet section of the trade there is excess capacity, and there are a number of factories involved in that. There has been some weakness in marketing. Undoubtedly some United States companies are more market-orientated than we are in Britain. Our productivity levels are below those of a number of other countries in the EEC, and I shall return to that later.
  The factor which has dominated this debate has been the rising level of imports. That is partly and considerably because of a distortion of competition caused by the artificial level of oil prices in the United States. To the extent that that factor is responsible, we are pressing the EEC for action and the United States for export restraint. In keeping up that pressure, my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is in Brussels. He asked me to convey his apologies to the House for his being unable to participate in the debate.
  The difficulty here is that, although my hon. Friend has been seeking to raise these matters in Brussels, our initial soundings have shown that we do not have as much support from other EEC members as we would wish. I have a message to go to them which I think the House will join me in sending. When the United States starts rolling, we in the United Kingdom may be the first to be hit by the waves. We are the easiest market for the United States—we speak a similar language. But do not let anyone in Europe misunderstand that the second wave will strike there.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: Does the Minister accept that Britain is entitled, within the letter of the EEC regulations, to take
  472
  unilateral action to stop those imports? He seems to be suggesting that unless the EEC agrees nothing can be done. If that is the view of the hon. Gentleman's Department, it is wrong.
  Mr. Mitchell: I have every intention of dealing with the hon. Gentleman's point. I hope that I shall succeed in covering all the points that have been made.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton referred to restrictive practices and their effect. It is right to return to the question of productivity and other factors. It is possible for us to get out of proportion the question of the United States' advantage on artificial oil pricing. It may be uncomfortable, but in the first half of 1979 United States exports of tufted carpets to this country went up by 1·5 million square metres. But Benelux and Denmark increased their sales to this country by 1 million square metres. They did not have the artificial oil price advantage enjoyed by the United States. So there are factors other than that advantage, on which we are united in wanting to act, which have led to increased imports.
  When the rest of the EEC has a higher level of wages than we have, we ought to be able to compete. We must look to our productivity to ensure that it reaches EEC levels.
  The hon. Member for Halifax said that neither the country nor the House was sufficiently concerned. Both sides of the House and the Government are concerned, however. It is untrue that there is any sense of satisfaction, certainly on the Conservative Benches, about the current situation.
  The hon. Lady called for unilateral action against the United States, as did the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West. We want, if we can, to reach a Community solution to protect us against United States retaliation. The Commission's consultations with the Americans are not complete, and I ask hon. Members not to overlook the potential damage that may result from unilateral action. It is far better to seek to secure our first objective of effective Community action.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich spoke about illegal and unfair imports of outer wear. He was right to

  473
  draw attention to his fear that malpractices may exist in Romania and East Germany. My hon. Friend is an effective representative of Harwich. I was surprised that he raised the matter, because I did not realise that he had a textile industry in his constituency, but he made clear that he is involved with firms in his constituency that are part of the United Kingdom garment industry and have been manufacturers of uniforms for many years.
  The problems facing that part of the industry include the change in fashion that affects demand—towards scruffy jeans instead of jacket and worsted flannels. There are some productivity problems, and it is our policy to ensure fair competition.
  Let us look at the matters raised by my hon. Friend indicating unfair competition. I start with Romania, which has access, as arranged under the import quota agreement of 1977, which was negotiated when the previous Government were in office and has a life of five years. My hon. Friends the Members for Harwich and for Macclesfield asked whether dumping is taking place. Is Romania selling to the United Kingdom at below the cost of production? If so, an anti-dumping duty can be introduced, subject to proof, but that is not an easy or swift procedure.
  Happily, we have another weapon—the price clause in the EEC bilateral MFA agreement—and we are currently collecting a dossier on the allegation. We shall ask the EEC to consult as quickly and effectively as possible. We anticipate that discussions will be opened before the House reassembles after the Christmas Recess. I hope that the House will feel that that is an effective step.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield also referred to Romanian suits entering the United Kingdom via Italy. That has been happening, but the numbers are small. A great deal of understandable heat has been created by that practice, but only 45,000 suits have come in to a United Kingdom market of 6 million suits a year. We have approached the Commission—we did so at the end of November—to seek to put a stop to the abuse of free circulation. Unfortunately, the EEC has not accepted that sufficient numbers are yet involved.
  474
  We shall keep the matter under review. I hope that hon. Members will ensure that we are informed if there are any further developments.
  I have heard this evening for the first time that Hungarian suits are entering the United Kingdom unfairly. If hon. Members give us the necessary information—we must have evidence—we shall pursue the matter as we have done with Romanian suits.
  An allegation of fraud concerning East Germany has been made. East German suits are said to be coming into Britain. There is the obvious temptation presented to West German traders to take advantage of importing goods from East Germany free of duties and quota controls and re-exporting them to the rest of the Community. Unfortunately, no firm evidence has yet been presented to us. When it is, we shall be ready to take effective action, as we have taken it in other areas.
  It has been revealed in the debate that a trader in Britain has falsely declared East German goods to be of Community origin. That is linked with mislabelling. The local authority trading standards officer—whom older hon. Members will know as the weights and measures inspector—has power to bring a prosecution if fraud is taking place. I hope that none will hesitate to give evidence to ensure that that takes place.
  Mr. Woolmer: Is it not the case that under EEC regulations as we operate them there is no independent certificate of origin for many of the goods that the Minister is considering? We leave it to the exporter to indicate the origin of the products. In practice, our Customs staff are not checking that properly. The country of consignment is shown and not the country of origin.
  Will the Minister follow the lead of Ireland, France and Italy and insist on an independent certificate of origin through the chambers of commerce and industry so that we have a clear, independent certificate of origin for goods from the EEC, which are now being used as a means of exploiting free circulation? That is an important issue that has been raised with me by chambers of commerce in West Yorkshire. They have stressed that there is a system that we can apply if we wish to do so.
  Mr. Mitchell: I should like to consider that possibility. There is a danger that it might make matters worse if we were not satisfied about the authenticity and authority of those issuing the certificates. It is something that I should want to follow through. If a case is found where there is a claim that goods are of EEC origin and they are not, a prosecution can follow. In addition, the goods can be seized. We would like to have evidence to enable Customs and Excise to operate in that way.
  Mr. Woolmer: Will the Minister satisfy himself, by whatever procedures he can adopt—for example, spot checks or whatever he feels is necessary—that the Customs officers are checking on documentation in a way that satisfies him? If the checks on certificates of origin and declarations of origin are loose and casual, that is because, as I understand it, Customs staff feel that the Minister's Department is not regarding the matter as one of concern or priority. I suggest that he will not get the evidence if that feeling is present. Will he give me an assurance that he will carry out spot checks in the next few weeks to satisfy himself that Customs staff are checking on the country of origin?
  Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman has made a useful suggestion. I am not familiar with the precise mechanism by which the system operates at the port of entry. I shall make it my business to find out.
  The Italians and Prato have been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough, the hon. Member for Batley and Morley and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. The Government have been concerned about imports of low-cost woollen and mixture fabrics from Prato, where, it is held, hidden subsidies operate, in addition, it should be said, to a very efficient industry with 24-hour shift working on machinery.
  We wish to see fair conditions of competition. We pressed the EEC Commission for some action in this matter, and last week officials from the Commission spent two days in West Yorkshire visiting woollen mills and holding discussions with manufacturers. The visit was intended to let the Commission officials see the modernisation which has taken place in the wool textile industry
  476
  and to examine with the industry's own experts the comparative cost information which had been sent to the Commission in February last.
  I am informed that the visit went well and that the Commission officials were impressed both by the modernised mills which they visited and by the detailed work which had been done for them on comparative costs. Before returning to Brussels, they indicated that they would be going to the Italian Government on the points made, and they would expect to be in touch with the Department of Industry within weeks.
  It is clear that the Commission is fully aware of the nature of the problem, and the questions posed about price must be answered. Of course, I am not complacent about this timetable. The Commission's investigations have taken longer than the industry or the Government would like. I remain determined to see that the matter is conducted as rapidly as possible.
  I do not pretend that we are in any way satisfied with the rate of progress in Brussels. Sometimes, as in the negotiating of the present MFA bilateral agreements in the autumn of 1977, one can pay tribute to the speed with which the Commission has acted, but sometimes, as in the case of our complaint against Prato, I can only agree that the Commission has been deplorably slow. But I assure the House that the Government will continue to press this country's interests on Brussels just as hard and as often as we feel will be useful.
  I turn now to wool scouring. I appreciate that the wool scouring sector has felt the pinch of increased charges for treatment of its effluent. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment and I met a deputation from West Yorkshire on 24 October to discuss this matter. One result was that it was agreed that my hon. Friend would have direct discussions with the water authority concerned. These have already taken place, and he has written today, I believe, to hon. Members who were involved with that deputation.
  I have not had the opportunity to discuss that letter with my hon. Friend, and I hope, therefore, that the House will recognise that it is a matter on which I cannot comment in depth now. What I noticed that they can apply for financial

  477
  can say is that most, if not all, of the scouring takes place in Bradford, which will remain an intermediate area under the assisted area status scheme and thus may qualify for project assistance under the revised guidelines for section 7 of the Industry Act announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry on 17 July.
  I come now to the question of a social clause, to which the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe and others have referred. I have to say that the MFA is a negotiated agreement under GATT auspices. Other signatories would resist inclusion of a social clause as an interference in their internal affairs, and if we accepted it others, such as the United States, could argue that low wages in the United Kingdom amounted to unfair competition. I think that the House ought to take on board that this is a double-edged weapon and we must be careful how we seek to use it.
  I turn now to the multi-fibre arrangement. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale seeks a new form of words. The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough raised the question also, as did the hon. Member for Keighley. It is, however, too soon to enter into commitments. The precise arrangements will be a matter for decision not only by the Governments of the member States of the Community closer to the time but also by others, such as the United States and low-cost suppliers. The MFA is a multilateral agreement and not something which is within the Government's gift.
  Perhaps I can go a little further and say that in talking about an orderly marketing arrangement to succeed the present MFA the Government are not trying to hide anything. It is simply a recognition that as regards the framework for continuing restraints all options are still open. We entirely accept that the industry will continue to need effective protection after the present agreements expire.
  Mr. Trippier: Does my hon. Friend accept that he could not substitute an orderly marketing arrangement for the MFA within 12 months? As the MFA structure is already established, and as it has to be agreed by so many countries, it must be established on the same lines as the existing MFA.
  Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend will recognise that the prime responsibility for this matter rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. I shall convey to him my hon. Friend's point.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend would appear not to be answering the point that I associated with the requirement to renegotiate a replacement to the current MFA for orderly marketing in textiles. As this is within the scope of my hon. Friend's responsibility, are his Department, the Government and himself prepared to do their utmost to ensure that the manufacturing base of this country is not further eroded? A replacement MFA is vital if that is not to occur.
  Mr. Mitchell: I understand my hon. Friend's point. He will equally understand that I am not in a position to give the commitment he seeks. It is a matter for the Department of Trade. Already the Department is carefully preparing the way in which it will negotiate what is to follow. However, it would not be right for me to seek to answer on behalf of my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Winterton: It is within the scope of my hon. Friend's responsibility in the Department of Industry to ensure that the manufacturing base of this country is not further eroded. Will he give an assurance that in so far as he has responsibility in this area he will do his utmost in his representations to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade?
  Mr. Woolmer: Is the Minister aware that we are constantly frustrated when raising this issue by Ministers with responsibility for industry who do not have, or who appear not to have, sufficient interest in industry to give a single answer on behalf of the Departments of Industry and Trade? The workers and employers in industry cannot understand why we cannot hear a single voice from the Government Front Bench. Does the Minister recognise that we understand why the Secretary of State is not here? However, hon. Members on both sides of the House expect the hon. Gentleman to give an answer, having, we assume, consulted his right hon. Friend. Is he saying that he has not had sufficient discussions with his right hon. and hon. Friends to

  479
  be able to give us an assurance on behalf of the Departments of Industry and Trade?
  Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that I endeavoured to answer all 14 major questions that were posed. I have already detained the House for a considerable time at this early hour of the morning.
  I should like to be able to answer for my right hon. Friend. However, it is not for an Under-Secretary of State for Industry to answer at this Dispatch Box for the Secretary of State for Trade. I am sure that my hon. Friends would not expect me to do that. Were I to do so, I might find that I was not given any similar opportunity on a future occasion. The House will understand the division of responsibility in the matter.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: May I question the Minister about one matter for which he has responsibility? I refer to regional aid. Will he say something about the matter that I put to him and whether he considered restoring intermediate area status to North-East Lancashire or, at least, phasing it out over a longer period?
  Mr. Mitchell: The hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to an area which is moving from intermediate to non-assisted status, and we have afforded it a very long phasing-out period. The intermediate status will remain until 1982, which means a much longer period of transition than had been recorded before. The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall the 10 days' notice given for the ending of the regional employment premium. That concerned a far bigger sum than is involved in this case. He will also recall the much shorter period of notice given for the ending of the regional development grant for the mining industry.
  What may comfort the hon. and learned Gentleman is the fact that, during the whole of the transition period until 1982, section 7 assistance under the Industry Act will be available in what are now intermediate areas. If by 1982 we find that there is a change in the relative position of any travel-to-work area which is affected by the changes in assisted area status, we shall be prepared to look again at that particular travel-to-work area. I hope that on that basis—
  Dr. Summerskill: As we are discussing the Consolidated Fund Bill, we are concerned with money and assistance from the Government. Can the Government see their way to giving any selective assistance to this industry, which, after all, is what the Vote in the Consolidated Fund and in the Estimates covers? That is what this debate is about.
  Mr. Mitchell: I understand what the hon. Lady says in alliance with her hon. and learned Friend the Member for Accrington. I cannot say more than I have said to him except that perhaps I could embroider the point by repeating that section 7 assistance under the Industry Act as set out by my right hon. Friend in his statement to the House in July will continue to be available throughout the three years. That means that this industry—as any other industry—can put forward schemes from which individual firms in the industry can benefit, provided that they come within the criteria laid down by the Secretary of State where section 7 assistance is applicable. That involves additionality and the various other criteria.
  Mr. Edward Lyons Mr. Edward Lyons rose—
  Mr. Mitchell: I have given way many times. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that he shall be the last since he was the first—the first shall be last—I give way to him.
  Mr. Lyons: I am grateful. I was interested to hear the Minister say that there was a possibility of money forthcoming under the Industry Act in respect of effluent charges. Will he elaborate on that, because that is perhaps the most promising thing he has said so far? It is a matter of great importance in the textile industry.
  Mr. Mitchell: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will wait until tomorrow to see Hansard, I think he will find that I have phrased what I had to say very carefully and that I have covered the point that he wishes me to cover.
  The House has had a lengthy debate and I have endeavoured to answer all the main points raised. If I have failed to answer particular points, I am sure that hon. Gentlemen will write to me and draw my attention to them. To sum up, there is in the textile industry, among its Members of Parliament, its employers, its workers and the Government a unity of

  481
  purpose and a determination to have an industry which stands on its own feet and holds its own in fair competition.

  HEALTH SERVICES (FINANCE)
  1.20 am
  Mr. Ronald W. Brown (Hackney, South and Shoreditch): After the long debate on the textile industry, I return the attention of the House to Class XI, Vote 1 of the Supplementary Estimates, which deals with the financial resources of the health and personal social services. On many occasions I have drawn the attention of the House to the desperate situation in the National Health Service, particularly in my constituency. I offer no apology for taking the time of the House to highlight the deplorable situation which faces my constituents.
  The principal factor is the failure to provide sufficient funding to maintain an adequate service commensurate with changing needs. The Department has failed to appreciate the shifting age pattern in the population, particularly in areas such as mine. The changing pattern is imposing a great demand on the National Health Service. If there were a planned growth in the money available, it would be possible to attempt to match the demand, but the money available in real terms has, at best, stood still. In many cases it has been reduced.
  It is no good the Government wringing their hands and saying that they appreciate the problem but that it is up to the health authorities to decide their own prorities. The health authorities have little choice. When the Government strangle the money supply, the authorities can only reduce the share of resources given to acute medicine and transfer money to geriatric services.
  How can the Government justify a choice between the desperately sick person and the elderly geriatric patient? The Health Services Bill, which is due to be debated shortly, proposes to redress the balance by providing that those who can pay for their sickness will be able to apply for treatment. Where does that leave the bulk of my constituents who are at the lower end of the income bracket? According to the Government, they are expendable.
  482
  In a letter to me, the Prime Minister said:
  "I am especially conscious that some health authorities, particularly those in central London, need to make some reduction in service in addition to those economies possible through good housekeeping."
  However, under clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the Health Services Bill it will be possible to buy better treatment. That will mean good health for the lucky people with money but a knacker's yard for the rest. What chance will there be of developing services for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped? How can the primary health services be developed and strengthened to provide preventative medicine—a cost-effective process?
  The Prime Minister continued in her letter:
  "The RHA Chairman has stressed to you his concern for the NHS and his Authority's intentions to provide the best service possible within the present financial constraints. I appreciate the efforts the City and East London AHA(T) are making in what is an invidious though necessary task. I understand that the decisions taken represent what, in the Authority's view, were the necessary temporary adjustments in the level of services provided which will have the least impact on patient care."
  If we translate that into actions, it means closing every hospital in my constituency. Two hospitals have gone already, one is in the process of closure and a fourth is planned. That is happening in the full knowledge that the primary care service is almost non-existent and that the general practice service is chronically sick.
  If we combine all that with the effects of inflation, plus the 15 per cent. VAT and the pay awards, none of which had been fully met by the Department of Health and Social Security—and which together will probably cost the North-East Thames regional health authority somewhere in the region of £8 million to £9 million—it is easy for the House to appreciate why I speak of the total destruction of the Health Service in my constituency.
  The area health authority is totally lacking in ability to cope with the problems. To give them credit, the chairman of the AHA and the equally hapless chairman of the regional health authority decided at long last to make representations to the Minister, but my view is that they had no credibility left. It would be of great advantage if both these chairmen were put out to grass and fresh chairmen

  483
  were appointed to grapple with the problem—chairmen who are sensitive to the needs of the people and who believe in consultation.
  I will give an example of the area health authority's view of consultation. Together with some of my constituents, I attended the area health authority's meeting last week. At that meeting some very profound decisions were being made which, according to the district administrator, would be a catastrophe for my constituents. There we were in the public gallery, trying to follow these important decisions. I was trying to see how they would affect my constituents. We did not even have an agenda. We sat there with no papers of any description, listening to the proceedings at a meeting which had obviously started in private in the morning.
  I thought that the objects of area health authorities were such that they would meet in public. The authority had obviously met earlier in private, and was dealing with these matters publicly in a shorthand way in the afternoon, with the public—including the local Member of Parliament—unable to follow the proceedings. Yet decisions were being taken which were of profound importance to my constituents.
  I can understand now why the area health authority should want to play it like that. The area administrator was kind enough to let me have a copy of the agenda. There was one item that I failed to understand when it was being debated, but when I received the agenda I could understand it. It was about a project that began life less than two years ago and of which, at the end of last year, the projected cost was about £230,000. Moneys were made available for that project, and at that meeting last week it was apparently being reported that this very same project, which less than a year before was to cost £230,000, was now to cost £630,000. Following in that document is a most trite comment by the officials of the way in which this appalling mismanagement came about
  What is even more important is how the authority is intending to recoup the money. From that agenda I discovered that the authority is to take money that was identified by the Minister's predecessor in the last Administration and
  484
  which that Minister gave me a categorical assurance in this House would be spent on St. Leonard's hospital. The authority is taking that money and giving it to this appallingly managed project and closing St. Leonard's hospital instead.
  It seems to me that there are no medical factors involved in the closure of these hospitals. In effect, it is all due to bad management and financial jiggery-pokery. Let me illustrate how a hospital is closed without any consultation. We start off, as the Prime Minister put it in a letter to me, with the concept that it is a "temporary closure". I now read from the documents of the area health authority itself. I do not get many of them, but when I do I read them carefully, and they are useful. It begins by stating:
  "The four general surgical wards at St. Leonard's Hospital have been selected for temporary closure."
  By saying that, it means that there is no consultation. All consultation is wiped out, and it is done. The next paragraph states that
  "The problems arising from the temporary closures affect two activities in particular—orthopaedic surgery and Accident and Emergency services".
  Having closed the four general wards temporarily, the health authority now says that
  "Without facilities and staff in general surgery it is dangerous to allow ambulance cases into the hospital. This cuts off the supply of trauma cases to the orthopaedic department who are now left with their elective cases, mostly joint replacements. These patients may prove insufficient to fill the orthopaedic wards and the DMT may have to consider closing one of them rather than staff and service an unoccupied ward".
  Therefore, one begins by closing four wards temporarily, so that the matter is not discussed, yet before that takes place another ward is already closed. The health authority goes on to say that
  "Other problems which may arise in orthopaedics are a loss of staff. Although other orthopaedics hospitals…are recognised for training it is possible that the College of Surgeons recognition may be withdrawn from the registrar post in orthopaedics at St. Leonard's."
  Therefore, a whole department will be closed because it will not be recognised. What began as the closure of four wards without consultation ends with the elimination of an orthopaedics department, first because it is not worth while continuing it and, secondly, because the

  485
  College of Surgeons will withdraw recognition.
  We then come to the accident and emergency service. The document goes on to say that
  "Once general surgery ceases it becomes dangerous not only to admit ambulance cases but also to operate a 'walk-in' service after normal working hours. At night time there is a real danger that there will not be available a doctor with the experience needed to diagnose serious illness. It is important for the safety of the local residents that they be diverted to Bart's or Hackney and not be deluded into thinking that St. Leonard's offers a satisfactory alternative".
  All that stems from an allegation that four wards are to be closed temporarily and that as soon as the economy picks up and the money becomes available all will be well. But the hospital has now been closed, and terminology such as the word "temporary" is fraudulent.
  The authority went on to discuss the hours of closing and argued that it should be between 8 o'clock in the morning to 8 o'clock at night. The ink on the paper was not even dry before it had changed that. It will now be between 9 o'clock and 5 o'clock. All that stems from an argument that the ward closures will be temporary and that it will be put right some time in the future.
  The Minister for Health was kind enough to visit my constituency, and he will confirm all that I have said, but I should like an assurance tonight that the business of temporary closure, in the way that I have described St. Leonard's hospital, is regarded as a disgrace and that the Minister will intervene to stop it.
  I know that the Secretary of State has seen the chairmen of the area and regional health authorities. Nevertheless, there is a gap in communication. The same words are used by us and by those gentlemen yet they appear to have different meanings. The Secretary of State is aware that the disgraceful situation cannot be maintained. I understand that a Mr. J. C. C. Smith, the permanent secretary with particular responsibility for London, was asked by the Secretary of State to explain the Department's policy. That is egalitarian if anything is—for a Minister to ask a civil servant to explain his policy. Mr. Smith confirmed that it was the Government's intention in April 1980 to make good the deficits in the 1979–80 cash limits caused by inflation, increases in VAT and oil prices
  486
  and that the Government proposed a real growth of the NHS of 0·5 per cent.
  Why has that intention not been stated publicly? Why has the hospital been destroyed on the basis that the district is overspending? Permanent closure will result, yet, in April—three months from now—more than sufficient money, between £8 million and £9 million, will be available. What is the sense of that? We are playing not with bricks and mortar but with sick people. The Government know that they will fund the enormous under-funding that has been experienced in the district, yet the statement is made privately. The two gentlemen to whom the statement was made have ensured that my constituents will suffer badly because of a decision that was taken on the spurious argument that insufficient money was available.
  The Minister should make a statement today about his proposals to ensure that the area health authority will be stopped from making the closures. The reasons for the closures are spurious and cheating. The closures are called temporary when it is well known that they are permanent. The authority should be brought to the Department and asked to explain why it is causing chaos on the argument that there is insufficient money when it knows there will be full funding which will cover all the under-funding that existed in the past year.
  I have criticised the authority's draft district plans, which were issued in August and October. The district's financial position for 1979–80 is clearly stated in the October plan:
  "unless current expenditure patterns are curtailed, the City and East London Area Health Authority forecasts an overspending of some £3,983,000, of which some £1,133,000 is required to be a permanent saving arising as it does from the under-funding of wage awards".
  How can that position be stated when the assurance of the Minister's permanent secretary has been given that the under-funding will not persist and that, on the contrary, within three months it will be covered? The document continues:
  "a brought forward overspending from 1978–9 in the sum of £675,000. The balance of £2,850,000 is made up of a shortfall in the funding for inflation on non-pay items (£1,200,000), the increased cost of VAT announced in the budget (£950,000), and the rise in fuel prices (£700,000)."
  The Minister has already indicated from his meetings with the chairmen that he

  487
  would fund it, but, notwithstanding that assurance from the Government, they go ahead and continue to destroy the health services in my constituency.
  I believe that the matter has gone too far. These gentlemen should be asked to resign immediately. I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will today make a categorical statement that all this under-funding in the area will, in accordance with the statement of his right hon. Friend's permanent secretary, be reinstated by April 1980.
  I know, and the Minister knows, that a ½per cent. growth means a step backwards. We are both London Members, and know that in any other Thames authority a minimum growth of 1 per cent. is necessary to stand still. Nevertheless, the refunding of the other moneys, which has fallen heavily on the inner city areas, will be of great importance, as the Minister's right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rightly said. The burden falling on central London is very heavy indeed, and I hope that the Minister is in a position to give an assurance tonight that the authority will be instructed to change this behavioural pattern.
  I turn now to another matter that is causing concern. I have a letter from Mr. Birnstingl, an eminent surgeon in my constituency, who operates at St. Bartholomew's hospital. He drew to my attention his experience with a constituent of mine. The document that begins the issue is an inter-office communication from a patient services officer to Mr. Birnstingl, which says:
  "When the above named presented with a doctor's letter for a Surgical outpatient appointment I was not happy about her eligibility for NHS treatment. I contacted, therefore, the DHSS who in turn have obtained the following information from the Home Office. I did, in the meantime, ask the Appointments Department to make her an appointment but told Miss X that I would check and let her know our decision. She is due to attend your OPD on Monday 19 November."
  Information was then telephoned through from the DHSS that this Miss X had arrived in the United Kingdom in 1974, had been given extensions for temporary stay until September 1975, and had then been told to return to her country of origin. She appealed against the decision, but the appeal was dismissed and she was told to embark by 7 August 1979.
  488
  The patient services officer was told that the DHSS had alerted the immigration authorities to the fact that Miss X was still here, and the Department gave her authority to tell Miss X that she could not be treated, although if Mr. Birnstingl considered her condition to be an emergency she could be treated on a paying patient basis only. The patient services officer went on:
  "whichever way I am to alert the DHSS. Presumably if she does require emergency treatment it is intended that she return to"—
  her country of origin—
  "as soon as it is physically possible. Can you please let me know whether you are prepared to see her initially."
  As Mr. Birnstingl said, since when have the National Health Service and its employees been used as policemen on behalf of the Home Office? What has happened to confidentiality between a person and his or her doctor? I think that it is a scandal that the Health Service is being used in this way. Within one hour of a telephone call from the appointments section of the hospital, the DHSS was apparently able to interrogate the Home Office computer in order to ascertain the facts affecting this person. The DHSS did not bother to argue whether the person concerned was fitted for treatment; it was more concerned that she should be apprehended.
  The fact that the appointments clerk did not seem to see that what she was doing was wrong is not relevant in itself. Rather, Mr. Birnstingl feels that the serious breach of confidence in an entirely medical matter is likely to lead to poorer medical care, because people will now be very careful about going for treatment. This whole incident needs to be examined most carefully. I asked Mr. Birnstingl whether he minded my mentioning this case on his behalf today, and he replied that he felt that it was important so to do.
  St. Bartholomew's hospital is under threat from the area health authority, which is now closing beds. It is closing the out-patient department as well. One of the arguments for closing St. Leonard's hospital was that the patients could be redirected to Bart's. Yet one of the arguments put forward only last week was that Bart's can now claim that it has reduced substantially the number of its out-patients. That means that my constituents who are being redirected there

  489
  obviously cannot get in, because the number of out-patients is being reduced.
  Thus we have three fraudulent claims. The first is that the hospital is being closed temporarily when its own documents confirm that that is not the case, and the spin-off from that will make it permanent. The second is that when people go from that hospital to Bart's they will be unable to get in because the out-patient department is being run down as a matter of cost saving. The third is the assurance given by the Minister that the money obtained from the sale of the Metropolitan hospital would be directed towards St. Leonard's hospital. That was supposed to be an important factor in the decision to close the Metropolitan hospital. Yet the money has been used for some other purpose.
  It is no good the Minister giving a platitudinous reply tonight about the difficulties involved and the fact that it is not his Government's fault. I am not interested in party politics, I am talking about the health and welfare of my constituents. I do not want any claptrap about who is responsible. I challenge whether the Minister has the right to continue to agree to the absurdity of the resource allocation working party. We have given up £1 million to Essex. Therefore, my constituency has less and less money for more and more patients, while Essex has more and more money for the same number of patients.
  I am told that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was rather concerned that one of his constituents had to travel to hospital in London because the peripatetic consultants who normally travelled out to Essex had stopped doing so as part of the Government's savings programme. I understand that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was rather annoyed and that he wrote to the Secretary of State for Social Services, who has been in touch with the regional health authority to discover what is happening. This is an extraordinary situation. The Secretary of State starts the exercise and forces a contraction of services but the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster then wants to know why his constituent is suffering because a consultant is not travelling out to Essex to provide a service.
  On one hand, the Government are closing a hospital in my constituency and
  490
  my constituents are unable to get service. On the other hand, they want sums of money provided to allow peripatetic consultants to travel out to Essex for the convenience of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Secretary of State should get together to explain that one of the spin-offs of this appalling progress is that people get hurt.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is right to take up the case of his constituent. I am taking up the case of my constituents. I hope for an assurance from the Minister that will enable me to tell my constituents that the National Health Service will continue to operate in Hackney.
  1.51 am
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I shall not detain the House for long. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) on raising this subject and casting it in such wide and generous terms. It would be valuable for the Minister and my hon. Friend to hear about the position elsewhere in the country.
  I must tell my hon. Friend that complaints about London by Londoners, although no doubt justified in London terms, sometimes look different viewed from one of the under-funded regions of the country. Those of us who live in the Trent Valley, in the region of the Trent regional health authority, think that there is considerable difference between the Thames Valley and the Trent Valley. On funding, the previous Government and, so far as I know, the present Government became committed to the idea of a progressive and slow transfer of resources to the under-funded regions. Among those principally affected was the Trent region.
  It is the question of resources for the Trent RHA and, particularly, the Derbyshire area health authority that I wish to raise with the Minister. I shall be as brief and explicit as possible.
  Three issues concern us in the East Midlands and within the area of the Trent RHA. There is the question of the scaling down of medical skills available in some hospitals. There is the question of the waiting lists, a matter to which my hon. Friend has already referred so eloquently. There is the question of the

  491
  severe. drastic and immediate hospital closures—a large number of them.
  In the city of Derby, part of which I have the honour to represent, the Derbyshire Royal infirmary is threatened with the loss of a number of facilities, including its facilities for neurology and neurosurgery. The idea is that these facilities might be rationalised within Nottingham hospitals. If that happened, I must inform the Minister that it would be hard to maintain the standards of treatment and the range of skills that have existed at the Derbyshire Royal infirmary. That is part of the problem with which we were dealing under the previous Labour Government.
  On the issue of radiotherapy, we got several concessions from the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), but there appears now to be an additional threat. I mention this because it is one of the sources of neurosis and demoralisation spreading across the entire hospital service in Derbyshire and because the Minister knows of my interest in some of the areas that I shall be discussing.
  In Derbyshire and in the Trent region, there is now as serious and chronic a shortage of beds—a problem of waiting lists—asanywhere in the country, certainly as bad as anywhere in London. The Minister knows that the national figures are in excess of 850,000 and rising. The position is so bad in some parts of Derbyshire that patients have to wait years for critical operations.
  A constituent of mine has a young teenage daughter who has severe curvature of the spine. That condition needs an operation in adolescence if it is to be successful. She had to wait not months but years for that operation. After the intervention of the Department and the RHA, the operation was finally carried out—we pray successfully—on 14 November. For critical operations of that kind it should not be necessary to have to approach the Member of Parliament and the DHSS to get satisfactory surgical treatment within the National Health Service.
  For non-critical operations the position is much worse. The Minister will probably have seen one of the cases
  492
  quoted in the Sunday Mirror last weekend. I refer to the North Derbyshire district, again within the Derbyshire AHA. Dr. McConachie, the chairman of the local medical advisory committee, told that newspaper that
  "The area is the worst in the country. If you need surgery for some minor operation, varicose veins for instance, you could wait up to 30 years."
  That is an appalling indictment of our National Health Service. I do not want to play party politics. These matters have long been coming to the boil. They are a disgrace to any country that pretends to have a comprehensive National Health Service.
  The position in Derbyshire will be made still worse by the progressive closures of hospitals upon which the area health authority has now embarked. This is a fairly narrow point, relating to Derbyshire, but it may be appropriate to make it in this debate rather than attempt to make it on the wider issues tomorrow when the hon. Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith) hopes to raise the case of one hospital on the Adjournment. We can then go into even more detail.
  The Derbyshire area health authority, being now £.1½ million overspent, proposes to close not just one but seven hospitals within the county—almost all of the smaller, well-established, highly regarded hospitals that deal with recuperative treatment and non-acute cases.
  The Minister knows of my interest in, for example, multiple sclerosis. The only place to which someone can go for rehabilitative treatment for multiple sclerosis, if he lives in the city of Derby, with the enormous pressure on beds for operations and post-operative cases in the Derbyshire Royal infirmary and the City hospital, is one of the small hospitals on the outskirts of Derby, such as Etwall or Draycott. If one goes to the Etwall hospital, as I frequently do, to see multiple sclerosis patients and others, one sees the remarkable treatment that these patients have been getting from highly skilled staff.
  There is no question of these hospitals being out of date, incompetent or degenerating in themselves, but we are now told that they are all to be closed. It may be that they are to be closed only temporarily, but "temporarily" in the first

  493
  instance means until 1981, and that may mean for ever. The record of the AHA reopening hospitals is not good. That would mean, inevitably, that the waiting lists would be longer and some people would not receive hospital treatment at all.
  For many, the difference between resuming some sort of active life and a helpless vegetable existence at home comes from the recuperative treatment in the smaller hospital, where there is not the rush and throughput of a larger hospital that is mostly concerned with postoperative cases. That has been the position of the smaller hospitals in Derbyshire. All who have had relatives treated in those hospitals, as I have, have reason to be grateful. Now, the person who has a stroke or amputation or is suffering from a degenerative disease and who has been greatly helped by the smaller hospitals in the past will have nowhere to turn. It would not be possible, within the National Health Service, to receive the treatment that that person needs.
  We are not talking simply of some facilities being closed down or the long waiting lists within existing hospitals. We are talking of the whole problem being made more acute by the closures of the seven hospitals to which I have referred. I should like to hear tonight from the DHSS an assurance that it will look at the problem in terms of the first charge upon it being that of patient care and the maintenance of the hospital services that we have every right to expect and for which we have paid our taxes. Does the DHSS accept that the Trent AHA, over the years, has been under-funded and that there should have been a progressive transfer of resources to health authorities of that sort? Does it accept that it is a foolish and short-sighted step to close hospitals in such a wanton fashion? Does it further accept that the under-funding of the AHA—it is a general under-funding, not incompetence or extravagance in other areas on the part of the AHA—can be remedied only by an infusion of additional money? More funds are needed, especially for the Derbyshire AHA.
  I hope that the Minister does not tell the House that it will all be solved by the axing of the AHAs. It may well be. I thought in the past that a layer of
  494
  bureaucracy should be removed. However, the eventual overall saving from the axing of the AHAs would be about £30 million at its most optimistic, and that would be spread over 60 or more authorities. Clearly, that would not mean much, even in terms of the one year's over-spending in Derbyshire.
  Mr. Ronald W. Brown: One of the issues of the Bill is that the very hospitals that are to be emptied will become establishments for private practice. The funds are being set out to allow private practice to take place, and those who are able to afford treatment will continue to receive it, while my constituents are unable to afford it.
  Mr. Whitehead: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The partisan note that he has injected is one that I must echo If one drives out of Derby, one passes the site of a new luxury hospital being built with private cash by a consortium of consultants and financial friends. It will offer a great range of recuperative services, if one is prepared to pay large sums to receive them.
  I am concerned that we should even consider reaching a position in which the patient is told that if he needs a non-urgent operation or recuperative treatment he must go to the private sector. It is clear that many people will not be in a position to afford that. It is absolutely clear, for example, that many elderly people, stricken down with disease, a stroke, or something of that sort, will not be able to go to the luxury hospitals set up in the private sector and buy the treatment they need.
  The principle of the National Health Service, set out by its founding fathers—Dr. Stark Murray, and people like that—was that we should have a comprehensive service from the cradle to the grave. Well, we do not have it from the cradle to the grave, and people get to the grave a good deal earlier without the service that they need. Many people will meet an untimely end and many more will be condemned to a period of misery and immobility as a result of the kind of closures of which we are talking.
  The Minister is a compassionate man. I want from him a commitment to the principle of a National Health Service for all—for the non-acute as well as the acute cases, and for the recuperative as

  495
  well as the operative cases. I want him to say loud and clear that the Department will look at the closures now being proposed in Derbyshire and will consider the alternatives, both in terms of the funding that the authority already has and the funding that we contend it ought to have in order to maintain the level of patient care in the region that we believe any well-intentioned and properly funded Health Service should provide.
  2.6 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): This has been an interesting debate. I think that the contributions by the hon. Members for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) and Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) have counterbalanced each other. The first hon. Member spoke on behalf of an "over-provided" London area. His contribution was balanced by that of his hon. Friend, who was speaking for an "under-provided" area outside London. They have posed very well the problem that faces the Government in allocating resources to the National Health Service.
  The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch has a deep interest in and knowledge of the National Health Service, but his language was Somewhat extravagant. When he reads his words in the cold light of dawn, I hope that he will agree to moderate his remarks. He said that we were embarking upon "the total destruction of health services" in his constituency. That is an emotive and hysterical remark, which bears no relation to what is happening in his constituency. As a member of a regional health authority, he knows that.
  He and his hon. Friend trespassed to some extent on a debate that will take place in just over 12 hours' time on the Health Services Bill. I do not want also to trespass on that territory. The hon. Member spoke of closures. His Government's record was hardly one to inspire confidence. During their period in office about 280 hospitals were closed or approved for closure. On 31 March this year proposals were made for the closure of a further 31 hospitals.
  The hon. Member began by saying that there was a shifting age pattern in his constituency, and he is right The RAWP
  496
  formula, as set out in the document "Sharing resources for health in England" makes it quite clear that age is one of the factors that has to be taken into account. Paragraph 2.4 relates to the need for measuring the demand for non-psychiatric inpatient services to take account of age and sex. The same point is made in paragraph 1.7, which considers the population make-up. I concede what the hon. Gentleman says. The formula for allocating resources should take that into account. But on pages 132 and 128 of the document, bearing in mind the contrast between the region in which the constituency of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch is located and that in which the constituency of the hon. Member for Derby, North is located, one can see a tremendous discrepancy in the amount of resources per head. On page 128 the document states that
  "The North East Thames Region has £13·54 excess over the average per head of weighted population whereas the Trent Region has a shortfall of £7·72."
  That is an example of the disparity in provision which this Government and our predecessors have been determined to do something about.
  Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Only 15 per cent.—two years ago it was 13 per cent.—of the people using St. Bartholomew's, the teaching hospital in my constituency, come from my constituency. The rest come from other parts of the country, including the Trent region.
  Sir G. Young: The hon. Gentleman is right, but this comprehensive document indicates that part of the formula takes account of the fact that people move from one region to another and that some regions have a teaching responsibility that others do not.
  The hon. Gentleman raised detailed points about St. Leonard's hospital. I should like to look into them. The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to have at my finger-tips the agenda of the meeting that took place recently, though I hope the the members of the authority who are taking the decisions have the agenda and relevant papers. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman after looking into the matters that he has raised.
  On consultation, the hon. Gentleman may not know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health has recently given

  497
  fresh guidance to health authorities on the procedure for consultation, particularly where temporary closures are proposed. If the hon. Gentleman has not seen that guidance, I shall certainly send him a copy.
  Claiming that the term "temporary closure" is fraudulent is another exaggeration.
  Last week I answered an Adjournment debate initiated by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) about the temporary closure of a hospital—a closure that was clearly a temporary one. A working party had been set up to make plans available for bringing the hospital back into action. I do not accept what the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch says about the use of the term "temporary closure" being fraudulent.
  The hon. Member for Derby, North made a much more reasoned contribution. I assure him that we have a commitment to the NHS. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making that even clearer in his speech later today. I also confirm that the hon. Gentleman's region is under-funded and that there ought to be a switch towards it.
  The hon. Gentleman said that there are seven proposed closures in his region, and he added that some are only temporary. There is a procedure that must be gone through before permanent closures can take place. There is to be another debate today on problems in Derbyshire. I shall look in more detail at the problems raised by the hon. Gentleman and write to him. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's conclusion that it is hospital closures that will add to waiting lists. The problem is one of resources rather than closures. The waiting list in December 1974 was 517,000 and in March this year it was 752,422. There is not much in the record of the previous Administration that affords comfort there.
  I know the deep concern of the hon. Member for Derby, North about problems in Derbyshire. I shall consider what he has said and will write to him. I do not think that he would expect me to have at my finger-tips hte answers to all the matters that he raised.
  I turn to what the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said about Mr. Birnstingl. The Minister for Health issued a press statement a few
  498
  days ago rebutting the allegations made in some national papers. No information was given to the Home Office that it did not already have. My Department does not pass information on to the Home Office to enable it to chase illegal immigrants. It has a responsibility to see that the NHS is not abused, and we try to minimise gate-crashers. I see the hon. Gentleman nodding in assent. That is the extent of our responsibility, and we do not pass to the Home Office confidential information that it may need for a totally different purpose.
  Behind the remarks of both hon. Members is the debate about redistributing resources. It is important to understand that redistributing resources on a more equitable basis is a long-term strategy. The aim is one that has existed from the birth of the National Health Service and has been part of its basic philosophy, but it is only in recent years that an objective measure has been developed and applied to effect and monitor the process.
  The first step was the development of the formula that was applied from 1971–72 to non-teaching hospital services. After the 1974 reorganisation, this was refined and developed for application to the hospital and community health services as a whole, in the shape of the resource allocation working party recommendations published in 1976. This process is colloquially known as RAWP.
  The working party's formula for assessing target allocations takes account of age and sex structure of the population and other selected indicators of need for health care such as standardised mortality ratios, which are included as a proxy for morbidity. Account is also taken of the numbers of in-patients that cross administrative boundaries, of London weighting payments and of the additional costs that arise from the provision of facilities for undergraduate medical education.
  Even before these yardsticks had been developed, however, successive Governments had gone some way to reducing the gross inequities that the National Health Service had inherited in the provision of health care across the country. But the actual process of shifting resources relied mainly on building new hospitals where they were judged to be most needed and providing the necessary resources to run them. There are obvious dangers in

  499
  such a haphazard approach. Special pleading and other subjective considerations are likely to have an undue influence, hence the strong advantage of the sort of objective measure that RAWP provides.
  However, even with a formula to guide us, equity cannot be achieved overnight. RAWP can help on what share of available resources a region ought to have, but how quickly that target can he achieved is still amatter of political judgment. The overriding regulator will always be the additional resources available nationally in any one year coupled with the judgment of Ministers about the maximum restraint that can realistically be imposed on the relatively better-off regions, such as North-East Thames.
  It has always been an unenviable task to have to decide the fairest way of allocating new resources, particularly, as in present times, when they are so scarce. Not only is it impossible to satisfy everyone; it is scarcely possible to satisfy anyone. It has come as no surprise to hear of the difficulties of the better-off regions in making ends meet from a position of virtually nil growth in the past, and from the less well-endowed regions about the need from their point of view for a much faster redistribution of resources.
  For next year, the recent White Paper gives only½per cent. growth nationally for the health services—the level of growth planned by the previous Administration—after restoring what has been lost in this year's squeeze on resources. That is what we allocate to the National Health Service as a whole. It has to be redistributed among the regional health authorities, from them to the area health authorities, and from them to the districts. It does not follow that each area health authority will get an additional ½ per cent.
  Much play has been made of the effects of cash limits on health authorities. There has been a considerable effect. Health authorities' revenue allocations have been squeezed by about 3 per cent.—between £125 million and £130 million—and the effects of such a reduction are bound to be considerable. We have discussed this matter during two Supply day debates and on a number of Adjournment debates. I do not want to belittle either those effects or the concern felt by hon.
  500
  Members. However, we must set the record straight. The Labour Government set cash limits at a woefully low level. They were guilty of setting cash limits at the level that they would have liked to see for pay and prices rather than taking realistic account of what was likely. When the limits were announced in April, they were already far too low.
  Health authorities were told that there would be no increases for excess inflation and that the first £23·4 million of excess pay costs would not be met. There was the undertaking to pay the excess costs of approved pay settlements above £23·4 million, but no financial provision was made for that. This was a classic postdated cheque drawn on somebody else's bank account. We have honoured that undertaking and we have increased the cash limits by £250 million-plus as a consequence. One more major sum remains to be added for the costs of the Clegg Commission award to nurses. By the time that we have honoured the commitment on that award, the increase in the cash limits is likely to be in excess of £300 million, or about 8 per cent. above the original cash limit.
  I do not detract from the squeeze that has taken place, but it is important to recognise that, at a time when the Government's fiscal and economic policies demand a reduction in public spending and that the PSBR be held down, we have nevertheless found for the NHS substantial sums previously unbudgeted for.
  The effects of the squeeze that have occurred this year have attracted much attention. The hon. Gentleman himself mentioned this. The Government believe that the NHS should do everything in its power to absorb the effects of the squeeze as far as possible without cutting or harming direct patient services. We have been heartened by the way in which authorities generally have set about this task. I am sure that they will continue to tackle it well. A good treasurer knows of many ways of cutting corners which do not affect patients, and I pay tribute to the treasurers who have done all in their power. But in some places economies of this sort have not been enough, and cuts in the planned levels of services have had to happen—new developments have had to be delayed and existing hospitals and wards have had to be closed, some of them temporarily.

  501
  I regret each and every one of these decisions, and I appreciate the impact that they have had on the patients who would have used those services and the dedicated staff who would have worked there, but in the last resort the necessity of those measures has to be recognised. I do not for a moment suppose that it was any easier for the authorities concerned to decide on those measures than it was for those of us seeing them from a greater distance. The plain fact is that this country can have only the services—education, housing and personal social services, as well as the NHS—which our economy can sustain.
  Finally, I shall say a word about next year's cash limits. It will be some time before the cash limits themselves can be announced, although we have set out in the White Paper our general expectations. But I can say that we have no intention of repeating our predecessors' error. We shall be setting cash limits that we judge to be realistic, and we shall stick to them. Health authorities will be able to plan with more certainty and to be arbiters of their own fates.

  POLARIS MISSILES
  2.22 am
  Mr. Bruce George: I approach this debate with contradictory sentiments. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has come himself to reply when it would have been so easy for him—as I expected him to do—to farm out the responsibility to one of his junior Ministers. It is therefore with regret that I have drawn him here at this time.
  I regret even more that an issue of such magnitude and historic importance for this country, probably until way into the next century, should have been taken, or is about to be taken, without any significant public debate, and certainly, so it appears, without any real parliamentary debate. It is therefore a matter for sadness that only as a result of an end-of-term raffle is there any likelihood of debate in the House prior to a decision being made on the replacement of Polaris.
  I am not blaming the Secretary of State. He has said on several occasions that he would like a debate, but, as his right
  502
  hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote to me on 14 November:
  "I hope this will be possible"
  —that is, a debate—
  "but it is a question of finding time in what is a very full parliamentary programme."
  In the light of the Bills that are being introduced, not all of them essential, I argue, to the welfare of our country, that time could be found. One of these often largely contentious Bills could be temporarily shelved in order to allow the House of Commons to debate an issue of momentous significance. A short debate of this kind is not seen by anyone, I hope, as a substitute for the full debate that I hope will take place in the not-too-distant future.
  A decision has been taken on the issue of theatre nuclear weapons. A decision has either been taken or will shortly be taken on replacing Polaris. We in the House of Commons have had minimal input into the decision-making process. I believe that Parliament has a right to be consulted and that that consultation should be a prelude to decision-making, whereas, if we are lucky, we shall be able to talk about it only after the decision has been made. I am reminded that Frederick the Great said "My people and I have a wonderful arrangement. I let them say exactly what they like, and they let me do exactly as I like." At least, the Prussians perhaps had an advantage over us in that they were able to debate.
  The public have a right to be consulted, for the reason that was well put in the "Panorama" programme last week, on which the Secretary of State appeared. The commentator told the public:
  "It is your bomb. You paid for it. If missiles are ever fired, it will be in your name."
  As members of the public are affected by the decisions that have been, or are about to be, taken, I should like to see a more meaningful debate. Maybe public debates are irritating. Perhaps there are troughs and peaks of interest, but certainly something of this importance should not be a monopoly of a handful of people. If we contrast the debate abroad on theatre nuclear weapons with what passed for a debate in the country and the House, I regard that comparison with some embarrassment.

  503
  Let us consider the debate taking place in the United States on SALT—not just in Congress but in public. When I was recently in the United States, I took part in the debate with an official from the State Department. I was most impressed by the voluminous documentation produced informing the public of every aspect of SALT. However, I am not certain what impact the numerous press officers in the Ministry of Defence have on public attitudes. I feel that we could learn a great deal from the United States about the dissemination of information. If members of the public are involved in the decision-making process, when a decision is made the fact that they took part and approved acts as a cement. If a decision is taken without genuine public consultation, future discontent is built up.
  Turning to the question of dissemination of defence information, we may read the United States Department of Defence annual report, which contains 340 pages. The German equivalent contains 293 pages, even in an English edition. Our own expurgated version contains about 90 pages. That neatly summarises the attitudes taken by Governments in this country towards informing the public.
  To take these historic decisions in such a hole-in-the-corner way is to invite a deluge of criticism. That is one more example of the unholy alliance between a small, secretive and mostly faceless defence elite and the inexorable power of bureaucratic momentum.
  The decision to replace Polaris was not sudden. An Admiral of the Fleet recently said that the Ministry of Defence had been considering the options for a successor to Polaris
  "for at least 10 years."
  Certainly the House has not made any significant input into considering the options.
  Perhaps the Secretary of State will reiterate the words of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who, in a recent letter to me, said:
  "I believe the House already has ample information at its disposal"
  to make a decision on a Polaris replacement. I am wondering where the information is. Is it the four and a half pages produced by the previous Government in their submission to the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee? I do not
  504
  consider that to be sufficiently informing this House or the public. The overwhelming contribution to that document came from outside organisations. The contribution by the Ministry of Defence informing this House and the Sub-Committee of the options available in the replacement of Polaris I regard as being rather insignificant and inconsequential.
  A debate should take place on the basis of a great deal more information than we have been given hitherto. Are we in the House to be excluded from decision-making because we are not qualified, or is it because we are not to be trusted?
  I recall articles that appeared in a number of newspapers recently, following, presumably, a press release from the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), saying that the Labour members of the new defence Select Committee should be positively vetted, and somehow seemingly suggesting that we were defence risks. I do not wish to be malicious to the hon. Gentleman, but somehow he suggested that the Labour members of the Select Committee were less reliable.
  In her letter to me, the Prime Minister said:
  "However the actual choice of a successor system will inevitably depend on highly sensitive, technical and operational judgments which could not be made public without damaging our vital security interests."
  I believe that the scope allowed to the House of Commons for debate on this issue by Governments is too narrow. I do not want information that is excessively sensitive and that, if it fell into the wrong hands, would be injurious to our national interests, but I believe that the parameters of debate could be widened considerably without jeopardy to national security.
  My criticisms are directed not exclusively to the Secretary of State but to Governments in general. There is a mania for secrecy. If we are to believe reports in The Times, the last Labour Government adopted a secretive approach to the issue of a Polaris replacement.
  I recall an article about Sir Winston Churchill when he became Prime Minister in 1951. He was surprised that the previous Government had spent £100 million on an atomic energy project about which the incoming Tory Government were totally oblivious. Secrecy is by no means a monopoly of this Government. It is true

  505
  of Governments generally. A strong case could be made for changing that.
  Underlining all discussion of nuclear weapons is the notion of uncertainty. There is our uncertainty about the intentions of our enemies and their capability to overwhelm us. There is the uncertainty that we seek to instil in the enemy regarding our own capabilities and intentions. There is also the uncertainty about our response to differing levels of attack on us or on our allies.
  Added to this general uncertainty, one must mention the uncertainty over the replacement of Polaris. That means uncertainty over the cost, the timing of a decision, the usefulness of a deterrent and the type of replacement that would be most advantageous, given a decision to replace Polaris. There would also be the uncertainty about the role that Parliament would play in the process.
  In a subject so clouded with uncertainty, there is one element of certainty. That is that Parliament has been blatantly ignored. On Monday the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) wrote in The Guardian
  "We have been told nothing, and we have been in no way encouraged to examine the alternatives. It is not for us to reason why."
  It is not my intention to do and die. I and some hon. Gentleman on the Conservative Benches have said that we make decisions in the wrong way.
  There is an element of gross uncertainty about the cost of replacement. The Government have not been as forthcoming as they should have been on cost. If Governments play their cards close to their chests, they have only themselves to blame if there is rumour and speculation, with figures quoted that may be grossly inflated. One way of undermining this kind of speculation and rumour is for Governments to be far more forthcoming with information.
  Some quotes have emerged that suggest that a Polaris replacement will cost about £3,000 million. I have seen a maximum figure—there maybe higher maxima—of £8,000 million. Ian Smart, in his paper for the Royal Institute of International Affairs, estimates that
  "a system consisting of five submarines and associated missiles would cost £2,500 millions to £3,250 millions at 1977 prices".
  A "Panorama" team recently argued that a fleet of five submarines and their
  506
  missiles would cost £5,000 million at today's prices. Farooq Hussain, formerly of the IISS and now at Stanford University, estimated in the October edition of New Scientist that
  "the total cost of a Trident fleet of four submarines would be about £6,000 million to £8,000 million".
  These escalating estimates bring a shudder to anyone who remembers the debacle of Blue Streak. They bring to mind two more recent procurement headaches—Concorde and Tornado. There is obviously a high degree of inaccuracy in predicting the development and production costs of any advanced technology system. That does not excuse the Government for not sharing their estimates with Parliament. Not only must we know what the Government think about what a Polaris replacement will cost; we must know where the money will come from.
  A 10-year programme of, say, £5,000 million represents, on average, a yearly increase of 7 per cent. on the defence bill. That is a high percentage of the procurement bill. Where will that money come from? If the £5,000 million is to be found within the current defence spending plans, what projects will be scrapped? Something must give. May we be assured that the main battle tank, for instance, will not suffer; that the Tornado programme will continue; that the Navy's attack submarine programme is secure?
  There are also uncertainties about the repercussions that could be caused by the building of Britain's new ballistic missile submarines. Of the two yards that produce Polaris—Vickers at Barrow and Cammell Laird at Birkenhead—only Barrow is now available. Will facilities at Barrow be expanded to handle the new construction programme, or will work on our attack submarines be sacrificed in favour of the new boats? Alternatively, will the new submarines be built elsewhere?
  There is uncertainty about timing. There has been much talk about the urgency of a decision. The hurried nature of what is happening in the Cabinet and in Washington is an indication of the desire to speed up decision-making. On Thursday the Secretary of State said that a decision would be taken within the next few months. Some informed sources

  507
  argue that a decision has already been taken. I am not in a position to certify that. However, evidence suggests that we need not rush to make a judgment.
  Some of my colleagues may argue that we can postpone a decision for 10 years, or indefinitely. I do not say that, but there is no earthly reason why we should take a decision in the next few months. Last January the then Prime Minister said that a decision would have to be taken in the next two years. The then Secretary of State for Defence agreed with that when giving evidence to the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee. We must assume that its sources were reasonably authoritative.
  In testimony to the same Committee, Ian Smart said that a decision had to be taken by 1980. More recently, Dr. John Simpson, of Southampton university, said that a programme using United States missiles would probably have to commence by mid-1983. Even more recently, Farooq Hussain said that there was
  "no need for a decision to be taken before 1985 at the earliest."
  The original estimates of when a decision had to be taken were based on a submarine hull life of 20 years. This estimate was later increased to 25 years. I have heard from a source that I regard highly that the hull life is probably as long as 35 or 40 years. In January 1978 Farooq Hussain, while at the IISS, wrote:
  "based on the estimated hull life of the submarines alone, it can reasonably be assumed that the UK SSBN fleet can be maintained throughout this century."
  That was in a memorandum submitted to the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee.
  It has also been argued that, in addition to hull life, two further controlling factors are the shelf life of the Polaris missile propellant and the irradiation of the submarine hull. However, it has been shown that the shelf life can be extended by keeping the propellant cool and that there are no signs of hull damage due to irradiation.
  Some would maintain that there is a fourth controlling factor—the United States presidential election. The argument that I have heard is that there is a need to speed things up now, as there
  508
  could later be somebody in the White House who was perhaps less friendly, or the unless a decision is made very soon President Carter is likely to be otherwise engaged in his own campaigning.
  I believe that this type of thinking could be outdated. The Polaris deal at Nassau was an Executive-controlled decision on the part of the United States as well as the United Kingdom, but the relationship between the Legislature and the Executive in the United States has changed so considerably that there is now in my view no certainty that any presidential decision would automatically receive congressional approval. Indeed, one source has said that the United States Congress could be less sympathetic to British ambitions than a Conservative Administrative would desire.
  It is argued that the United States Congress could insist that the political price for Trident for Britain could be tight United States control of the missiles, perhaps even to the extent of making them dual key, as are German nuclear weapons acquired from the United States. Britain could then be in rather an embarrassing position.
  There are, in my view, many advantages in waiting and not rushing into a decision. One advantage, surely, would be that the public could take part in a debate. This would reinforce the eventual decision. It is not automatic, surely, that just because there is a public debate the public will vote against. If the arguments are put sensibly, there is every likelihood that the public will come out in support.
  If we postpone a decision for a few years, there could, by the mid-1980s, be better options available to us. Press reports of the Secretary of State's visit to Belgium last week indicate that he and Mr. Brown, of the United States Defence Department, lectured the allies on the need to upgrade conventional weapons. One advantage in postponing a decision is that we could surely upgrade our conventional weapons without the financial millstone that Polaris replacement would pose. We could re-equip, which would be to our advantage.
  A further uncertainty about the position is that of the concept of deterrence. In addition to the uncertainties that I mentioned earlier in my speech, there is the question whether deterrence actually

  509
  works. As Dr. Groom, of the university of Kent, neatly summarised the argument,
  "while deterrence can be shown to have failed, it can never be shown to have worked."
  The Secretary of State, clearly, is committed to the theology of deterrence, but in the "Panorama" programme that I have mentioned several times, in which he participated, Paul Warnke, a former director of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, said that he saw no strategic value in Britain's deterrence and could not envisage a situation in which it would be used. In the same programme, Vice-Admiral Charles Griffiths, the United States Commander-in-Chief of Submarine Warfare, quite openly said that NATO does not need Britain's deterrent.
  Lord Carver was also on hand to say that he could not visualise a situation in which Britain's deterrent would be used. In a letter to the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee, Lord Carver clearly stated the problem. He categorised Britain's deterrent as
  "a form of insurance policy against the withdrawal of United States support for the defence of Western Europe, including Britain."
  He felt that this was
  "very unlikely and would mean the end of NATO".
  He went on to say that a decision for a Polaris replacement was
  "a judgment as to whether or not it is worth paying the premium to meet a risk which is so unlikely to arise."
  We are not talking about people who are pacifists opposing Polaris replacement with Trident; we are talking of people with considerable authority on defence matters. In reality, Britain's nuclear deterrent is considered by many people not to be a major part of NATO's overall deterrent strategy. That is a point over which we must ponder.
  One gets the impression that the role of Polaris has not been completely thought out. Doctor Simpson, of Southampton university, has written:
  "In comparison with the literature on the United States, USSR and French nuclear deterrent doctrines, little has been written on the roles the British Polaris force is designed to perform, the scenarios in which it would be relevant and the mechanisms through which its deterrent effect would operate".
  510
  An argument that is frequently used is that one of the reasons for maintaining Polaris or its successor is that it would guarantee us a place at the highest tables. But that has been criticised. Peter Hill-Norton, although clearly in favour of Polaris replacement, has said:
  "The argument that possession of nuclear weapons secures a seat at the top table is of doubtful validity. Britain has not participated in the SALT discussions; a majority of the participants in summit meetings such as those at Guadeloupe and Tokyo have been non-nuclear".
  He clearly sees the advantage of replacing Polaris with Trident, but the argument that it does not secure a top-table seat is one that has significance.
  Even if one accepts that in the final analysis, and despite the considerable evidence to the contrary, Britain needs a deterrent of its own, it is still not clear which one it should be. The consensus in favour of Trident is not as complete as many would wish it to be. There have been serious arguments in favour of Cruise missiles mounted on conventionally powered submarines—an option which many argue is cheaper than Trident. Another option favoured would be a Cruise missile fired from the torpedo tubes of our existing nuclear attack submarines. That has been sensibly argued. There are also those who favour a system consisting of existing Polaris A3 missiles in new submarines.
  I do not want to talk at length about the Polaris improvement programme, but I am not satisfied with the information that has been given. I have seen an article published by the hon. Member for Alder-shot arguing another alternative, namely, collaboration with France in some form of military Concorde project. However, I understand from a recent article in The Guardian that perhaps the hon. Gentleman's views have somewhat changed.
  There is another argument in terms of options to be considered—not one put forward by a pacifist—that one should get out of the nuclear league. One of the very few things that Lord Chalfont said recently with which I agree was when he argued:
  "It would seem perverse, therefore, that Britain should choose to expend on a new nuclear weapons programme money and other resources which would be more usefully devoted to strengthening our conventional forces in Europe, and to building up military

  511
  defences which would enable NATO to meet an attack without being obliged to resort immediately to the suicidal use of nuclear weapons".
  Those are the many options that ought to be discussed. I hope that I have pointed out sufficient complications to merit a fuller and more public debate.
  In both of the Secretary of State's major appearances, he has pointed out the impossibility of reaching the Russian people with the arguments. I hope that he is satisfied that the British public has been fully reached with the arguments. His boss has argued that her speeches help towards this debate, but a debate is a two-way street. Mindless sloganising, or the exploitation of fears, is not conducive to any rationality of argument.
  I relate my final points to the role that Parliament ought to be playing in defence decision-making. Perhaps, through the creation of Select Committees, we have a chance to allow hon. Members to play a much more significant role. That can come about only if the Ministry of Defence is prepared to give information. It will come about only if we are given proper research assistance, and that means strengthening the Library and providing the Committee with adequate advice.
  I believe that during its nine years the old Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee had just over 350 days of expert advice. I do not say that the reports were inadequate, but a Committee of 11 part-timers aided by part-time advisers is no match for the Ministry of Defence.
  The people have the right to know on what assumption the Government work. If the assumption is known, the Government's policies will have more chance of being accepted. If there is insufficient authoritative information, it is rumoured—if the Government allow the new Select Committees to play a useful role—that the Committees will inquire, pry, disagree, demand and generally be a nuisance to Whitehall. That is how it should be. The primary basis of our Government structure must be democracy and not order, simplicity and administrative convenience. The House stands at a crossroads. Will the new Select Committees be the beginning of a meaningful parliamentary reform or will they provide yet another blind alley and non-event? The latter answer would be totally inexcusable.
  512
  I apologise for talking at greater length than I originally anticipated. However, it is an important debate and I am grateful for the Secretary of State's attendance. I look forward earnestly to listening to his comments when the time comes.
  2.51 am
  Mr. John Wilkinson: The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) has done the House a great service. Although he confessed to feeling contradictory sentiments, one message was clearer than any other—he advocated delay in a decision on the replacement of Polaris. I sympathise with his feelings, because in 1978 the former Secretary of State in the previous Administration, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), said that the Labour Government had no plans to develop the Cruise missile or a successor to Polaris. I am pleased, however, that the present Administration are now looking seriously at the question of nuclear strategy. A positive approach is right. I do not believe that it is sensible to delay a decision on the position of Britain's strategic deterrent any longer. The sixth report of the Expenditure Committee spelt out a clear warning in its sixth paragraph, which is a quotation from Mr. Ian Smart of the Royal Institute of International Affairs:
  "The planning assumption must be that the existing British force"—
  the British Polaris—
  "will cease to constitute a reliable deterrent at a date which, for technical reasons, is likely to occur in about 1993. It may seem that 1993 is far away from the point of view of the British deterrent, however, it is very close indeed.…
  Britain, if it were to develop and produce the new deterrent force itself, would need up to 13 years to complete the process. When it comes to deciding whether or not to prepare a replacement for the Polaris force, therefore, 1993 is no further away than 1980."
  We are on the threshold of 1980 and we know that the hull life of some of the Polaris boats will expire at the end of the next decade. Therefore, if we are to adopt a sea-launched strategic deterrent it is imperative to make an early decision.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, South also postulated an increase in the conventional capability of the United Kingdom. That would be welcomed by everybody. However, I do not believe that over a period of 10 to 15 years the modernisation of Britain's strategic nuclear deterrent

  513
  need preclude reasonable improvements in our conventional capability. For example, by better use of reserve forces we could get better value for money; by more rational European procurement we could reduce our equipment costs; and, perhaps, by a more rational assignment of roles within the Alliance as a whole there could also be savings.
  Finally, the hon. Member asked whether deterrence works. One thing that I do know is that in the areas of the world where aggression could have been met by a nuclear response there has, on the whole, been peace, and in the peripheral areas, where the super-Powers have sought political advantage by proxy and where no risk of nuclear exchange has ensued, there has been suffering, misery and war. One has only to look at Cambodia, South-East Asia, Afghanistan and Ethiopia.
  I believe that the doctrines of the late Sir John Slessor and others, who advocated a strategic deterrent role for this country, were right. They have ensured our peace in the past and we should now address ourselves seriously to the modernisation of our strategic deterrent.
  I believe that strategic deterrence is important for this country, first, because we cannot assume in an era of nuclear parity that the Soviet Union will not use its growing strategic nuclear strength to exert political pressure and nuclear blackmail on other countries. We can never be certain of that, and as members of NATO it is reasonable and right that we should make our own contribution to the overall strategic deterrents of the Western Alliance.
  Secondly, we cannot be sure that the interests of the United Kingdom and those of our great friends the United States will be totally identical for ever. Looking ahead over the life of the new strategic nuclear delivery system, it seems possible that in a generation or so there may be different perspectives between us on political issues and on security matters that are of great importance to the people of this country and Western Europe. That in no way diminishes or places a lesser emphasis on the crucial importance to the future of freedom and peace in the Western world as a whole of the relationship between the United States and the European members of the
  514
  Alliance. However, the strength of the Alliance as a whole is enhanced if both the Europeans and the Americans play their full part, and that includes the strategic nuclear field.
  Particularly at this time, we would do well to consider the implications of the United States nuclear guarantee. We all quite rightly welcome the decision that the NATO Foreign and Defence Ministers have taken to enhance the theatre nuclear capability of the Alliance, which is wholly admirable. However, in this country we are conscious of the fact that ultimately the decision whether to use these weapons, after due process of Alliance consultation, will rest with the United States. The great and paramount merit of having a strategic nuclear deterrent in British hands is that ultimately it will be a British Prime Minister who will decide.
  Lord Hill-Norton, in his first-class article in The Economist on 15 September, entitled "After Polaris", put the issure more clearly than ever I could. He said:
  "The value of Britain's missile submarines to the alliance lies not in their numbers but in the fact that they are a nuclear force committed to the alliance (as yet France's nuclear forces are not yet) with the centre of decision about their use elsewhere than in the hands of an American president.
  This increases the uncertainty that would face a Russian leader in deciding whether he could take the risk of using his nuclear weapons either operationally or as an instrument of political threat."
  It is this element of uncertainty that is at the heart of the whole concept of deterrence. By making a credible contribution ourselves, we increase the element of uncertainty in the minds of the Soviet policy makers.
  I turn to the relative merits of the different systems. I do not claim to be an expert, nor do I decry as vociferously as does the hon. Member for Walsall, South the evidence available to Members of this House. I think that the report of the External Affairs Sub-Committee is an admirable document. There is much in it that merits close study. I do not think that within the constraints of security we could have expected anything better.
  I am much taken with the fact that three-quarters of the globe is ocean. I am also conscious of the fact that, for a deterrent to have the maximum effect, one must increase the target able area of a potential

  515
  adversary. Again, Lord Hill-Norton produced a telling statistic when he said that at a range of 2,500 miles—the range of the existing A3 Polaris missile—an extra mile in range brought an extra 15,000 square miles of target able area. Nor are ballistic missile submarines especially vulnerable. Of course, anti-submarine warfare techniques will improve. But antisubmarine warfare techniques will mean that attack submarines will be just as vulnerable as Poseidon and Trident boats. My view is that the Trident missile constitutes the most cost-effective strategic nuclear weapon for this country.
  We could go for intermediate range ballistic missiles, but for an island that is highly populated and has only a small area, and with our potential adversaries in the Warsaw Pact already having a great intermediate range ballistic missile capability of their own in their growing SS20 deployment, I do not think that this would be wise.
  I suppose one could look at an air-launched system. But there is no replacement for the V-bomber force as such in the strategic deterrent role. Again, there is merit in looking at the total spectrum of deterrence and nuclear capability. There is merit, too, in ensuring that the Tornado force, which the Royal Air Force will have in the strike role, should be equipped with air-launched Cruise missiles. As Lord Hill-Norton made clear in his article, this is by no means beyond the technical capabilities of the United Kingdom. The French are apparently engaged in a Cruise missile programme of their own, and perhaps we could well consider this project as a joint co-operative one.
  What about the cost? I believe that for the Trident force to be effective the United Kingdom must have a minimum of five boats. That would provide two boats permanently on station. Ian Smart, of Chatham House, says that the cost would be between £3,000 million and £4,000 million. I shall not argue over the figures, but I feel that this is a very small insurance to pay for the security of this country well into the next century.
  If one looks at the annual cost of BAOR at more than £1,000 million, and the cost of local administrative and communication services in the defence budget
  516
  of more than £500 million, one realises that the running costs of the present four-boat Polaris force, at £126 million, seem very reasonable. It is a maximum of 2 per cent. of the total defence budget. That is a very reasonable insurance premium. One must recognise that the cost of modernising the British strategic nuclear deterrent will be spread out over a considerable number of years.
  I must again turn to Lord Hill-Norton, because his is a classic document of clarity and concise and logical argument. He writes:
  "Although these estimates are probably conservative, when spread over a period of 10 to 12 years they average only 4 to 6 per cent. of defence budget of the present order of £8 billion. Even so"—
  he rightly admits—
  "these are considerable sums, which at the peak of the programme might rise to some 6 to 8 per cent. of the total defence budget."
  That is true. But we spend £19,000 million per annum on social security, and the figure is rising. We also spend about £3,000 million per annum on servicing the Government's debt. In other words, it costs us as much to pay for our past profligacy as it would cost over the next eight to 10 years to pay for our future security. It ill behoves this country to have a set of priorities that puts past profligacy before future security.
  These are most urgent and important matters. The1957 White Paper on defence marked a turning point in British defence strategy. It was the point at which we consciously decided to move from a system of conscription to a system of all-Regular volunteer forces and, as a concomitant of those, to a posture of deterrence. We were to become for the next generation a strategic nuclear Power. The first stage was the V-bomber force, the Valiant, the Vulcan and the Victor, followed by Polaris.
  With hindsight, I do not believe that the decision was wrong. It meant that we assumed, on behalf of the Alliance and on behalf of the people of this country, a responsibility in nuclear matters that other European members of the Alliance, except the French, did not assume. That was a special position that we undertook.
  I do not believe that this is an appropriate time for us, either consciously or by refusing to take decisions to make

  517
  the necessary financial sacrifices, to become the first strategic nuclear Power to opt out of the business of strategic nuclear deterrence, particularly in the increasingly dangerous and uncertain world in which we have to live.
  3.7 am
  Mr. Alan Clark: I listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). Like all his speeches on these subjects, it was well researched and thoughtful. I seek only to tackle one aspect, namely, his call for greater public discussion and a wider forum of debate on the replacement of our nuclear deterrent.
  It may be unpopular for me to say that I believe that this is a singularly inappropriate subject for the House of Commons to discuss. There are two levels at which the matter could be discussed. The general level is the question whether we should or should not have a successor as an independent nuclear deterrent. The more detailed level is the question of the form that the deterrent should take and the rival merits of the different weapons systems on offer.
  The hon. Gentleman cited examples of where discussion has taken place in great depth, namely, in the United States and parts of the European Continent. It seems to me that, if anything, the effect has been to muddy the waters, delay decisions and probably retard the whole process, with no benefit to the defence capabilities of the countries where these discussions have taken place. It is easy to see why. Following an election, primary defence decisions are entrusted to the Cabinet of the party that wins the election, it being assumed, as invariably happens, that during the election that party has made clear its attitude to defence and that the electorate has decided that that party shall form the Government for the next five years.
  If we throw these decisions open in general terms to this Chamber or to other for a of discussion, we are open to every kind of pressure group, publicity seeker, amateur strategist or half-professional journalist who gets hold of some facts, not all, and presents a picture biased in one direction or another. The public, whom the hon. Member for Walsall, South seeks to enlighten, are more likely
  518
  to have their faculties blurred by the plethora of conflicting evidence of the differing pressure groups, cries of conscience, expediency, and so on, to which they will be subjected. That is at the general level.
  Questions of detail are outside the ken of the House. A large proportion of them are covered by security matters. The best parts of the hon. Gentleman's speech were those in which he quoted from the Prime Minister's letter in reply to him.
  The technical details that we would have to master if we were to apply ourselves rationally and productively to the appropriate successor system would not, for security reasons, be at our disposal. Therefore, we must accept that, following an election, the Government of the day make these decisions in conference with whatever expert evidence they summon, and that is that.
  I know that the "Panorama" programme, much cited by the hon. Gentleman and others, is threshing around and citing literally half-baked evidence. It must be half-baked, because it cannot get its cake into the oven. Even if it could, it would not know how to operate the dials. Of course, that can sometimes make people think that they are obtaining a mastery of a subject that, in my view, is outside their grasp.
  At the end, the hon. Gentleman gave the show away, because, although he presented his argument in depth and very well, we all know that he is opposed to the concept of our having an independent nuclear deterrent. I have heard him on this subject from time to time in the Chamber. He is always lucid and, by his lights, reasonably persuasive, but we know that he is opposed to it. Even if we had the capacity to debate this matter on the scale that he would like, I doubt whether many people would find that their opinions were altered at the end of the day.
  Mr. George: The hon. Gentleman has fully earned the title of the hon. Member for the ancien regime, which I read in one newspaper. That is not meant maliciously. In that article your argument was incredibly elitist and you were, in effect, saying that neither the House nor the public has the competence to assimilate the arguments. As regards the argument that you entrust a Government

  519
  with power to make decisions, looking at the Conservative Party's manifesto, I see no indication—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. In an intervention the hon. Gentleman should address to the hon. Member who has the Floor some comment that requires an answer.
  Mr. George: Are you being elitist, or over-elitist, in assuming that only a few people have the competence to make this decision?
  Mr. Clark: I had in fact concluded my speech and had not meant to detain the House longer. However, I am prepared to treat that as an intervention. The hon. Gentleman was asking you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I assume he meant to ask me whether I was an elitist. Of course I am an elitist, and I am glad to admit to being an elitist.
  3.15 am
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Francis Pym): The House is glad to have had the opportunity of the debate. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) for introducing the issue, and for the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark).
  The drift of the hon. Gentleman's speech was the need for debate in the House on the whole subject. He knows that, in principle, I agree with that and wish to have such a debate. His speech was also concerned with the principle of the strategic deterrent rather than the cost of it, which was the advertised subject for the debate. I make no complaint about that, but that was the drift of his speech. He spoke a great deal about uncertainty—I will deal with that in a moment—and that is important. He went out of his way to air every possible doubt and to fan uncertainty. He quoted various press articles and programmes, and he presented to the House a case that was at least tendentious, if not misleading. He did not mean necessarily to do that, but that was its effect.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said, the hon. Gentleman raised the whole question of nuclear strategy. I am not sure, at this hour of night and in these circumstances,
  520
  that it is the appropriate moment to deploy the entire case, as it is an extremely important issue. That strategy, supported as it has been by Governments of both parties, has worked, in the sense that it has prevented war and preserved peace in Europe—at any rate, it has played its part in contributing to that, although it is not the sole reason for preserving peace in Europe. I would certainly say, and I think the House would be of the opinion, that it was a major contributory factor.
  Against that background, and in the context of the knowledge that Polaris, our present strategic deterrent, will come to the end of its useful life in the 1990s, surely it is entirely right that the Government should give its future and continuance the most careful and profound consideration, which is what we are doing. My hon. Friend for Ruislip-Northwood used the phrase "he total spectrum of deterrent capability". That is precisely what I and the Government have been deeply concerned with following our election in May.
  Listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech, I had some regret in having been so forthcoming and frank about the consideration that we are giving to the matter. I think that I have the agreement of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton in saying that. I am here tonight, rather unusually for a Secretary of State, precisely because I mind about the argument and precisely because it is an important matter, which affects the lives not only of British citizens but of those who live in the countries of our allies.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke of a mania for secrecy. On the contrary, I have tried to lead the argument from in front for the last two or three months. Every week I have made a substantial speech about the thinking behind nuclear strategy, whatever view one takes about it, in order to try to create a public debate.
  I know that the hon. Gentleman would disagree, but I think that on the whole there is abroad acceptance of the argument underlying the nuclear strategic argument in the United Kingdom. We have lived with it for a long time. I certainly do not find the public debate irritating, as the hon. Gentleman suggested—quite the contrary. I have tried to lead it from in front. I might have said nothing for three months and waited for people

  521
  to come back at me, but far from doing that I have tried to present the reasoning in a positive way. I should have liked a parliamentary debate. I still hope that we shall have one. There has been nothing hole-and-corner about my attitude to the matter, and it is no less than fair that that should be said.
  There has been a greater deal of public information. I have tried to help the discussion about the modernisation of theatre nuclear forces which occurred last week. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have said many times that we are considering profoundly what the future of our strategic system will be.
  The hon. Member alleged that the uncertainty exists. Of course, a decision on this matter will end uncertainty. Until that decision is taken, there will be uncertainty. The hon. Member cannot have it both ways. He referred to timing and cost. In trying to excite a public debate and deploy the arguments, one, in a sense, increases the uncertainty. The way to end uncertainty is not to have a public debate but to take a decision and end the uncertainty. I have tried not to do that, because it matters to carry not only this House but the British people with us. That is why I have sought to present the arguments, whether or not people agree with them.
  There is no timetable. These are very big issues. The 1990s are over 10 years away. We have to make a judgment. We have thought it right, as a Government, not to rush in suddenly but to examine the various possible options with the utmost care and to form our views, in time, of course, for the consequences of any decision that we take to enable whatever system we decide to use to be produced in time, but, subject only to that, to examine the options with the greatest care. If we were to postpone that process, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, we should be continuing the very uncertainty of which he complains. So we are attempting, in a sensible and civilised way, to look at all the options most carefully before we come to a decision.
  The hon. Member was frank in ackknowledging that it would be wrong to ask this or any other Government to put upon the table any matters or information that could be regarded as secret and relevant to national security. I am grateful for his acknowledgment of that fact.
  522
  But, subject to that, I want the greatest possible discussion about the matter. We shall take our decision in the next few months, which is a fairly vague phrase but is indicative of the sort of time scale that we have in mind. It will enable us to assess the relative and comparative issues about the options available to us.
  That brings me to the question of cost. That is clearly a major factor in the decision that we have to take. Equally clearly, the cost will vary according to which option is chosen. There is inevitably, at the moment, a high degree of inaccuracy about the relative figures, because the programmes that have to be costed must be examined very carefully. But we must remember that of all the major weapons systems that have been put into service with the British Forces, the one that has varied least from its estimated cost before it was embarked upon has been Polaris, because it was an existing system. Whether that will apply to its successor remains to be seen. It depends on the option.
  It is extremely unhelpful and misleading to give currency to wild figures, such as 7 per cent. of the defence budget, when no decision has been taken. Even if some of the figures bandied about—whether £4 billion or £5 billion—for the total capital cost are true, and those figures are not wildly wrong, whatever the option, they are not so enormous when seen as a proportion of the total defence budget. Obviously it is an enormous sum of money, but it is not uniquely expensive for a defence project. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood referred to the Tornado programme. That is more expensive.
  One needs to keep the matter in proportion. As any major weapons system is spread over a number of years, so was Polaris and so will be its successor system. So far, Polaris has cost less than 5 per cent. of the defence budget per annum over its life. Its current expenditure—its running costs—is l½ per cent. of the defence budget. Its capital cost has been paid for. I cannot predict whether the successor will be more or less, but it will be of the order of one-twentieth of the defence budget.
  We must also remember that expenditure on strategic nuclear forces has been a permanent regular part of our defence spending for 30 years. It is not new.

  523
  Every major weapons system, with its replacement, has been a regular part of defence spending—and that will be true of the successor to the Polaris system. The proportion of the budget that we spend on a successor is likely to be much smaller than the proportion of the defence budget allocated to the V-bomber force when that was introduced in the 1950s. One must get these matters in perspective.
  In terms of the addition to deterrents, the Polaris force has represented good value for money and has made its contribution to the preservation of peace. It is the Government's view that the same will be true of the successor. There will not be total reliance on it, because the nuclear threshold must not be lowered. That is the importance of our conventional strengths. We must not allow the Alliance to lower its nuclear threshold, because the object of the exercise is never to use the deterrent but to let it represent a threat of such a magnitude that no potential aggressor would be prepared to enter an argument in the first place.
  That is probably as much as it is appropriate to say at this hour of the morning, but I hope that I have dealt with most of the points that have been raised in the debate.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman is not going to say—is he—that because the debate has taken place with only a thin attendance the House should therefore not debate the issues? Will he take the opportunity to make clear that as soon as we come back from the recess there will be a major debate?
  Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman is one of the most assiduous attenders of all hon. Members. However, had he been present at the beginning of my remarks he would have heard me say that I did not take that view. He knows that I have taken such a view from the outset. I acknowledge the problems that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has had. I have not made anything remotely like a major speech on the strategic argument, but I have tried to take up some of the issues that have properly been raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, South. I am here in person because I think that the whole issue matters so much.
  524
  I hope that in the fullness of time—at the end of what I hope the House will come to recognise as a most careful and thorough appreciation of all the problems—there will be a sound conclusion in the recommendation, whatever it is. I have no idea what it will be. I have no idea when it will come to a recommendation. I assure the House that the utmost care and trouble is being taken by us to try to reach what is, in our judgment, in the national interest and the best for the nation, neither making too much of it nor minimising it.
  I shall deploy the arguments when I get the opportunity in the House. In the fullness of time I shall announce our decision. Naturally, when that is done the matter will be fully debated.

  FISHING INDUSTRY
  3.32 am
  Mr. Iain Sproat: Even at this late or early hour, I welcome the opportunity that the debate provides to discuss some of the many problems currently facing the fishing industry. We have not had a comprehensive debate on the fishing industry for almost six months. My memory tells me that the last debate of that description took place on 26 July. It is a good thing for the House, for the Minister and for the industry that at intervals no more widely spaced than six months we have a chance to discuss in a general way what is happening to the industry and what we would like to see the Government do to improve its current prospects.
  I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member or Banff (Mr. Myles) in the Chamber to give his support. I am also pleased to see in their places the hon. Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). I hope that the presence of the hon. Member for Grimsby betokens the fact that the long-established bipartisan policy on these matters is to be continued. If we had problems with the support of individuals, we would have insoluble problems with a fragmented House.
  Everyone in the House is well aware that the fishing industry is in an extremely gloomy position. Unfortunately, that is not recognised by everybody outside the Chamber. It is the view of some hon.

  525
  Members that it is facing an apocalypse. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West (Mr. Johnson) made an interesting contribution to a debate in Committee. He thought that fishing in Hull might be finished within 12 months. That may be an over-gloomy view but it indicates the gravity that those who know a great deal about the industry attach to their consideration of it.
  There has been a substantial loss of waters off Faroes, Iceland and Norway. In the past five years we have seen about 45,000 jobs lost to the fishing industry on the sea and on the land. We have had to endure the confusion and turmoil of the common fisheries policy, or the lack of a satisfactory policy. There is also the tremendous and tragic reduction in the size of the fleet.
  Perhaps I can exemplify what I mean when I speak of the reduction in the size of the fleet by describing the situation in Aberdeen. About 10 years ago there were about 140 vessels that belong to members of the Aberdeen Fishing Vessel Owners Association. In January this year the total had shrunk to 69, and since January it has shrunk further, to 42. That decline from 140 to about 40 vessels within less than 10 years is in itself a graphic indication of the decline of the industry.
  I need say no more in sketching out the gravity of the situation, and I make one reference now to the common fisheries policy. On this, perhaps the only occasion when the issue of the common fisheries policy is not done to death in debate, I would say that we are extremely glad that my hon. Friend the Minister of State and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made absolutely clear before the Dublin summit that there was no way in which the fishing industry would be traded off against any reductions in our net contribution to the European Community.
  We are glad about that. We welcome the stand which, very early on, my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friends took, but perhaps he could quieten the fears now being expressed that, that stand having been taken at the Dublin summit and it being reported that at the Dublin summit and subsequently the Germans and others have been saying that oil should be thrown into the next negotiations over the Community budget, per-
  526
  haps fish also would be thrown into them, after the firm stand taken by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
  Will my hon. Friend make absolutely clear that the pledge that was given about any trade-off of the fishing industry applies not just to the Dublin summit but to the next and any subsequent summits, our case on Britain's part in the common fisheries policy being one of simple justice, not to be bargained away for anything else?
  I come now to some of the problems that we face in Aberdeen. I recognise that on one of them my hon. Friend the Minister of State does not have direct responsibility, it being a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I hope that he will pass on any points that he feels he cannot deal with now.
  One difficulty in Aberdeen is the extent to which the fishing industry is competing with the oil industry. The fact that this matter has been aired in the House before does not mean that it is not a continuing problem. It is twofold. First, it concerns wages. Before oil came to Aberdeen, wages there were below the national average. Since oil came they have been above the national average. In many ways that is excellent, but it puts considerable problems on the fishing industry.
  The other major difficulty which oil has brought is that the marine back-up service which the fishing industry expects is not there in the way it was. There are delays because oil vessels or oil needs are being cared for and, what is more, the cost, reacting to the money which the oil industry can afford, is much greater. So the oil industry, boon and blessing as it has been, on balance, has nevertheless brought substantial problems to the fishing industry.
  I come now to a matter properly for the Secretary of State for Scotland, namely, the question of Aberdeen receiving the same or similar aid to that given in 1978 to Hull, Grimsby and Fleetwood. The authorities in Aberdeen put in a very reasoned submission to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland but have not yet received an affirmative response. I hear that Hull, Grimsby and Fleetwood are thinking of applying for more aid, before Aberdeen has received any aid. Perhaps the hon.

  527
  Member for Grimsby will confirm that. The Secretary of State should confirm that Aberdeen will receive aid on the same basis as that given to Hull, Fleetwood and Grimsby.
  The third point to which I shall briefly refer—it could be elaborated at much greater length on another occasion—is the effect upon Aberdeen of the dock labour scheme. Aberdeen is the only port in Scotland that feels the effects of the scheme. Whatever the scheme's merits, it works to the detriment of the fishing industry in Aberdeen. I accept that fishing is not the only factor in the perspective. This weekend I was told of a skipper who landed at Peter head and paid £17 for the labour that he needed to land his fish. He worked out that that same labour would have cost £350 in Aberdeen. That is the differential. That is why everybody in Aberdeen to whom I have spoken about this matter agrees that substantial amounts of fishing trade have left Aberdeen. The Government must reconsider the effect upon the fishing industry in Aberdeen of the workings of the dock labour scheme.
  If the only way to mitigate the ill effects is to have voluntary redundancies, I hope that the Government can help with that matter. This is a considerable financial matter, as each redundancy is likely to cost between £5,000 and £7,000.
  The fourth point is not confined to Aberdeen. I refer to the cost of fuel, which at the moment is about £120 a ton. It is likely to go up by another £20 or £30 next month. That adds an enormous burden to an industry that is already crippled by the effects of the oil industry upon wages and the much lower throughput of fish at the port, the dock labour scheme and the lack of aid to Aberdeen, although aid has been given to other ports in the United Kingdom. The fact that we must pay high prices for our fuel is especially galling when we read reports of the French Government subsidising the French fishing industry by allowing it to obtain its fuel at enormously reduced prices. I have heard £40 a ton quoted. There is no way in which we can pay three times as much as the French fishing industry and still hope to remain competitive.
  I mentioned four points—the problems of the oil industry; the aid that Hull.
  528
  Fleetwood and Grimsby receive; the dock labour scheme; and the cost of fuel—which add up to a strong case for Aberdeen's having a special needs allowance to help her through this extremely difficult period.
  I hope that it will be possible to set up an early meeting between representatives of the industry in Aberdeen, the Department responsible and the Scottish Office.
  One other general point that is much discussed at the moment is the question of restructuring of the fleet. Proposals were made to the previous and present Governments. So far we have had little reaction from either Government. The Government's normal answer is "We must wait until the common fisheries policy is settled. We can decide nothing until that is settled."
  Up to a point, of course, we all accept that nothing can be decided finally until we know what the potential of the fleet will be, but, having said that, it is a fact that other Common Market countries that will also be affected by the outcome of the common fisheries policy renegotiations are already restructuring their fleets. They are injecting confidence and boosting the morale of their fishermen. That boost comes from the realisation by their Governments that there is a serious problem about what the size and the shape of the industry should be in future.
  Other fleets are getting this morale booster, while our fleet is not. Although we are not consciously restructuring the fleet, it is being restructured by default. I quote the decline in the number of vessels in Aberdeen alone, from 140 to 40within nine or 10 years. That shows that the fleet is being restructured. I hope that the Government will not delay until the common fisheries policy is settled before doing something further.
  We hope that the policy will be settled by next July, August or September, but we have all heard the story many times before. Many in the fishing industry would not be surprised—though they would be disappointed, certainly—if the common fisheries policy were not finally settled next year. We cannot go on putting off the restructuring of the fleet. At least the initial discussions between the Government and the industry on proposals already put forward should not be put off any longer.

  529
  I turn to the issue of cheap foreign imports and particularly their relationship to subsidies on foreign—especially Common Market—fleets. I have never had a satisfactory answer to my questions about the situation that obtained in Aberdeen until October—it may start up again—whereby fish landed in Dutch ports from Dutch vessels were taken to the South of England and then transported by lorry to Aberdeen to be offered there at a cheaper price than fish landed from our own vessels. That argues a considerable system of subsidy by the Dutch Government.
  When I have put forward arguments about the subsidy for French fuel and, by implication, for Dutch fish, my hon. Friend has previously said very fairly—I do not quibble—that the fishing industry should find out exactly what was going on. However, we cannot expect Aberdeen fishermen to find out what the German or Dutch Governments are doing to subsidise their fleets. Our fishermen may occasionally be able to find out what French fuel costs are. There may be one or two things that they can find out but it must be up to the Government and their representatives overseas to find out exactly what is happening.
  Perhaps we will never compare with the £100 million a year subsidy that, I understand, the Norwegian Government give to their fishing industry. The French Government, I understand, will increase their subsidy to the fishing industry next year by 37 per cent. I am not even sure that that does not exclude the subsidy on fuel. I understand that it is mainly a subsidy for the 100 vessels concerned, the fish marketing organisations, and the various incentives for building and scrapping.
  In West Germany it appears—I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend says about this—that the Government make special payments for what are euphemistically called unfamiliar species in unfamiliar grounds. It is widely believed in the British fishing industry that although those payments are given for unfamiliar species in unfamiliar grounds the fish concerned are familiar species from familiar grounds. Those payments are really operating subsidies to the German fishing industry.
  The Germans have scrapping premiums, which we do not have. The Netherlands
  530
  have scrapping premiums and laying-up premiums. The Danes have laying-up premiums and give rebates on the interest on loans to fishermen. That adds up to a substantial if hard to pin down web of subsidies for our competitors. The fishing industry in Aberdeen does not ask for anything more than is available in the rest of the United Kingdom. Similarly, the United Kingdom industry does not ask for more than our competitors get.
  We simply ask that within the Common Market the level of subsidy be eradicated, because it represents unfair competition. Let us have the same facilities. Let us compete on all fours. The fishing industry does not want any unfair or special help. It wants justice in order to overcome its considerable problems.
  3.51 am
  Mr. Robert Hughes: We have had many fisheries debates, some of which have taken place during the day, some at midnight, and some at an even later hour than this. The characters do not change much. There are changes in personnel, but the major parts are played by the same people. We have tried hard to change the person who plays the character of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), but we have never quite succeeded. Perhaps that is one cheerful prospect to which I can look forward at this time in the morning.
  It is difficult to be other than gloomy about the fishing industry. We are not to be compared with the little boy who cried "Wolf". Everything that we have said about the difficulties facing the fishing fleets has come true. We find that their plight has become worse each time we discuss this matter. The statistics on the decline of the trawling fleet in Aberdeen make grim reading.
  My figures and those quoted by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South may not tally, because vessels other than those that he mentioned sail out of Aberdeen. Currently, 53 trawlers sail from the port, compared to 80 at the beginning of the year and 115 in 1975. Currently, 520 crewing jobs are available. At the beginning of the year there were 850 and in 1975 1,200 crewing jobs. Those figures represent a considerable loss of jobs for the people who sail our trawlers.
  Aberdeen is said not to have many unemployment problems compared with the

  531
  rest of the country, but there is still a substantial loss of jobs. Currently, 6,112 fishing industry jobs are available compared with 8,606 four years ago. That is a big drop, although perhaps not as big a drop as might be expected, given the fall in the size of the fleet and the fewer jobs available.
  Much of the shortfall has been met by imported fish.
  However, imported fish does not provide all the answers for the processors and those with jobs on land. Severe problems face the industry. Sometimes one must remember why the industry faces such difficulties. The British trawling industry newsheet of 3 December this year referred specifically to the major problems—loss of fishing grounds and catching capacity, and a reduction in potential.
  It stated that
  "Iceland was lost three years ago, although the Belgians still fish there and the EEC gives the Icelanders very generous tariff concessions to exploit the Community market (which is mostly the UK); Canadian waters provide scarcely enough for one trawler trip (although the EEC has gained much better treatment for the French and the Germans); Greenland is closed for (legal) cod fishing; the Faroes are unfishable, despite an EEC Agreement (out of which the French and the Germans have done very nicely), due to moves ranging from unilateral closures of key fishing areas to outright gunboat harassment, leaving the port of Aberdeen struggling for survival and the Faroes laughing at the fact that the British have been able to catch less than 4 per cent. of the fish taken by Faroese vessels in UK waters."
  That highlights very clearly the unfortunate way in which the whole Faroes agreement has been reached, in that we are quite unable to take the catch we are allowed because of a number of restrictions on mesh size, the areas where we can catch, different closures, and so forth.
  The matter has caused great concern over a broad spectrum of opinion that normally would not coalesce into any sort of unified or similar view. Indeed, a meeting was held in Aberdeen on 23 November which was initiated by the City of Aberdeen district council, at which it was decided that a meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland should be sought and that the issue of the difficulties of fishing and what can be done to
  532
  improve the situation should be raised with the Prime Minister and, indeed, with the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  Apart from the City of Aberdeen district council, there were representatives of the Aberdeen Fishing Vessel Owners Association Limited, the Aberdeen Fish Curers and Merchants Association Limited, the White Fish Authority, the Aberdeen Inshore Fish Selling Company Limited, the Aberdeen Trawl Officers Guild, the Aberdeen Harbour Board, the Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce, the Aberdeen Trades Council, the Aberdeen Ice Company Limited, the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, the Scottish White Fish Producers Association and the General and Municipal Workers' Union. Here we see a broad coalition of industry, of commerce and of those employed in the fishing industry coming together to express their serious concern.
  One of the main concerns is where exactly we are going in relation to the common fisheries policy. People often refer to a lack of a common fisheries policy, but we have to emphasise continually that there is a common fisheries policy. It may not be in a operation to the full extent, but the EEC has a common fisheries policy. It is a fisheries policy that was cobbled together only days before we joined the EEC, with one aim in view. That aim has been adhered to rigidly by the people that we call our partners in the EEC. That single aim was to get maximum access to fish in United Kingdom waters. That is what it was all about. It was nothing to do with conservation. It was nothing to do with having rational fishing arrangements. It was nothing to do with marketing. It was nothing to do with the consumer. It was simply to allow those nations—which by their predatory fishing methods had ruined their own grounds—to gain access to the fish that swim in our waters. That was its sole purpose.
  Over the many years that we have tried to renegotiate the common fisheries policy, we have met at all times rigid refusal to understand how important fishing is to certain parts of Britain. It is true that the fishing industry is a small part of the totality of our industry. We must accept that. It may be small in

  533
  comparison with the farming industry—the other industry which produces food for the consumer—but it is a very important part of industry in Aberdeen and the North-East of Scotland.
  I know that if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) will be able to tell you how important fishing is to his part of the world. It plays a very important part indeed. We have to stand up and tell our partners in the EEC that we shall not give way on any of the requirements essential to satisfy our needs.
  I would not go so far as to say that the Minister of State is in a unique historic position, but very few people in history have had the opportunity to redeem themselves in the way in which he has. The hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Scottish Office at the time when we joined the EEC—at the time when this agreement was cobbled together—and he accepted the assurances that were given then that our partners were amenable to change, and they gave assurances that between then and 1982 changes in the arrangements would be made to suit us. Had that really been the purpose, this agreement need not have been cobbled together. The Minister of State is now in the position of being able to redeem himself.
  I do not want at any time of the morning to disturb the bipartisan relationship that we have had in the House over the years. It has at times been a bit shaky. There were times when my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) was challenged for being too robust. I do not think that one could ever accuse the Minister of State of being too robust. However, he and his right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland must stiffen their resolve with regard to their approach.
  They must get tough. It is no use being charming and saying "We shall work it out nice and friendly." We must get tough, because it is quite clear that no assurances have been met. Unless we really say that we mean business, we shall get nowhere. We must be very quick about that, because that is where the difficulties of the CFP become more urgent as time goes on. 1982 is not all that far away. It is only 13 or 14 months
  534
  before we could be faced with the full rigours of the CFP.
  I hope that the Minister of State will say that there will be no going back on the assurances that were given to the fishing industry by successive Governments. I cannot recall whether the hon. Gentleman was a signatory, but I hope that he will remember the famous—or infamous, depending on one's point of view—telegram that was sent out about two days before the general election, when Conservatives in and around the North-East of Scotland began to panic. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South feared that he would not hold his seat, and others were frightened that they would not regain their seats from the Scottish National Party. They sent a sudden telegram to the then Leader of the Opposition stating that the Conservative Party must have a fisheries policy. We have been told all these years that it has had one, but the only one it ever had was ours, and that was to stand up for our interests in the Common Market. However, I hope that the Minister will remember the pledges that were given to the fishing industry about the CFP.
  In some senses, the most immediate problem facing us is the question of access to the Faroes. The Minister of State will recall that I wrote to him on 5 November, when I raised a number of points, especially with regard to access to the Faroes and the way in which the Faroese, by insisting on very large mesh sizes, were making it most difficult, if not impossible, for us to take up the quota that was agreed.
  The Minister replied to me on 23 November, when he said:
  "We have made clear to the Faroese and to the EEC Commission, who are responsible for conducting negotiations with third countries, that unless conditions of fishing at Faroe are substantially eased in 1980 we shall not be prepared to countenance anything approaching the present scale of Faroese fishing in British waters".
  That was a very strong statement indeed. It was even stronger than the assurances that I was given in April, 1978 by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown), who was then the Scottish Office Minister responsible for agriculture. Yet a report in the Preston Journal of 11 December appeared some days later under the heading

  535
  "Little progress at EEC talks" and saying that
  "A Scottish Office spokesman admitted yesterday that 'little progress' was made at Friday's talks aimed at working out a reciprocal fishing deal with the EEC for next year and a question mark now clearly hangs over participation by Aberdeen and other UK trawlers in the Farces grounds next year…The feeling is that Friday's talks stayed far away from specifics and the UK trawling industry will now have to consider carefully their next move as the Faroese representatives made it so 'abundantly clear' that there would be no improved access conditions for Aberdeen and other UK trawlers next year."
  Is that accurate? If so, it means that the strong words used by the Minister in the letter to me of 23 November have been passed by and washed over.
  The report continues:
  "However, what might influence Faroese opinion is the possibility of reduced access to UK mackerel stocks because of a poor reciprocal deal for the UK fleet, as the Faroese have a strong interest in the mackerel shoals."
  I am not sure that restriction of such access will have a big influence with the Faroese. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has issued restrictive licensing arrangements for mackerel fishing off the South Coast. Do the Faroese fish there? Is any attempt to be made to restrict their access? It is no use saying that the November meeting was talked off and the likelihood is that the February meeting will be talked off and the matter will be passed over. Urgent action is required.
  I am astonished every time I hear the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South crying out for the fishing industry—especially since I know that many of his friends in the industry share his political views. Every time I meet them they complain bitterly about the amount of money used for State subsidy and intervention. However, when it comes to the fishing industry they all want it. I have said that privately and I have no objection to saying it publicly. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South is in danger of catching schizophrenia. He bawls and shouts about people getting money for nothing and he is against aid for industry, yet there are certain times when he makes a powerful case—with which I agree—for aid for the fishing industry. He does his case no good by his inconsistency.
  The problems of the fishing industry in Aberdeen will not be reduced by the union-bashing that the hon. Gentleman
  536
  displayed tonight. It is grossly unfair to say that one of Abredeen's big problems is the dock labour scheme and that there must be voluntary redundancies. There will be no improvement in landings if there are redundancies of any sort. The hon. Member should know the volatile nature of the fishing industry. He should know that people have gone through periods of depression. If he does not understand the problems of docklands, he should not drag—this was not meant to be a dreadful pun but I now realise that it is—red herrings into the matter Let us have no talk about redundancies if they can be avoided. Landing difficulties will not be removed by withdrawing the dock labour scheme or by the threat of compulsory voluntary redundancies.
  I wish to raise one other matter with the Minister, although I know that he has it very much in mind, as we have spoken of it on other occasions. We must remain optimistic that we shall achieve a common fisheries policy that takes our needs into account. When that happens, it will need to be policed. When are we likely to have a decision on the new mark II offshore patrol vessel, designed by Paul Russell and Company, a shipyard in my constituency? How many vessels do the Government have in mind, how soon do they want them, and, most importantly, when will the decision be taken on the design so that orders can proceed? I know that certain problems have to be resolved, so I do not press the Minister too hard tonight, but I believe that in this debate I should give him a gentle prod and remind him that we should move ahead as quickly as possible.
  The fishing industry will never return to its former glory, with large numbers of vessels going to sea and large numbers of men employed. That way of life has been destroyed by the passage of time and changing conditions, and not by Government action, but we must try to preserve what remains. The industry provides employment for the men who go to sea and those who process the fish once they are landed.
  The need to restructure the industry is bedevilled by the common fisheries policy. On a number of occasions I raised with the previous Government the need for a White Paper on the industry so that we could see the options and

  537
  plan ahead, which would enable us, even in these days of uncertainty, at least to have some idea where we were going. It was said that that was not possible because it would display our negotiating hand and make it difficult for us to drive a hard bargain.
  I hope that we shall drive a hard bargain. I also hope that serious discussion is taking place in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Whitehall, so that as soon as the matter is settled plans for restructuring the industry can be announced. We need to know what assistance there will be for building, so that we can give a boost to the industry.
  It will not be good enough, when a common fisheries policy is achieved, for the Government to sit back and relax. It should be a time of maximum vigilance and the industry will need the maximum boost to become profitable, not just for the owners—in some respects they are of secondary importance—but to provide jobs at decent rates of pay for all connected with it.
  In fishing ports we sometimes say this almost as an aside, but it is also important to have an industry that provides fish for people to eat at a price that they can afford. There is no point in catching fish if they cannot be sold to consumers to enjoy, and that is of vital concern to us all.
  4.13 am
  Mr. David Myles: I rise with a feeling of added responsibility after the tragic events of last week, which were highlighted in the question answered yesterday.
  The fishing industry is one that hitherto I knew little about, although I have twice been out on a fishing boat—on one occasion for almost a week, when I experienced a force 8 gale—so I feel that I know something about the subject.
  I enjoyed the bipartisan asides of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), and the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). I feel that I have responsibility for the smaller fishing ports of Scotland, such as Buckie, Macduff, White mills and other communities along the Moray coast, such as Port Gordon,
  538
  Cullen, Portsoy and Portessie. One of my predecessors, Sir William Duthie, came from Portessie. I feel responsible for the men who fish out of Peterhead and Fraserburgh and follow the shoals around to the West Coast and possibly down to Cornwall.
  There is much that concerns these hardy, independent men at present. They understand the need for conservation of stocks and they realise that there must be discipline. They welcome the discipline of the pout box. However, fishermen alone must not be required to bear the burden of conservation. The fish-eating public must realise that the law of supply and demand applies in this case. If decreasing quotas are applied, the price of fish must rise to spread the load and ensure that the fishermen can meet the ever-increasing costs of their gear, oil and interest charges.
  If the market is distorted by imports flooding in from countries that are not so concerned about conservation, there is no way in which the fishermen can meet their commitments and pay off their debts. Imports have increased massively this year. I dug out a few details with the help of a Library assistant. Cod imports were up from 37,561 tons in 1973 to 49,025 tons this year—an increase of 30 per cent. Haddock imports were up from 4,572 tons in 1978 to 8,266 tons in 1979—an increase of 80 per cent. We must not push our fishermen too hard. I hope that that is not what happened to the young skipper and crew of the ill-fated "Ocean Monarch".
  The Government's ideas for fish quotas in the North Sea for 1980 are 12 cwt. each of whiting and haddock per man per week, and no restriction initially on cod. On the West Coast the quotas are 18 cwt. for haddock and 12 cwt. for whiting, and, once again, no restriction on cod landings. I have talked to fishermen who believe that the quotas should be more than that and that they should be the same for both sectors. At present fishermen are landing, on the West Coast, whiting that presumably come from the North Sea. This is distorting the figures on which the scientists base their findings. It is not giving a true picture of the whiting stocks in the North Sea.
  If the proposed Government quotas and the differentials of 18 cwt from the West Coast and 12 cwt from the North Sea

  539
  were imposed, everyone would be landing haddock, saying that they had been caught in the West when they may have been caught in the North Sea.
  The other control that fishermen feel strongly should be imposed is that quotas should be imposed for a fortnight, with no back catch or forward catch transfers or allowances. It should be noted that the fishermen themselves are suggesting controls, regulations, quotas and conservation. They feel that there could be a fortnight, from Saturday to Saturday. A boat could go out and catch its full quota in a day, but it would then have to tie up for the rest of the fortnight. The boat could not go on fishing and transfer the catch to a forward period, or transfer it to a back period.
  The fishermen also believe that the Government should pay attention to the majority view rather than keeping regulations that suit a minority but are detrimental to fisheries as a whole. The majority will not accept voluntary catch control if that control is not imposed for a minority section.
  The white fish catchers are concerned that the big boats will come from the South and perhaps catch all the cod by pair trawling before August. There could be no cod quota left. The Government would have to impose a quota because the total allowable catch would have been taken, leaving no cod for the white fish catchers after August, when the southern boats depart. The fishermen feel, in other words, that a cod quota should be imposed from the start. There is a feeling that boats with larger engines should perhaps be allowed a larger quota. I accept that this would be difficult to introduce.
  There must be a tightening up of "ashore" crews. Every crew member for whom a catch quota is allocated must have been to sea and sailed with the boat. This can be checked through the officers who pay the men. Only men who are paid on a voyage should be taken into account for a catch quota.
  If all those tightening-up restrictions were implemented, fishermen believe that the quotas proposed by the Government could be substantially raised. They also feel that for the first three months, anyway, there should be a combined quota of haddock and whiting, so that fishermen
  540
  catch what is in the net and not, as at present, catch perhaps 30boxes of whiting in order to get six boxes of haddock and then have to throw the whiting back. They believe that this is neither conservation nor common sense and that it is doing no good for the fisheries.
  The fishermen are a little concerned about the transfer of fish from one boat to another, whereby boxes are transferred between a boat that has not caught its quota and its neighbour that has over-caught, the money then being transferred back to the actual catcher. This anomaly should be removed.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State will require the wisdom of Solomon to find solutions. I ask only that he thinks on those things.
  4.25 am
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I welcome this debate on the fishing industry, but my feelings about the hour at which it is taking place—4.25 am—are possibly unprintable. The hour may be symbolic of the status of fishing, particularly as regards debates in the House.
  The weakness of the fishing industry looms large in a few places. Nationally, it is a comparatively small industry, making a comparatively small contribution to our gross national product. The result is that Members of Parliament representing constituencies with fishing interests tend to become voices crying in the wilderness—or in the early hours of the morning. Indeed, I feel somewhat like a reversed somnambulist talking in other people's sleep. "Somnambulist" is not the right word, perhaps, but I will leave that image.
  I share the prevailing concern of previous speakers about the future of the industry, yet there are bright aspects to the picture. One is the success of the port of Grimsby in fighting back from the disasters that hit the port a few years ago and maintaining itself as a vigorous and effective fishing port. It has been a major success in the face of serious body blows. The loss of fishing in Icelandic waters was the most tragic blow. The curtailment of catches in Norwegian and Russian waters, and now in Faroese waters, was another serious blow. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) noted that we are allowed to take from their waters only 4 per cent. of the catches that they are

  541
  taking from our waters. That situation must be rectified by the exclusion of Faroese catches in our waters.
  The loss of catches in distant waters was more or less inevitable as nations extended their fishing waters to 200 miles. Our tragedy was not so much the loss of catches in those distant waters—it was going to happen sooner or later—as the fact that we were prevented from following suit by our membership of the Common Market. Faced with the loss of distant water fishing off Iceland and with curtailment of catches off Norway, our alternative should have been to declare our own 200-mile limit, to develop it, and to build within it, as we had the potential to do, a bigger, richer and more effective industry, fishing our own waters instead of the distant waters on which ports such as Hull and, to a lesser extent, Grimsby depended. We could probably have caught more, even in our 50-mile limit, than we were catching in our home waters plus the distant waters, but we were not able to do that.
  Despite that, Grimsby has had great success in pulling the industry up by its own boot straps and changing it from an industry that was 50 per cent. based on distant waters to one entirely based on near waters—particularly the North Sea. The few big boats, particularly the freezers, have now been replaced by about 200 seine netters.
  The industry has had to get on or get out, because the maintenance of the dock facilities, the labour force and the distribution network could not be continued with dwindling catches. Grimsby has managed to avoid that danger. It has kept the catches, supplemented by imports, at a sufficient level to maintain an effective distribution network.
  I do not dissent from the prevailing criticism of imports. If ports such as Grimsby cannot be kept going as fishing ports, they must turn to imports to make up for what the local industry cannot catch, partly because of the EEC and the loss of distant water fishing. Imports will be necessary to fill that gap. If there are restrictions, they should not be imposed on wet fish imports, which provide jobs and fulfil an important role in keeping the industry going. They should be imposed on frozen fish imports, because they are imports with the jobs taken
  542
  away and performed in the country that originally caught and processed the fish.
  Imports helped to maintain the port and its facilities and made a major contribution to the boot-strap operation of pulling up the port by its own efforts. In many ways, that produced a more democratic industry. The big owners, whose main contribution to fishing had been to take money out and not put money back, not to invest, not to re-equip and maintain their fleets, or pay their fishermen adequately, became less important because the smaller units were more democratic and effective.
  A new industry developed—an industry that relied upon smaller landings with higher prices. Though that is, for Grimsby, a success story that cannot be told for many other ports in England, all is clearly not well. We still face the problem of the remaining distant water fleets, with fewer places left in which to fish. If fishing continues at its present rate the mackerel will he threatened.
  I was glad to hear the Minister's announcement that the industry has been too cautious in seeking alternatives. In the summer I visited New Zealand, where they have a 200-mile limit, and that is the fourth biggest economic zone in the world. I received a chorus of complaints about the British fishing industry. From the start the New Zealanders were anxious to develop joint ventures with British firms, using British trawlers and expertise and bringing them into joint partnership.
  The story was a unanimous one of opportunities being offered to British firms and being fairly uniformly rejected. Those offers had been snapped up by Japanese, German and Korean firms, and even, in one joint venture, by a Russian organisation. The British let the whole opportunity slide. I am afraid that that has been all too typical of the industry's search for alternatives. Our distant water industry is under threat and needs to develop alternatives. Some of these might come from New Zealand or from the South Atlantic, and Government finance is needed to seek out those alternatives.
  For the rest of the industry—the rather more important and dynamic part of the industry—the main problem is simply that of over-fishing in the North

  543
  Sea. There is a concentration of catching power in the waters round our coast, which are now seriously threatened, in which the quotas are fixed by the Common Market. They are fixed not on the basis of a scientific evaluation of the stocks but on the basis of a political haggle—which is the basis of decision-making in most matters relating to the Common Market. Those quotas are far too large and are totally unsuitable as a means of policing conservation. The general assumption is that everybody cheats on quotas. Our assumption is that while there might be some element of cheating on quotas by British fishermen it is far more common and difficult to control in the Common Market countries with which we are competing.
  Given that assumption, quotas are totally useless as an adequate means of conservation. The industry is right to reject the quotas allocated to it. They have been pathetic. The most that we have been offered is 24 per cent. of the catch. We bring to the Common Market pool two-thirds of the waters and probably over 70 per cent. of the stocks, given that our waters are probably the most prolific and the richest fishing grounds in the world. They are certainly the richest in the Common Market.
  Unless the EEC can adequately police quotas, it is asking for power without responsibility. It doles the quotas out with no adequate means of seeing that nations observe them or that the port authorities enforce them. The quota system is producing a tragedy in the North Sea—a tragedy of over fishing and of decimation of the stock. It is at times depressing to go down to the docks and see some of the landings, particularly at the start of the season. Small and immature fish that should have been left in the water to complete the cycle have been caught. This industry is catching its own future if it is being forced by competition to catch young stock in that fashion.
  The desperate need is for conservation. The best and most effective method is national conservation. Only a nation can be the real guarantor of its own stocks. Only a nation can police conservation, and only a nation has the vital interest in those stocks. Grimsby's future is in those fishing stocks. Our direct interest is in fishing and conserving those stocks
  544
  properly. That does not go for many of our competitors, who engage in a massive fishing operation and do not have the same concern about maintaining the stocks. We therefore need proper conservation and an effective increase in the mesh size. That is one of the most effective ways of guaranteeing conservation.
  Grimsby has tried to give a lead here, and the British industry has generally been seeking an increase in mesh sizes. The great delay has been forced upon us by the Common Market. We need the one-net rule to stop people opportunistically switching nets, and we must be able to police effectively the increased mesh sizes. We need to stop industrial fishing. The by-catches are very difficult to police. There certainly needs to be far stricter control of by-catches of edible species. The situation is now so desperate that it would be better to stop industrial fishing and, with it, to stop beam trawling, with its destructive effects on the sea bed and the stocks.
  Above all, we need to control the numbers fishing by some form of licensing arrangement that will put a limit on fishing effort. Limitation of effort and of the numbers of fishing provides the only means of securing what quotas cannot—proper conservation. But that brings up a major problem for the British industry generally and Grimsby in particular. If the sort of limitation that I have described were accepted, we would have to determine what level of limitation was acceptable for this country. We face the problem of a political compromise in which justice is astranger and has little bearing on the decisions. It is a compromise in a situation of power politics.
  It must be emphasised that this country has suffered drastic losses in its catch and that they have to be taken into account in any determination of future catching potential. A port such as Grimsby, which has effectively fought back, expanded its fleet, with small seine netters, and, I hope, will go on expanding the fleet—there is scope for more vessels—needs to be protected against limitation of effort, which will produce hard decisions between ports in this country as well as between countries within the Common Market.
  The claims of the vigorous ports that have done their best to adjust to the new situation cannot be ignored. That would force us back into the situation in which

  545
  a dwindling catch might endanger the facilities of the market, the landing force, the distribution system, and so on, which need to be run at a certain level. That must be a prime consideration for a port such as Grimsby in any limitation of effort.
  The conservation crisis is the prime reason why the Government must not compromise in the Common Market negotiations. I fear the pressures for compromises that are building up—not only the emollient voice of the Foreign Office, which always speaks to our competitors in obsequious tones, but the situation produced by the confrontation on the budgetary contribution.
  Any Government faced by such a confrontation would look round for a compromise. The Prime Minister came away from the Dublin summit saying that she was prepared to compromise. The longstanding haggle over fisheries is, we fear, one ground on which an unspoken compromise may he forced on the industry. There have already been forecasts of a settlement next year. Taking that with the haggle over the budget, I become alarmed. The industry and the Government have kept each other going in a conspiracy of optimism. The industry has stated its demands and the Government have replied "We cannot get those, but we will do our best." Both sides have hoped for the best, but any settlement dictated by the sort of pressure that we are under will sadly disillusion the industry.
  I fear that the only way out is unilateral action. I see no salvation for the industry within the EEC, given the pressure for compromise and the facts that our claims have been neglected and we are one of a larger number, all of whom have a vested interest in maintaining a status quo that we want changed so that it is more favourable to us. I see little prospect of a successful outcome of the negotiations, and my instinct is to impose more unilateral conservation measures to show the seriousness of our concern to conserve stocks and to end the Fishery Limits Act 1976, so that the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972 do not apply to that legislation. We must be able to enforce our own limits.
  A settlement that does not give us a 12-mile exclusive zone, a dominant share of the catch and a stake in the increased catch by means of proper conservation
  546
  in the waters up to 50 miles, and the power to impose national conservation measures within 200 miles, bodes ill for the industry. Such a settlement would be a major blow to an industry that in some respects is on the turn and in other respects is threatened by the conservation crisis.
  There is a pressing need in the industry for new investment and re-equipment. There is need for a national plan for fishing. That should provide domestically that which the EEC has failed to provide for the industry. The industry's argument is that the negotiations have gone on for too long, the industry has been allowed to remain in the doldrums for too long, and it is time to take action internally to permit re-equipment, reinvestment and the replacement of vessels. There is a need not to build up the fleet but to replace and modernise, so that the subsidiary industries connected with fishing may be kept going at a reasonable level.
  The industry argues that it needs a settlement that will give it a certain future and knowledge of that for which it is investing. Secondly, it says that it is waiting for Common Market cash. However, we know the basic outline of the industry in future. It will be an industry that operates within our own waters. The prospect of Common market money has been held out with the purpose, perhaps, of pressing us to settle with the Common Market. The need is now, and we should prepare to meet the need with a national plan.
  Such a plan would mean Government investment. Grants from the White Fish Authority are heavily over-subscribed. There is almost deadlock. There is a need for a new stimulus for the industry. Other countries are putting money into their industries. We do little for our industry. In the next few years it will be in a trough, because of conservation problems. However, it has a viable long-term future. With proper conservation we can build up our stocks.
  The threat to the industry has had one good effect, namely, to bring the various parts of the industry together. Rivalry between port and port is less important. Rivalry of interest against interest is less important. The rivalry of distant water fishermen versus inshore fishermen is far less important. However, the industry will be in a trough for the next few

  547
  years. Bearing in mind the prolonged uncertainty of the Common Market negotiations, we must try nationally to provide for a better future by investment and by providing through Government action the type of stimulus that industries in competitive countries receive from their Governments.
  I see a future for fishing that is much more akin to the way in which farming has developed over the years. I believe that it will become a self-regulatory, highly organised and, to some extent, subsidised industry. It will be based on heavy capitalisation and highly trained and skilled manpower. Training is another element that has been neglected in the period of uncertainty. We must provide a skilled work force for fishing. That will be vital in the industry's brighter future. It will be organised in the disciplined and effective manner of farming. It will be a better-run and better-organised industry. If it can evolve on those lines, with the Government stepping in to provide what the Common Market is not now providing, it will become a much better industry. It will survive the vicissitudes of the next few years and serve Britain.
  4.50 am
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) on securing this debate. His chosen subject is of considerable importance not only to the constituencies of those hon. Members who have spoken but to the United Kingdom as a whole, and I thank my hon. Friend for the constructive and helpful way in which he opened the debate.
  I wish, in a sense, to turn the debate somewhat round the other way because, although my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South and Banff (Mr. Myles) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) have rightly drawn attention to the problems facing the industry—problems that I do not seek to minimise and that the Government are concerned to tackle in the coming weeks and months—the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), especially in the early part of his speech, adopted an approach somewhat in contrast to what had been said by others.
  548
  While acknowledging many of the problems, the hon. Member for Grimsby expressed a certain optimism. If I may say so, I share that optimism. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I visited Grimsby in the summer—unfortunately, when he was away in New Zealand, as he said—and I certainly found considerable optimism there. The port of Grimsby was originally based largely on the deep sea industry, but a considerable amount of adaptation has taken place there through the efforts of the industry itself. There is also a significant partnership between what one may call the traditional fishing company and the share fishermen more associated with the Scottish scene familiar to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff.
  Although there are difficulties in Grimsby—I was certainly told of them, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was—they were seen more as a challenge to be met and overcome. I think that what the Hon. Gentleman put to the House is typical. I spent a lot of time this summer visiting different fishing ports around the coast of England and Wales, and I have constantly felt that, although there are problems, what makes the fishing industry so worth while to work for is that people are prepared to do things for themselves and, whatever the obstacles—this is true of all the ports—to try to get on with the job and do it well. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Grimsby for the tone of his remarks.
  I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North that we are very much aware of the serious situation in Aberdeen today. My noble Friend the Minister of State at the Scottish Office is closely in touch with matters in Aberdeen, and I understand that he is arranging to meet representatives of the industry in Aberdeen early in January, when they will have the opportunity to put their views directly to him.
  I also am much concerned about Aberdeen, since part of my constituency covers a small portion of the city and I am in personal contact with many of the people there.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the meeting with Lord Mansfield in response to the request from the joint meeting on 23 November seeking a meeting with the Secretary of State? If so, will the hon.

  549
  Gentleman pass on to his noble Friend that both the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and I have been asked to associate ourselves with that meeting? May we be told as soon as possible when the meeting will be?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall pass on that message to my noble Friend. I shall also draw his attention to any points about Aberdeen that I did not answer.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South raised the question of the aid given to Hull, Grimsby and Fleetwood. The situation is being considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the light of representations made to him. There was a difference between the situation in Hull, Grimsby and Fleetwood and that of Aberdeen. They were not strictly comparable. The ports to which aid was given were obliged to meet particular obligations in respect of landing dues which were calculated on a tonnage basis and which created difficulties of a different character from those of Aberdeen. I appreciate that Aberdeen is facing difficulties. My right hon. and noble Friends will also discuss those matters.
  My hon. Friend also raised the question of the dock labour scheme. I am aware of the concern in the Aberdeen industry about the effects of the scheme. I understand that representatives of the Aberdeen industry have been in touch with the Department of Employment. The Fisheries Department will give any help that may be necessary to explore whether there is any way in which the situation may be eased or helped.
  In the context of aid to industry, my hon. Friend raised the question of other interim measures by which we may give aid. In the past few weeks we announced a measure that was welcomed. I refer to the sum of £443,000 that we are making available for exploratory voyages. The industry expressed thanks for the measure. I hope that it will help in the short term by making resources available to the industry and, much more important, provide some evidence of the opportunities to exploit species that are not currently exploited and therefore provide future opportunities for our fishing fleet. When the announcement was made, we emphasised that the results of these exploratory voyages would be made freely available to the fishing industry. It can make its
  550
  own assessment. If it feels that there is an opportunity to participate in what is revealed, it may make its own decision to do so.
  My hon. Friend raised the question whether imports were undercutting our fish or were being dumped as a result of help given to the fishing industries of other countries. I am aware of concern about this problem. We shall continue to watch carefully the position of imports. However, from 1 January the new EEC withdrawal prices come into effect. Although the actual prices have been only marginally increased, there will be a greater increase as a result of the two devaluations of the green pound that took place in the past year. The reference price, which is calculated on that basis, will have an effect on imports.
  I share the concern about subsidies given in other EEC countries. In the past few months we have examined this matter with the assistance of our embassies and attachés in these countries. We are about to start another exercise to update the information received. If we have evidence of unfair competition, we shall certainly draw it to the attention of those involved and the Commission. I agree that it is important that competition should be fair.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North raised specifically the question of the Faroese fisheries. As he knows, and as he acknowledged as a result of the letter that I wrote to him and from which he quoted, we are concerned about the unsatisfactory situation in the Faroes. I confirm that we have made it clear that unless the Faroese improve the conditions under which we have to fish in the Faroes we must insist on a substantial reduction in the amount of fishing which they enjoy in our waters.
  The hon. Gentleman quibbled slightly over the negotiations that have taken place. The results are a consequence of the hard line that we are taking. In negotiations of this kind one does not necessarily reach the desired goal in one step. The fact that we have had difficult negotiations so far is a consequence of our insistence on better conditions for our fishermen in Faroese waters.
  As I indicated earlier, we have refused to allow the Faroese to continue fishing pending the resumption of negotiations.

  551
  To that extent we have made it clear to them how strongly we feel about the issue.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the question of fishery protection, as did his hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby in a wider context. I cannot make any dramatic announcement tonight about this, much as I would like to do so. As a result of discussions, I am wholly seized of the urgent need for a decision on the replacement of the "Ton" class minesweeper, on which our coastal protection is largely based.
  Detailed discussions are taking place among my Department, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland and the Ministry of Defence on the question of replacement. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we hope to come to a decision as soon as possible and that that decision will ensure that we have adequate protection forces for the future. The hon. Member for Grimsby quite rightly said that conservation agreements were not worth the paper they were written on unless we had the resources to police them and back them up.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Banff raised a number of points. I express my personal regrets at the loss of the "Ocean Monarch". I have worked closely with the fishing industry over the years, and I know the hazards faced not only by the fishermen but more particularly by their wives and families. I associate myself with the expressions of sympathy voiced in the House earlier this week and I hope that my hon. Friend will convey my sympathy when he returns to his constituency at the end of this week.
  My hon. Friend spoke of imports and raised the important question of quotas for1980. I appreciate his point that in any effective conservation policy, and in reference to any quotas that we decide are essential to that policy, we must make sure that quotas are applied in a sensible and practical way.
  If they are sensible and practical quotas, and if they are understood by the fishing industry, they are much more likely to be effective because they will be observed. We hope by that means to avoid such activities as the dumping of unwanted fish in the sea. I assure my hon. Friend that we will look seriously
  552
  at the views put forward by the industry about the way in which these quotas should be worked out for 1980.
  I turn to the general points raised by the hon. Member for Grimsby. I share his concern about opportunities further a field. It is sad in some respects that we appear—I use the word "appear"advisedly—to have stood aside when opportunities from New Zealand, for example, emerged. We must put this in perspective. One company in particular became involved in an Australian venture. Unfortunately, for many reasons, that company was unsuccessful. Because of early lack of success, the industry naturally has been cautious about ventures elsewhere.
  I have had discussions with representatives of the New Zealand Government. If that Government make definite proposals or offer other opportunities to develop elsewhere, I shall be ready to use my offices in whatever way I can to try to bring together all those who may be interested. We must look further than round our own coast.
  Hon Members also mentioned the more immediate problems of over-fishing and political haggling over quotas. That is why, in negotiations on the common fisheries policy, we sought to base our case on scientific advice. That is the most objective base, and it should be common to all industries and Governments in the Common Market.
  I welcome what the hon. Member for Grimsby said about the increase in mesh sizes. In the short term, that could cause hardship, not only in terms of limited catches but because of the expense of providing new nets. To its credit, the British fishing industry has co-operated in that respect. Only in that way can we preserve the opportunities for fishing.
  I am grateful for the welcome given to my announcement yesterday about the introduction of a restricted licensing scheme for mackerel fishing. That applies to the mackerel fishery off the West Coast and not simply off the South-West Coast. We believe that that scheme is necessary. With the new vessels, particularly in view of the methods now used, we shall not achieve effective conservation unless we are prepared to control the overall effort devoted to this fishery.
  Those involved in that fishery will understand the quotas better and be more

  553
  prepared to observe them if an overall limit is imposed. I understand that my announcement has been welcomed as a sensible measure. Many people would like us to go much further, with a general, comprehensive licensing scheme. This is a deep and important subject. Great difficulties are involved. If we are to have a flexible and organic industry, we must have a flexible and organic scheme. Too rigid a scheme will not necessarily benefit the industry as a whole. For that reason, we decided to introduce effective licensing where the pressure is greatest—in the mackerel fisheries. We have a totally open mind about whether what we learn from the mackerel fishery should be extended to other fisheries or whether we should adopt a more general comprehensive scheme later.
  If, as a result of our proposal for the mackerel fishery, there is a diversion of effort to other fisheries, we shall not hesitate to take further measures to ensure that our conservation and management policies are effective and not made void because of inadequate control.
  Finally, I should like to return to the point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South opened and on which every contributor to the debate has asked for assurances. What is important is to repeat yet again—and I do so with all the sincerity that I have stated it before—that Britain's fishing industry is not up for trading in the Common Market renegotiations. My right hon. Friend demonstrated this in Dublin. I believe that the mere fact that after Dublin, at the first Fisheries Council, we were prepared to talk constructively about some of the measures that were necessary for an effective common fisheries policy demonstrated to our partners in Europe that we did not see the fishing negotiations as part of the Dublin negotiations. They thought that we would take pique over fishing, because of Dublin. The fact that we were able to talk about fishing was proof that we wanted to deal with fishing and intended to continue to deal with the subject on its merits.
  It is on that note that I finish tonight. I thank those who have contributed to the debate. I repeat yet again that the fishing industry is a most important industry. The livelihood of those who work in it—and the well-being of their families—is important to the Govern-
  554
  ment. I thank the House for the fact that in our renegotiation of the common fisheries policy my right hon. Friend and I have had the support of all parties in the House in pursuing the objective of ensuring a proper future for our fishermen.

  JOINT CENTRIFUGE PROJECT, ALMELO
  5.12 am
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Remembering Alan Nunn May, Bruno Pontecorvo, the Rosenbergs and even Klaus Fuchs, with his overall grasp of the concept of the physics of the atom bomb, it is arguable whether any of them, or, indeed, all of them together, jeopardised world peace to a greater extent than the activities, in the second half of the 1970s, of Dr. Abel Qader Khan.
  Certainly the effect of anything that Anthony Blunt may have done pales into trivial insignificance compared with the probable results of Dr. Khan's handiwork.
  We now have the real threat of regional nuclear confrontation in Asia or the Arab world, laying a powder trail to a possible world holocaust.
  So-called vertical proliferation is one thing. More nuclear weapons in the same hands do not necessarily increase the likelihood of nuclear war.
  Horizontal proliferation—the acquisition of nuclear warheads by nations that previously had none at all—is quite a different matter.
  That is why, even at 10 minutes past 5 o'clock in the morning, I do not apologise to an Under-Secretary, who has been very good-tempered and had to wait a long time for this Consolidated Fund debate, for keeping him out of his well-deserved bed and rest.
  The subject that I raise is the security arrangements at the Joint Centrifuge Project at Almelo, in the light of the Khan espionage affair—Class IV, Vote 25.
  At this hour in the morning I feel somewhat in the position of the Member of Parliament who dreamt—proverbially, at any rate—that he was speaking in the House of Commons, and woke up to find that he actually was. Be that as it may, the real point of the debate is the prospect of a Pakistani bomb and, related to that, a bomb in the hands of Colonel

  555
  Gadaffi, who helps to finance Pakistan, or an ayatollah given a bomb for the sake of Islamic solidarity. This is a spine-chilling prospect—a dream of nightmare proportions.
  The stark facts are hardly in dispute. But if my version is inaccurate the Minister will doubtless say so, since on this occasion I have submitted the guts of my speech to the Department of Energy on the ground that it would be unreasonable to expect any Minister to reply on so complex a subject to questions that were fired at him for the first time in the early hours of the morning.
  The gut facts of the case as I see it are, first, that Abel Qader Khan came to Europe as a bona fide research worker and a student of metallurgy.
  Secondly, at some point in the mid-1970s he was persuaded to devote himself to gaining access to theoretical but, more important, industrial information that would allow his native Pakistan to build and operate a nuclear weapon capacity of its own.
  Thirdly, as a result of mind-boggling inefficiency or naivety—wholly uncharacteristic of the Dutch as a nation, in most things among the most competent of people on this planet—or connivance by people in certain key positions—I must make it clear that I have no evidence of connivance, but clearly that is a question that must be asked—Dr. Khan was able to acquire, first, theoretical information on centrifuge and enrichment concepts: secondly, information about metallurgical techniques crucial to nuclear weapons capacity; and, thirdly, and possibly most important, commercial knowledge of where a country such as Pakistan, with a tiny industrial base, could acquire "parts" for making atomic weapons which could not themselves conceivably be made in Pakistan.
  Fourthly—here I go on with the guts of the case—for four long years key people in the Netherlands, in positions of great responsibility, maybe or maybe not inside the Dutch Government, apparently did not see fit to reveal to their West German and British colleagues that they knew that a security breach involving Dr. Khan had taken place.
  Fifthly, according to the remarkable Observer investigators, Colin Smith and
  556
  Shyam Bhatia, Dr. Khan is now living in the leafy suburbs of Islamabad, guarded by tough men ready to take on inquisitive journalists from the Financial Times or relatives of the French Ambassador who may innocently or otherwise be displaying uncalled-for curiosity into the Pakistan nuclear effort.
  If the Minister wishes to add to or subtract from my deployment of the facts, doubtless he will do so in his reply. Indeed, frankly I feel that he ought to do so, as the Department and the Government have had two months' notice of my intense interest in this topic.
  For the sake of those hon. Members who are not here but who displayed an interest in this topic, and for the sake of clarity, I must go over some of the questions that have been put, otherwise if one were to read the debate it would be incoherent and incomplete.
  On 29 October I
  "asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the review by Urenco, promised in June, of its detailed security arrangements; just what action the Governments of Great Britain, Holland and West Germany, as partners in the centrifuge project are taking to strengthen the tripartite arrangements; and if he will make a statement.'
  The Secretary of State replied:
  "As requested by the Joint Committee of the three Governments at their meeting in June, Urenco have reviewed their security procedures and have made a number of recommendations. In addition the implementation of existing Troika security procedures in the United Kingdom has been reviewed and an assurance given to the Joint Committee that they are being fully observed.
  The Joint Committee considered the Urenco report at its meeting on 19 September. The Joint Committee concluded that the existing tripartite security rules and procedures were in principle adequate, but agreed on a number of detailed points on which improvements needed to be considered. It has been arranged for these to be studied urgently by security experts of the three Governments."
  I am not fool enough to suppose that the House of Commons is the place to deploy details of those particular security arrangements. All I ask is that the promise made on 29 October is fulfilled.
  "The Joint Committee also noted that effective security depended on the thorough and continued application of the present tripartite rules and procedures. It agreed to reinforce the arrangements for monitoring the application of these rules, and for the submission to the Joint Committee of regular reports by the appropriate security authorities of the three countries of the results of such monitoring."

  557
  The answer continued:
  I should like to have a clear undertaking that, unlike what occurred when Dr. Khan pursued his activities, the Government are party to that monitoring.
  The Secretary of State continued:
  "A report from the Netherlands authorities on their investigation of the Khan incident was not available to the Joint Committee at its last meeting. The Joint Committee is due to meet again on Friday, 16 November and will again review Urenco security in the light of any further information then available."—[Official Report, 29 October 1979; Vol. 972, c. 382–3.]
  Understandably, on reading that reply I wondered why on earth the report from the Netherlands authorities on their investigation was not available to the joint committee or to the Department. It creates something of a smell about the affair. I should have thought that at least a clean breast would have been made of the affair by the Netherlands authorities. Throughout the argument—as I said at Question Time today—the strand runs: why, for four long years, did not the Netherlands authorities tell their British and West German partners?
  The next parliamentary step was on Wednesday 28 November. I asked the Prime Minister what discussions she had had on the security risks involved in the Khan incident at the nuclear centrifuge establishment at Urenco, Almelo, Holland, and the right hon. Lady replied:
  "I have had no discussions with the Dutch on this matter, but our concern about the Khan incident has been made very clear to our partners".—[Official Report, 28 November 1979; Vol. 947 c. 647.]
  At that time I thought it was a matter worthy of Prime Ministerial attention and I felt that the right hon. Lady should have contacted the Dutch Prime Minister.
  On 29 November I asked the Prime Minister
  "whether she will order a review of British involvement in joint European projects in so far as matters of nuclear security are concerned, in the light of the Khan incident at Urenco."
  The Home Secretary—replying because the Prime Minister was at the Dublin conference—said:
  "The Government attach importance to continued participation in the collaboration on centrifuge enrichment. Our concern about the Khan incident in the Netherlands has been made very clear to our partners, and action has already been taken to reinforce the
  558
  arrangements for monitoring the implementation of existing tripartite security rules and procedures. Security is being kept under close review by the joint committee of the three Governments in the light of the report by the Netherlands Government of their investigation of the Khan incident.
  No other joint European projects in the civil nuclear field currently involve the transfer of classified information but all are kept under continuous review for security and other implications."
  I asked the natural question:
  "Since the issue is nuclear proliferation in Asia, are the Government saying that they are satisfied with the Dutch proposals put forward at the joint committee on 16 November?"
  The Home Secretary replied:
  "I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's close interest in this matter. It is extremely important. He had the courtesy to make clear what he wished to ask in putting down his question. It is perhaps difficult always to be satisfied, but we shall do everything possible through diplomatic channels to impress upon our partners the vital importance of these security arrangements."
  We all have great affection for the Home Secretary, but, if I may say so, that was a vintage Home Secretary reply on a subject on which he had little intention of giving a substantive answer. It is charming, but it does not get to the root of the matter. I still ask what happened about the proposals that were supposed to come forward on 16 November.
  I ought to add that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) then asked a highly revelant question:
  "What steps are being taken to make sure that nationals of countries that are not signatories to the non-proliferation treaties, such as Israel and South Africa, do not have access to the techniques covered by Urenco?"
  The Home Secretary replied:
  "These are matters relating to arrangements on security reached between the Governments concerned. I shall make sure that they are brought to the attention of those concerned."—[Official Report, 29 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 1479–80.]
  This is not the first time that there has been a question of stolen technology. Although it is not the subject of this debate, as my hon. Friend's question raised the matter of Israel I should point out that the Department of Energy knows the whole saga of the Plumbat affair, of the ship "Scheersberg" and, indeed, of the establishment of a nuclear capacity at Dimona, so this is not an entirely new

  559
  situation in relation to espionage. My hon. Friend put a good question that was not fully answered.
  On 28 November I asked the Prime Minister
  "what discussions she has had with the Government of Holland on the security risks involved in the Khan incident at the nuclear centrifuge establishment at Urenco, Almelo, Holland."
  The right hon. Lady replied:
  "I have had no discussions with the Dutch on this matter, but our concern about the Khan incident has been made very clear to our partners."—[Official Report, 28 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 647.]
  I come back to the point that, on a matter of such global importance, surely the Prime Minister should have at least talked to the Dutch Prime Minister to get some explanation. It is a matter that should have been handled at Heads-of Government level.
  On 6 December I had the opportunity to ask the right hon. Lady:
  "Will the Prime Minister undertake to ask the Dutch Prime Minister about a leak that was infinitely more far reaching than any leak of Cabinet papers? I refer to the leak of crucial nuclear secrets from the centrifuge project at Almelo. Will the right hon. Lady ask the Dutch Prime Minister how that situation occurred, since it is arguably more damaging to peace in the world than anything done by the Rosenbergs or any other atom spies?"
  The right hon. Lady replied:
  "The hon. Genteman knows that we have already made protests about this matter, which involved a person who had been working at that plant of Urenco on enriched uranium and the centrifuge process and then went to work in Pakistan, where we are trying to see that there is not proliferation of production of nuclear materials or any nuclear weapons. The matter is not on the agenda, but I shall reinforce the protest that we have already made."—[Official Report, 6 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 611.]
  I must say that I find it extraordinary that even at this stage the matter was not on the agenda. Part of my complaint is that, although they wrung their hands in public, I doubt whether senior Ministers have tumbled, even now, to the enormity of what is involved. I do not think that they realise the implications of an Islamic bomb, with all the consequences that flow from that.
  On 11 December I raised a point of order with Mr. Speaker and asked whether, in view of the urgency, the Prime Minister would make a statement
  560
  on Urenco. I had put down a question for oral answer, and it was No. 5 on the Order Paper. Normally question No. 5 is reached, but it was not on this occasion, and the Prime Minister's written reply was:
  "I raised this matter with the Netherlands Prime Minister, Mr. van Agt, at my meeting with him on 6 December 1979. He agreed that this was a matter of most serious concern and assured me that everything possible was being done to prevent a repetition."—[Official Report, 11 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 531.]
  It would be a little trivial and rude to say that that was a bland reply. After all, it was a written answer, and possibly I could not expect anything more. But I am not being rude if I say that it was an incomplete reply.
  On 17 December I asked the Prime Minister if she would
  "approach Chancellor Schmidt with a view to setting up a joint German-British inquiry into the reasons why the British and German Governments were not informed by the Dutch Government of security breaches at the joint centrifuge project by Dr. A. Q. Khan, and the effects of his activities on Western security."
  The right hon. Lady replied:
  "No. I have already expressed my concern to the Prime Minister of the Netherlands about the Khan incident. All three Governments of the centrifuge partnership attach importance to ensuring that incidents of this kind are not repeated and appropriate action has been put in hand."—[Official Report, 17 December 1979; Vol. 976, c. 8.]
  I can imagine no matter more urgent on which the Prime Minister should talk to Chancellor Schmidt than security and the consequential events in Islam.
  Today I had question No. Q.1 to the Prime Minister, and it was answered by the Home Secretary. He said:
  "We raised the Khan incident with our partners earlier this year. At the joint committee in June it was agreed that security procedures should be reviewed and, as the hon. Member knows, appropriate follow-up action has since been taken."
  Well, actually, I do not know what follow-up action has been taken. If the Home Secretary had promised that it had been taken but refused to tell me exactly what had been done, I would have understood. But, after all that has been said and written, he may wish to go further. He added in his reply that
  "The issue is being kept under close review by the Joint Committee."—[Official Report, 18 December 1979; Vol. 976, c. 278.]
  That can mean anything.

  561
  Is it simply a question of crying over spilt milk, with a pious promise to avoid repetition? Is it a case of saying" Well, it is too bad that the Pakistanis have atomic weapons. They will probably give the information to the Libyans, who have given them a lot of money, and, who knows, in the name of Islamic solidarity they could hand over nuclear weapons to an array of ayatollahs, free Palestinians and heaven knows who in Islam?"
  I think that the concept of an Islamic bomb is more spine-chilling than the whole nuclear armament in the hands of the men in the Kremlin and in Washington. Great Governments, such as those of the Soviet Union or the United States, can be counted upon to act with deliberation. One can sleep fairly easily in one's bed at night without fearing a nuclear holocaust. But the bad dream come true of a Gadaffi bomb or an ayatollah bomb is altogether different.
  It may be said that the knowledge of theoretical physics is such in the world that any country should have the knowledge of how to make nuclear weapons and, therefore, why should anyone worry about breaches of security? Proliferation, it may be argued, is bound to take place anyway. Were that true, what is the point of having nuclear security anywhere? Were that the case, we might as well forget the whole paraphernalia of secrecy and security.
  But while it is true that the theoretical physics of a nuclear explosion are now widely understood by anyone reading the nuclear journals, the short cut by which a relatively poor country lacking an industrial base can actually make a bomb and nuclear weapons is not widely known. This is where Dr. Khan comes in. His value to Pakistan lies in the nuts and bolts of the metallurgy and engineering required to produce nuclear weapons.
  I come now to the central purpose of raising the issue in the House. It may, for all I know, be too late. The proverbial birds may have flown. On the other hand, even if at this late stage certain key parts can be denied to Pakistan and other countries with a small industrial base, it may not be too late to do some-
  562
  thing about the spine-chilling proliferation of nuclear weapons.
  My first and possibly most important question is to ask what exactly is the so-called London group of 15 countries. What is its relationship with Governments in an effort to prevent countries without an industrial base from getting hardware crucial to the manufacture of nuclear weapons? If there is anything that I want from the Government this evening, it is the promise that they will do all that they can to give muscle to the London group. There have been inconsistent policies in the supply of nuclear materials by those who are in a position to be suppliers of these materials.
  My other questions reflect concern about whether there could be any repetition at Urenco, Almelo. It is somewhat a matter of deja vu with reference to what the Israelis did in relation to the "Scheersberg", the Plumbat affair and the development at Dimona.
  What explanation did Mr. van Agt give to the British Prime Minister of why the Dutch authorities had not informed their British and West German partners in the Urenco consortium of their knowledge of the breach of security operations? Certain people in Holland, we understand, had known precisely what Dr. Khan was up to for four long years before the West Germans and the British were told.
  I intersperse at this stage a question that I was asked to put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), the former Secretary of State for Energy, who is deeply interested in this matter. My right hon. Friend wanted to know when British Ministers were first told about this affair. He said frankly that his own recollections were vague. I pass on that question because I, too, am interested in the answer.
  Had the Dutch made a clean breast of it as soon as they knew what Dr. Khan had done, is it not possible that, for example, the British authorities would have ticked on more readily why Pakistan should want specialised high frequency inverters? Had Dr. Khan's activities been fully known to the British and West German authorities, is it not at least more likely that Pakistan would have been denied the industrial requisities for a

  563
  bomb? When, and in what circumstances, have export controls been introduced for inverters?
  Export controls might have been introduced very much earlier and more effectively had the British Government known what the Dutch authorities apparently knew and what the Dutch Government may or may not have known, namely, that Dr. Khan had been operating in a highly sensitive area on behalf of Pakistan.
  Again—and I have given notice of these questions to the Department and to the Minister—what and whose authority is needed to get inside the Almelo plant? Is it true that, simply because he was supposed to know something about hydrogen corrosion, Dr. Khan was invited in for 10 days?
  Does Urenco feel obliged to help anyone who writes "I am a research student under the distinguished professor X. I should like information on Y"? It seems that what Dr. Khan did in the first place, fantastic though it may sound, was to write letters along the lines "I am a research student under the distinguished Professor Delaye of the Catholic university in Brussels. Can I have information?" Apparently he was easily given highly sensitive information.
  If that is the way in which the Almelo project proceeds, the time has come, has it not, to review the whole matter? If that is its style of behaviour, either it is naivety or it results from something else.
  Members of the House will understand if I say that there is a great contrast between Britain and Holland. From my experience in the European Parliament I came to know the extent to which Dutch politicians were obsessed by, or at least interested in, nuclear matters. Whereas the House of Commons can hardly get a major debate on Cruise missiles—at any rate, before Christmas—Governments in Holland can fall or stand according to their nuclear policies. The Dutch are intensely interested in the nuclear debate.
  The supposition or guess is that certain people in Holland would have found it so politically embarrassing to reveal that the Dutch, above all others, had been responsible for creating the conditions for nuclear proliferation that they sat on the
  564
  secret. That may or may not be the explanation, but it is a possibility.
  I come back to the question: in that case, who is or is not entitled to information in Urenco? Remembering that Dr. Khan was not, as I understand it, at any time a direct employee of Urenco—he was an employee of the FDO—whether he was vetted by that organisation or by the Dutch security service is open to question. The Minister may wish to comment on that matter. I do not press it too greatly. I am concerned about our involvement henceforth in relation to the security aspect.
  What investigations, if any, are being made into the alleged dummy company, Wear gate Ltd., of Swansea in Wales, which allegedly bought inverters from Emerson Electric Controls in Swindon and sent them to Pakistan? Has any attempt been made to trace the owners of Weargate Ltd.—Mr. and Mrs. Abdus Salaam? Are the Government discussing with other highly developed technological nations the sale of such items as high vacuum valves and glass rotors?
  The Minister may say that keeping tabs on such items is unreal and impractical. If that is what the Government believe, they should say so. If it is really impossible for the London group of nations—given the nature of a complex industrial society—to operate, it should be admitted and made plain.
  I make no apology for taking half an hour, even at this time of the morning, to go through these matters. Nuclear proliferation, especially nuclear proliferation in Asia, is far more dangerous in the opinion of many than all the discussion and talk about fear of nuclear radiation and the possible safety, or lack of safety—according to taste—of the PWRs. The subject that we are discussing at this time of the morning is far more important in terms of danger to the human race than the various doubts and worries that were raised during questions to the Secretary of State for Energy when he produced astatement on the PWR and related nuclear matters some 14 hours ago.
  That is the context in which I put the matter, and I make no excuse for detaining the House and keeping the Minister up at this time of the morning. I thank him for his good nature and look forward to his reply.
  5.47 am
  The Under Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Norman Lamont): The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) certainly need not apologise in any way for keeping the House up at this late hour. He had raised an extremely serious matter. I assure him that the Government share the concern that he has expressed today. We consider that the consequences of what has happened are potentially very far-reaching.
  The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give me a copy of his speech—or what he called the guts of his speech—in advance. I hope to deal in detail with some of the important questions that he raised. He will appreciate, however, that the matter is delicate. Although I wish to reply to the points that he raised, it would not be appropriate or possible for me to go into every detail that arises in the issue.
  Mr. Dalyell: I wish to put on record that I do understand that the matter is delicate.
  Mr. Lamont: I am grateful for that assurance.
  In addition, some of the detailed questions that the hon. Member raised have been the subject of a thorough investigation by the Netherlands Government. A report on this investigation has been produced by an interdepartmental working party of the Netherlands Government, and follow-up action is currently being considered in Holland by the Netherlands Government. A copy of the report has not yet been passed to the Netherlands Parliament. I cannot reveal the detailed findings of the report.
  It may be helpful to the hon. Gentleman if I begin—and I am anxious to help him—by outlining a few of the facts of the case.
  We understand that in 1972 Dr. Khan, a Pakistani metallurgist, was recruited by a Netherlands subcontractor to Ultra Centrifuge Nederland. UCN is the Netherlands industrial partner in the centrifuge project. Dr. Khan worked for the subcontractor for about three years. During that time he was seconded to Almelo for a short period as a translator. He may well have been in a position to gain access to confidential information about the centrifuge process. He returned to Pakistan in 1975.
  566
  The hon. Member asked, quite rightly, "Why was the United Kingdom not informed?" It is a question that we have been asking the Netherlands authorities. To date, we have received no satisfactory explanation.
  I should like to outline the steps that have been taken to investigate the Khan incident: to review security procedures within the uranium enrichment collaboration and, most important, to tighten up on their implementation.
  The collaboration with the Germans and Dutch was set up in 1970 by the Treaty of Almelo. A joint committee of the three Governments is responsible under the treaty for providing effective supervision of the collaboration. The committee normally meets, at official level, about four times a year, or more frequently if necessary. The chairmanship rotates; next year the United Kingdom will be in the chair.
  Annex II to the treaty deals with security procedures and classification. Principles and minimum standards on security were agreed between the three Governments, but the responsibility for their implementation lies with each individual country.
  The rules are designed to ensure that access to sensitive information is tightly controlled, the three Governments having recognised from the outset that their nonproliferation objectives demanded such control. In particular, it has been absolutely clear since the beginning of the collaboration that nationals of fourth countries could be permitted access to confidential information only with the express agreement of the joint committee. No such clearance was sought in the case of Dr. Khan, nor was his departure to Pakistan in 1975 notified to the joint committee. Nor, as required by the Treaty of Almelo, was the apparent breach of security reported to the joint committee until long after it occurred.
  Our concern about the affair—which is very considerable—has been made clear to the Netherlands Government, and it was underlined recently by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at her meeting with the Prime Minister of the Netherlands.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is not this the most flagrant and mind-boggling let-down?

  567
  What do the Dutch think they are playing at? They have broken every agreement, have they not?
  Mr. Lamont: If the hon. Gentleman will let me proceed, I shall outline what representations have been made, what actions have been taken and what investigations are being conducted.
  In April 1979 the United Kingdom asked for a full report to be made to the joint committee of the centrifuge collaboration on the allegations then appearing in the press about Dr. Khan's activities in Holland. Questions were also asked in the Netherlands Parliament. The Netherlands Government told the joint committee at its meeting on 16 June 1979 that they had set up an internal investigation into the circumstances of the Khan incident, and they then made an interim report on its findings.
  The United Kingdom and German representatives at the meeting emphasised the gravity of the allegations that had been appearing in the press and stressed that investigation by the appropriate authorities in the Netherlands should be full and thorough so that appropriate follow-up action could be taken. All three Governments agreed that Urenco should be asked urgently to review the security arrangements to be followed by all three industrial partners so that necessary steps to prevent a repetition could be pursued.
  After the meeting—and this answers the point that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) asked the hon. Member for West Lothian to raise—United Kingdom Ministers were informed of the interim findings of the inquiry by the Netherlands Government, and a review of the implementation of existing tripartite security rules and procedures in the United Kingdom was started. I can assure the hon. Member that the tripartite security rules and procedures are being fully observed in the United Kingdom.
  The hon. Member quoted the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to the effect that the Urenco report on the review of security was considered by the joint committee at its meeting in September. The committee concluded that the existing tripartite security rules and procedures were, in principle, adequate, but agreed
  568
  on a number of detailed points on which improvements needed to be considered by security experts. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is happening.
  The joint committee also noted that effective security depended on the thorough and continued application of the present tripartite rules and procedures. It agreed to reinforce the arrangements for monitoring the application of these rules and for submission to the joint committee of regular reports by the appropriate security authorities of the three countries of the results of such monitoring.
  The implementation of security procedures is essentially a matter for national Governments, but enforcement of the arrangements for monitoring is, of course, of concern to all three Governments and is being kept under close review by the joint committee.
  It was also agreed at the meeting of the joint committee that the matter should be considered again when the report of the Netherlands authorities on the Khan incident was available. The report by the Netherlands Government was received in confidence by the British Government in October. Its implications for future security, throughout the collaboration, including security at Almelo, were discussed, and agreement was reached on appropriate action at a further meeting of the joint committee in November.
  We have made clear to the Netherlands Government, through diplomatic channels and meetings of the joint committee, that we attach considerable importance to ensuring that there are no repetitions. That concern was firmly underlined by the Prime Minister at her recent meeting with the Netherlands Prime Minister, Mr. van Agt. He assured the Prime Minister that everything possible was being done to achieve that.
  The hon. Gentleman implied that United Kingdom Ministers were not seized of the seriousness of the affair until he pressed the Prime Minister earlier this month. I do not think that that is the case. The Department of Energy Ministers and the Prime Minister were alerted as soon as the full facts of the case emerged—that is, when the full report from the Netherlands authorities was received in London during October.

  569
  The tripartite Urenco security rules and procedures were drawn up with the objective of minimising the risks of proliferation. I cannot go into details, but we believe that, provided that the rules and procedures are applied thoroughly throughout the collaboration, sensitive nuclear information can, and will, be properly protected.
  I turn to some of the particular matters raised by the hon. Gentleman. He referred to and asked about the London group of countries. This consists of 15 main nuclear supplier States, including the United Kingdom, the United States, the Soviet Union and Japan. It is more commonly known as the nuclear suppliers group. The member States have undertaken, when considering the export of nuclear material, equipment and technology, to act in accordance with certain principles. Before any supplier member State exports any of the items listed in what are known as "the guidelines", assurances are required from the recipient country's Government regarding peaceful non-explosive use, coverage by international safeguards, and adequate physical protection and retransfers.
  The United Kingdom has played a leading role in the nuclear suppliers group, and through frequent bilateral exchanges is working for more effective export controls, internationally, on sensitive nuclear items, including the kind referred to by the hon. Gentleman. This is consistent with our goal of enabling countries to reap the full benefits of nuclear power while minimising the serious dangers of nuclear proliferation.
  The United Kingdom exercises careful control over the export of all materials and components specially designed for nuclear facilities. These are subject to licences under the Export of Goods (Control) Order.
  The controls that we and others operate play an important part in furthering our non-proliferation objectives. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have been taking all the necessary steps to ensure effective and comprehensive implementation of the order and will continue to do so.
  Mr. Dalyell: I do not accuse the Minister of being complacent, but we had the example of Weargate Ltd., the dummy company. To what extent was
  570
  Emerson Electrical Controls subject to that sort of order? Possibly the hon. Gentleman is coming to that.
  Mr. Lamont: It is not normal practice to discuss the activities of individual companies, and I cannot do so. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is nothing illegal in exporting from the United Kingdom general purpose items that do not require a licence and may be widely available throughout the world. Provided that a company is not exporting something that is not illegal, no action can be taken against it. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that specially designed items for use in nuclear facilities are subject to export controls. Applications for an export licence for such items are given the closest scrutiny, and I am satisfied that these controls are stringently applied. Furthermore, the scope of the controls is kept under constant review.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the introduction of export controls on inverters, which are known also as frequency changers. He should be aware—and I am sure that he is—that inverters have many uses. These are items which can be used in both nuclear and industrial applications; for example, in spinning equipment. Following a review of the possibility of United Kingdom manufactured frequency changers being supplied for use overseas in nuclear applications, it was decided to impose export control on those inverters capable of a multi-phase electrical output of between 600 and 2000Hz. An amendment to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1978 was accordingly made on 19 October 1978, with effect from 9 November 1978.
  It was further amended in February and March this year to cover components of frequency changers and equipment essential for the manufacture of centrifuge parts and components. Discussions have also been held with other leading supplier countries, some of which have since brought frequency changers within the ambit of their export control procedures. That illustrates the way in which leading supplier countries are co-operating urgently on these matters. As the hon. Gentleman has said, there are other equally important steps that have to be taken to discourage the proliferation of nuclear weapons. A decision to build nuclear weapons is, in the final analysis,

  571
  a political decision. We need to promote a wider political commitment to non-proliferation.
  The United Kingdom has been playing a full part in international discussions on measures to achieve that end, including the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation. The United Kingdom is a depository Power of the non-proliferation treaty, to which there are now 111 parties. We are working continuously to make the treaty as universal as possible in its application.
  The Pakistan authorities have consistently stressed the peaceful nature of their nuclear programme. We have noted these assurances, but we have made clear our concern at the development in Pakistan of unsafe guarded nuclear facilities. It is a matter that we should view with seriousness in any non-nuclear weapons State.
  We have made clear to all parties in the sub-continent our support in principle for arrangements which could be agreed between them to include the sub-continent in a nuclear weapons-free zone. The Government attach the highest importance to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. We should view very seriously indications that any non-nuclear weapons State was setting out to acquire a nuclear weapons capability and to share that with others.
  Mr. Dalyell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the obvious care that he has taken over his reply, but may I express a certain incredulity—I am sure that he would put it more tactfully than I would—about the Pakistan assurances? After all, we have the case of the correspondent of the Financial Times and the relative of the French Ambassador being beaten up, and there are some of us who just do not think that Pakistan is not trying to get nuclear weapons.

  DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FAIR TRADING
  6.6 am
  Mr. Greville Janner: I am happy, even at this hour, to have the opportunity to raise a matter concerning the salary of the Director General of Fair Trading and thereby to
  572
  consider the possibilities for the protection of the consumer that are available to that distinguished gentleman in his work and through the efforts of his Department.
  Although I am using the parliamentary procedure of considering the salary of the Director General, I am not to be taken as criticising either the existence or the amount of that salary. Nor am I attacking the efforts of this gentleman or of his staff—nor, indeed, those of his predecessor, the founder, as it were, of that office, when he was acting in that role.
  I invite the Minister to tell the House how the work of the Director General of Fair Trading is to be strengthened, with especial reference to certain crucial aspects of that work. Although the Director General is an independent person running his own operation independently of the Department, the Minister may none the less be able, either here or through other channels, to inform the House and the country of the prospects of further advance. In other words, what is in the pipeline?
  If the Minister finds that, because of the exigencies of the hour and the nature of the debate, he cannot inform the House in this way, I hope that he will make arrangements to do so as fully as possible by way of letter or otherwise. It is important that the House and the public should know exactly what is to be done and what the Director General and his office are to produce in the foreseeable future.
  As the Director General of Fair Trading is in charge of what may be described as a quasi-quango, and as the Government are known for their quango-hunting activities, I believe that the House and the country would like an assurance that there is no intention to destroy the work of this Office or to hack away at its effectiveness by cutting its basic costs.
  I hope that the Minister will give an assurance on behalf of the Government and that this will not be one of the occasions on which he says that we should ask the Director General himself. This is the responsibility of the Government, as the Director General of Fair Trading is the creation of a previous incarnation of Conservative misrule. Indeed, it has been said that he is one of the few useful products of an otherwise wretched regime. I have heard it said that the production

  573
  of consumer legislation by previous Conservative Governments represented moments of lucidity in an otherwise crazy effort. I criticise neither the Fair Trading Act nor the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act, which a previous Conservative Government created and on the basis of which one would have hoped that the Government would move forward. Therefore, I hope to receive an assurance that the Director General of Fair Trading and his Department can look forward to the support of their creators and that the Government do not intend to ruin that which they are trying to do.
  This concern has a particular impact in view of the announcement from the Department of Trade that the advisory service for consumers is to lose the funds that it needs. That will be a terrible blow to the public and to those local authorities which have come to rely on this service being provided to their citizens. It will deprive the Director General and his department of one of the main sources of their information. Citizens' complaints are well handled and considered at those centres and are processed so that they may be fed back into the consumer protection machinery operated by the Director General.
  I was appalled to find that the right hon. Lady who now has responsibility for this Department, which the unfortunate Minister has been dragged from his couch to defend, was one of the creators of that which she is in the process of destroying. I have a photostat copy of a most handsome document described as "Square Deal for Consumers", which was put out by an organisation which is not unknown to the Minister. I refer to the Conservative Political Centre. The document sets out in clear terms why the consumer advice centres are necessary. One of the progenitors of this excellent document is none other than the lady then described as "Mrs. Sally Oppenheim, MP."
  The document gave great strength to the Consumers Association in its efforts to spread the consumer advice centre idea. I pay tribute—as I am sure that the Minister would like to do—to the Consumers Association for the tremendous work that it is doing in so many areas. I hope that the Minister will understand the nature of the destruction which
  574
  the Government propose when they remove the grants at the end of this financial year, saying, as the Minister for Consumer Affairs did, that they do not believe the centres to be "cost effective"—whatever that may mean.
  I can only tell the Minister that in the city of Leicester the centre does sterling work. It helps ordinary people with ordinary problems, and the information that is fed back through that centre to the Director General of Fair Trading is, I am sure, of great importance to him when tied in with the information from all the other centres.
  The Leicestershire county council, in so far as it has any dealings with consumers, will no doubt co-operate fully with the Government in destroying what has been built, but the city authority, now run by very energetic Labour colleagues of mine, are distraught at the cuts being made and at the removal of much help that is available to ordinary people.
  Assuming that the consumers' advice centres are to be destroyed, the question for the Minister—it is not one that can be left to the Director General—is what will be put in their place? How is the Director General to get his information, and how is the consumer to receive his help? What will be done by the Department of Trade to strengthen the work of the Director General of Fair Trading and his department in these circumstances?
  I refer to three specific issues which are of deep importance to consumers and which I understand the Director General of Fair Trading together with the Department of Trade has in his sights. The first is quite a short point. There has been, through the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 and later through the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, an attempt to deal with exclusion clauses to make them void in contracts for the supply of goods. They are, in general, also void in other contracts under the Unfair Contract Terms Act in so far as they do not "satisfy the test of reasonableness".
  In each case we are referring to exclusion clauses in contracts for the sale of goods where the contract incorporates an implied term that the goods will be of merchantable quality. This term was originally contained in the Sale of Goods Act 1893. It is now incorporated in the

  575
  Sale of Goods Act 1979, which received the Royal Assent last week.
  There is great disquiet about the meaning of the word "merchantability". I know that this matter was dealt with in a written answer only yesterday, but, of necessity, written answers are less loquacious than their oral sisters. I trust that the Minister will be able to give us more information about this matter. What is his view of the definition of "merchantability"? Is he satisfied with the definition as it stands?
  If he is not satisfied that sufficient protection is given through the current definition, what does he propose to do about it? If his answer is that we must wait and see what the Law Commission says because the Government will need to take that into account, can he say when he expects the Commission's report to be made and when can we expect action? In the meantime, is the Minister liaising with the Director General of Fair Trading on the protection of people? What is being done about the question of "merchantability"? We recognise the importance of the reports of Law Commissions. I hope that the Minister will take note of the reports and take action on them.
  I hope that the Minister's answer on "merchantability" will not be that the Government are waiting for some action, or inaction, to be decided by our European partners. The answer "We are waiting for Europe" is beloved by those who wish to take no action. I paid tribute to the work of the Department when it was run by my colleagues. Unfortunately, that Department gave the same answer when responding to the next problem which I shall raise, that of product liability.
  The Director General of Fair Trading appears to have almost an open brief under the Act when dealing with activities detrimental to consumers. He can take steps by making regulations or by leaning on those connected with the manufacture of a product. The Minister may feel that the Director General's powers are not strong enough and that he should have greater opportunity to take further steps. The Director General cannot, on his own, impose strict liability on producers of goods. The courts can
  576
  do that. The courts in the United States have done so, as to some extent have the legislatures in France and Germany.
  Will the Minister take steps to ensure that people such as those who suffered so dreadfully from thalidomide are protected by our law, or does he intend to leave such matters to the Director General of Fair Trading until the European Parliament, Commission or some other European body decides to take action?
  I implore the Minister not to wait. We have had reports from the Scottish, English and Welsh Law Commissions recommending that we should introduce laws on product liability similar to those which operate in the United States. When the Commissions agree, there is at least a prima facie case.
  The famous Pearson Commission on civil liability recommended the same action. Why should we wait for Europe before taking away from the Director General of Fair Trading an overall discretion of powers and giving direct power to the consumer to take action on his own behalf? That power is sadly lacking. It is necessary because the courts are so weak. Justice in this country is available through legal aid to those who have no money. Justice is available to the rich who can afford to pay for legal help. But justice is not available to a large section of our people—the middle income groups—because they cannot afford the justice that they require. As a judge said many years ago "The courts are like the Waldorf hotel—open to all."
  The Government propose to remove the grants that enable ordinary citizens to obtain help from consumer advice centres. Even that avenue is to be removed. More responsibility is to be piled on to the Director General and his staff. I ask for an assurance that the Director General and his organisation will not be starved of the assistance and money that they need to do the work that has become increasingly important to the public.
  The final area to which I must refer is that of the ordinary shopper and his protection—how the Director General of Fair Trading and his Department are able to help, and the limits on the help that they are able to give. I believe that a Department such as that of the Director General—indeed like a Department of State—is only as effective as its public

  577
  relations allow it to be, and it is vital that the Director General should be encouraged to inform the public, with the help of the Department, of the limits as well as the powers that he possesses.
  I shall take two specific examples of the way in which the public are deceived by the very existence of legislation that is much weaker than people consider it to be. First, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 has a most unfortunate title. People believe that this Act protects them against unfair contracts, and that if they make a contract that is unfair they can go to some great officer of State, whether it be the Minister or the Director General of Fair Trading, who will be able to flap his wings and produce a remedy.
  All of us in this House know that the Unfair Contract Terms Act is extremely limited in its application. It helps enormously where there are unfair exclusion clauses in contracts. What it does not do is protect the shopper against unfair bargains: nor does it give to the Director General or the Minister any powers to protect people against overpayment, against making bad bargains, or against buying goods in shops which they could buy much cheaper somewhere else. Particularly at this time, when people are out doing their Christmas shopping, they ought to be warned by the Director General, or by the Minister on the Director General's behalf, of the risks that they run and of the limits of the powers of authority to protect them, even today, against their own bad bargains.
  The old rule used to be caveat emptor—let the buyer beware. It is sometimes said that it has now been changed to caveat vendor—let the seller beware. But in fact the balance is somewhere between the two, and the buyer must still note the limits on the powers of others to help her in her shopping. I say help "her" because, after all, it is the wife who generally does the shopping. It is the wife who shops around. It is the wife who gets berated by her husband if she pays too much. It is the wife who bears the burdens of the purchases physically, and very often it is the wife today who works and earns the money to pay for that shopping.
  I ask the Minister, at this Christmas time, to warn shoppers of the dangers of
  578
  over-confidence in the powers of the law. At the same time, I hope that the Minister will regard it as part of the job of the Director General—a power that ought to be strengthened—to ask shoppers to make use of the powers that they have through the law at this Christmas time. If, for example, they find that goods are offered elsewhere at a price lower than that at which the shopkeeper is prepared to sell them, they should not just pay the higher price and make no complaint. They should tell the local consumer protection people, the local weights and measures people, the local fair trading people, and so on, of the way in which they have been treated, because that is their right. Whether or not the local authority chooses to call in the fair trading officers to protect the public, they are, nevertheless, part of the overall protection provided by successive Governments, of which the Director General of Fair Trading and his staff form such an important part.
  I ask the Minister to use this opportunity to strengthen the work of the Director General in that way, and to use this opportunity to warn people who are thronging the shops during this last week before Christmas to take care, to protect themselves against bad bargains and to use their strength to ensure that the law as it stands is enforced.
  I hope that the Minister can give the assurance that the steps that have been taken regarding exclusion clauses in contracts will also be enforced. Indeed, the Minister will know from what was said at Question Time recently, including on answer to a question from myself, that it is an offence for manufacturers to include in the contracts that they put forward to consumers exclusion clauses that are unenforceable and void and that steps could be taken to deal with people who behave in that way.
  I should like to ask two questions in that regard. First, can the Minister answer the question that I put to the Minister for Consumer Affairs? How many people have been prosecuted for behaving in this unlawful manner? If he feels that that is an unfair question to ask at 6.30 in the morning and that he would require at least until 7.30 to get the answer I accept that. However, I hope that he will ensure that the answer is sent to me as soon as

  579
  possible, because the public are entitled to know how that rule is being enforced.
  Secondly, can he say whether the Director General of Fair Trading, in the exercise of his powers, is leaning on manufacturers, by other routes, to stop the pernicious practice of including in documents exclusion clauses that are not permissible and are unlawful? What is he doing to warn the public that they should take no notice of exclusion clauses in contracts for the supply of goods, when those clauses purport to take away a right which the ordinary person has under the Sale of Goods Act, such as rights to goods that are not defective and rights to goods that are "suitable for the purpose supplied"?
  There is one area in which the Director General has no powers, and presumably can have no powers. However, it is an area in which he should share in the responsibility for informing the public. At this time of the year not only are there just a few shopping days left to Christmas; there are also only a few shoplifting days to Christmas, and the thieves are very busy.
  None of us in the House has the least sympathy for a person who goes thieving. If he is caught, he deserves the punishment that he should get. We all pay for the activities of those people by an increase in the price of the goods that are sold. All prices take into account what is sometimes referred to as "shrinkage". We know that the law should be enforced in that area and that consumers are entitled to be protected against those who force up prices by stealing. Shoplifting is stealing by another and no more acceptable name.
  On the other hand, I hope that the Director General of Fair Trading will have turned his sights on to the unfortunate, forgetful shopper, who in these days of self-service operations is so likely to be wrongly charged with shoplifting. Can any of us say that we have never left a shop with something in our hands for which we have not paid? It is so easy to take goods off the counter and walk out forgetfully or to put goods into a bag and forget to pay for them.
  I know of a recent case of a woman in a supermarket doing her Christmas shopping who had goods in her arms and
  580
  who suddenly remembered that she had not put any money in the parking meter. She rushed out, with her arms still full of goods unpaid for. When she arrived at the car there was a tap on her shoulder and the store detective said "Madam, have you paid for these goods?" She replied "Oh, I am so sorry." If that woman is prosecuted, that statement makes her chances of being acquitted slight.
  Over 50 per cent. of those charged with shoplifting and who plead not guilty are acquitted. Perhaps some should have been convicted, but some of those who are convicted should have been found not guilty. While a shoplifter takes the prosecution and the punishment that follows as part of the hazards of his unpleasant trade, the innocent person is often broken in mind, spirit and heart before the case comes up for trial. It is no answer to let the court decide. Long before the case reaches court the person may be ruined—as we in the House know from the experience of colleagues and friends who have been caught in the dreadful net of misery.
  Perhaps the Director General could lean on supermarkets to try to persuade them to provide bag parks, such as those in supermarkets in the United States. At least people should be warned at Christmas time that if they take goods off counters those goods should be placed into the wire baskets that are provided and not into their bags until they have been paid for. I advise people, when there are no wire baskets available, to hold the goods above their heads. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) laughs, but if people hold goods above their heads at least it cannot be said in court that the defendant "furtively held the goods above his head".
  I have often seen the great sadness of these cases. Ordinary people are caught in a way that destroys their whole being. Those of us who have been trying to get convictions for shoplifters and avoid the prosecution of innocent people ask the Minister to press the Director General to come up with an answer.
  It is all too rare that one turns to Scotland for advice and guidance, but I pay tribute to the Scottish legal system, under which there are no private prose-

  581
  cutions. Prosecutions are brought by the police. In this country it is often left to the shopkeeper to decide whether he will prosecute or not. In many areas of London, for instance, the decision is left to the owner of the shop. I believe that the decision should be taken on behalf of the public by people who are answerable to the public. It is no answer to say that if the court acquits the person gets off. If one is innocent one may be acquitted, but the scars of the court experience never go.
  It does not matter whether the individual is a Member of Parliament or an ordinary housewife or citizen; he can be totally ruined by what happens. The good name of the ordinary private citizen is just as much damaged when it appears in the local press that he or she—and probably she—has been charged with shoplifting as is the reputation of a great public figure who is charged with an offence of which, in due course, he is acquitted.
  As we approach this Christmas season, and as this is the last opportunity for private Members to raise matters on the Consolidated Fund, I ask the Minister to exercise a spirit of genial kindness. Even at this late hour in this miserable year of the Government's office, when all other than the wealthiest are to suffer, I ask him at least to throw some crumbs to ordinary buyers.
  The Government should say "We will not deprive the Director General of Fair Trading and his staff of their powers by cutting their money. We will think again about consumer advice centres and the work that they do for ordinary people and the information that they feed through to the Director General. We will try to protect people more against goods that are not of merchantable quality and give rights this coming year, through the Director General or otherwise, to those who suffer death or injury through defects in produce. In the meantime, we will inform Christmas shoppers of their rights and help them obtain and enforce those rights, whether it be directly through the Direct General or through the powers that the Minister and his Department exercise themselves"
  6.41 a.m
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I thank the hon.
  582
  and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for his kind reference to the Director General and the way in which he discharges his duties.
  Looking at a list of the functions of the Director General and the Office of Fair Trading, one realises the extent of those responsibilities. Under the Fair Trading Act 1973, which established the Office of the Director General of Fair Trading, the Director General was given wide-ranging responsibilities in the area of competition policy and general consumer protection. These duties have since been extended by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Estate Agents Act 1979, and will be further extended by the Competition Bill.
  The main responsibilities of the Director General include taking action under the restrictive practices legislation, including keeping a register of such practices, advising on and implementing the monopolies and mergers policy, advising the Secretary of State on consumer policy, making proposals for outlawing business practices that are harmful to consumers, taking action against traders who persistently breach the criminal law or neglect their civil obligations to the detriment of consumers, implementing controls on consumer credit, including administering the licensing system, operating the negative licensing procedures under the Estate Agents Act, negotiating voluntary codes of practice with trade associations and providing consumers with information and advice. That list illustrates the wide range of duties covered.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman asks me to say how this work can be strengthened. The Director General decides his priorities for future action, and I know that he will be glad to indicate to the hon. and learned Gentleman—and write to him, if he so requests—the priorities that will govern his actions over this wide range of matters during the coming year.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Office of Fair Trading as a quango-like organisation and he asked about the resources allocated to the Office As he knows, the resources allocated to all Government Departments and their associated agencies are under review. I can certainly assure him that the Office of Fair Trading will continue in being, and it will continue to discharge its im-

  583
  portant functions. Like all agencies and Government Departments, it must review its functions in the present stringent economic conditions.
  The hon. and learned Member referred to some matters which came within the budget of the Director General and certain others which did not. He quoted the recent statement of the Minister of State in my Department about consumer advice centres. I was happy to note his comments on the work done by the Leicester centre. I know he realises that, because of the limitation that I have mentioned, it would not be appropriate for me to talk at length about policy on advice centres on this occasion. But the Minister of State is anxious to put extra emphasis on the work of the citizens advice bureaux. These agencies have also done good work in the area of consumer advice.
  The hon. and learned Member then raised the subject of product liability. I must emphasise that the Department of Trade has consulted large numbers of representative bodies about the latest draft of the EEC product liability directive. It is expected that the EEC working party will begin detailed examination of that directive next year. The United Kingdom delegation will playa full part in these discussions, and it is hoped that agreement will be reached on a text which will provide fair protection for injured consumers without imposing unacceptable burdens on industry.
  I make it clear that the Director General has no power to propose a change in the law on product liability, and it would be inappropriate for the United Kingdom to act unilaterally. It is necessary for us to act in parallel with other countries.
  Mr. Greville Janner: Can the Minister explain why it is inappropriate for this country to act unilaterally? Already there are product liability laws in France and West Germany, both of which are members of the EEC. Also, there are much stronger existing laws in most American states. Therefore, why should we not take action now and let the EEC follow us for a change?
  Mr. Eyre: I should like to debate this important matter in great detail, but this responsibility falls strictly on the Department of Trade; it is not part of the duties of the Director General. I must not
  584
  stray too far out of order on this occasion, much as I should like to follow the points made by the hon. and learned Member.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. This is a part of our civil, not criminal, law. It prevents the supplier of goods from depriving the consumer of certain basic rights, including those under the Sale of Goods Act 1893, by rendering void any conditions of sale that purport to exclude liability for negligence resulting in death or personal injury and by enabling the courts to test the reasonableness of exclusion and indemnity clauses in a wide variety of other circumstances. It also provides in a similar way that the supplier cannot deprive the consumer of his rights under earlier legislation in relation to the fitness, quality and description of goods under contracts for hire, contracts for exchange and contracts for work and materials.
  Since the 1977 Act is part of the civil law, it does not create any offences. A retailer, for example, who purports to exclude his liability for negligence in respect of death or personal injury will fail to achieve his object since the Act provides that this is an inalienable right. He will not, however, commit an offence under the 1977 Act and cannot be prosecuted under that Act. Although the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 does not create an offence, it is open to the Director General of Fair Trading and the Secretary of State to act against specific consumer trade practices that adversely affect the economic interests of consumers.
  If, therefore, the Director General felt that the economic interests of consumers were prejudiced by retailers purporting to alienate consumer rights contrary to the 1977 Act, he could, under section 14 of the Fair Trading Act 1973, refer the practice to the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee indicating that he proposed to recommend that the Secretary of State should exercise his powers under the Act to prohibit the practice. If the committee agrees that the practice is detrimental to the economic interests of consumers and that it should be prohibited, the Secretary of State can then make an order under section 22 of the Fair Trading Act prohibiting the practice.
  These procedures were followed in the case of certain practices contrary to the

  585
  spirit of the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973. As a result, the Consumers Transactions (Restrictions on Statements) Order 1976 made it illegal for retailers to display notices that purport to deprive consumers of certain inalienable rights.
  The Director General has already shown, therefore, that he is prepared to invoke these procedures to make it illegal for those involved to mislead consumers about other rights. In July 1978, he issued a very strong warning to shopkeepers and traders to stop displaying notices in their premises or using terms in contracts that could confuse or mislead consumers about their rights. If the Director General's further inquiries showed that consumers were being misled on a large scale, he could use his powers under the Fair Trading Act to propose that the use of such clauses should be made a criminal offence.
  However, the Director General has not so far obtained sufficient evidence of abuse to justify his referring the matter to the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman referred rightly to Christmas and the January sales, which is clearly the time when consumer expenditure is at its height. He fairly cautioned shoppers about the limitations on powers of others to protect them in all circumstances. I thought that he used some wise words. Undoubtedly, the position of consumers has been strengthened as a result of the measures that I have mentioned. The benefit of those measures applies at Christmas just as much as it applies throughout the year.
  I agree, nevertheless, that advice should be given to those customers about to buy some apparent bargain that they should think before they buy. If the customer sees any notice disclaiming responsibility for defects in the goods, advice should be given to think twice before he buys. If, however, he buys goods and subsequently they prove to be unsatisfactory, he ought to consider whether the exclusion clause is void as a result of the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 or the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. In that respect, if he wants advice or help, he should approach his local citizens advice bureau or the trading standards officers, who are often helpful.
  Mr. Greville Janner: The Minister said that the buyer should consider whether the clause is void. The average buyer does not know anything about the clauses or where to go. His only hope is to go to the consumer advice centre. That is why I urgently request the Minister to speak to his right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs to consider whether in the circumstances the question of the protection of shoppers by these centres can be reconsidered. It is no use telling the shopper what he or she should consider. The average shopper has not a clue. I hope that at the very least the Minister will tell the shopper what his or her rights are as against the shop, not the manufacturer.
  Mr. Eyre: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to indicate that these are technical matters and that advice is necessary. I have emphasised the importance of the citizens advice bureau and of trading standards officers in that respect. I note what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about the consumer advice centres. They are not spread evenly throughout the country. They exist in some towns. Indeed, the hon. and learned Gentleman has been complimentary about the service that has been provided in Leicester. The citizens advice bureau provides a more widely spread service than the consumer advice centre.
  I noted carefully the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments on shoplifting. I realise that what he said came from his wide professional experience in dealing with it. I had sympathy with some of the examples that he gave of hard cases in that respect. But the Director General of Fair Trading does not have responsibility in matters involving the criminal law. I know that a great deal of thought has been given to the definition of offences in this respect and that the hon. and learned Gentleman understands the complexity of these matters, but this is a Home Office responsibility; it does not come within the direct responsibility of the Director General of Fair Trading.
  Again, I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his complimentary references to the Director General of Fair Trading and to the work of the Office of Fair Trading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House; immediately considered in Committee pursuant to order this day; reported without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 93 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS
  Motion made, and Question proposed That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]
  7.1 a.m.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for coming to the House at this extraordinary time of day to reply to the debate on what I believe to be an important subject. I hope, for his sake, that he has had slightly more sleep than I have had during the course of the night.
  As far as I know, both he and I have had practical experience of farming. We both know that it is not the peaceful, healthy idyllic existence that it is reputed to be in certain quarters. On the contrary, farm work can be underpaid, unhealthy, and dangerous. Agriculture is the third most dangerous industry in the United Kingdom, after construction and mining.
  Accidents in agriculture occur in a number of ways, including from machinery and livestock, especially bulls. Many workers suffer from the long-term effects of the working conditions under which they operate, such as noisy machinery, dust which causes farmers' lung, and brucellosis, which can be contracted from contact with animals.
  I concentrate my remarks on a relatively new hazard, namely, agricultural chemicals. Probably the best known and notorious agricultural chemical is Paraquat. Handled properly, it is a perfectly safe and non-persistent herbicide. Every year there is an incident. Someone is left with an odd pint of the chemical, puts it into a lemonade bottle, and someone else takes a mouthful of it and is
  588
  thereby condemned to death—in my opinion, as a result of criminal negligence. That is an example of an abuse of a material that would otherwise be perfectly safe.
  Other chemical products can cause acute or chronic afflictions to those handling them, or to members of the public, if they are not used in the proper manner. I do not wish to exaggerate the problem. A whiff of spray drift will not hurt anyone. However, frequent or heavy doses of some chemicals can cause skin complaints, eye irritation, digestive complaints and even nervous disorders. These are risks that must be faced because we are talking of poisons. All agro-chemicals, whether they are organo chlorines, organo mercuries or whatever, are, by definition, biologically active materials, otherwise they would not be of any use as agricultural chemicals.
  According to the Health and Safety Executive, in 1976 there were 10 cases only of poisoning reported on farms. In 1977 there were 27, and last year there were 32. That is the tip of the iceberg. There are many more cases that are neither reported nor detected because the effects of small doses are extremely difficult to diagnose. They could be cumulative in effect and may appear only years later. The problem is far bigger than is indicated by the published statistics, largely because the agrochemical industry is a major growth industry in this country.
  In 1944 there were only 65 approved chemicals for farmers and growers, and at that time relatively few farmers were using them. Now there are approaching 1,000 products available on the market. It is true to say that virtually every arable acre in Britain, at some stage during the year, is treated with some sort of chemical.
  I do not wish to give the impression of being paranoiac about agro-chemicals. As a farmer I know that they serve extremely useful purposes, that relatively few of them are persistent, and that most are selective in their effects. They are economically vital to the industry. They contribute to our efficiency and to the increased production of agriculture. They have eliminated crop diseases which in the past had disastrous effects, and they have overcome certain parasitic diseases

  589
  of animals which at one time caused serious suffering to livestock. But, inevitably, with the rapid increase in the use of chemicals by those who have not necessarily had specialised training, and in an industry where proper in-service training is almost impossible, problems are bound to arise, and these fall into four main areas.
  The first question is whether the correct chemical is being used. I have made a mistake in that respect. I sprayed the wrong chemical on a field and it cost me a certain amount of money, as the Minister can imagine. The second question is whether the chemical is being applied correctly. It is worth bearing in mind the confusion that is caused by the limbo we are in between the metric and imperial systems. Chemicals are sold in metric packs and are applied through sprayers calibrated in imperial measurements.
  The third question is whether the machinery is properly maintained, whether it is safe and accurate. I do not know how many times I have seen a driver climb off his tractor when he has a choked nozzle on a spray boom, take the nozzle off and blow through it to clear the obstruction. That is very foolish. Goodness knows what chemicals people are getting into their mouths in that way. There is also the problem of spray drift. With high pressure spraying it would be interesting to know what proportion of the chemical lands on the crop. A great deal probably blows away.
  The fourth question is whether a tractor man knows all that he should about the material that he is using, whether it is possible for him to handle it safely, whether he has protective clothing available to him or washing facilities, and, if so, whether he is using them.
  The Royal Commission on environmental pollution, which has produced useful and practical recommendations, emphasises the need for better practices on farms and in forests, and also the need to improve the official machinery which is supposed to control and monitor the development, marketing and use of agricultural chemicals.
  I should like to press the Minister on one or two specific recommendations.
  590
  The first refers to a helpful booklet entitled "Approved Products for Farmers and Growers", which contains more than 290 pages and costs £2·25. It is published annually by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is a useful agricultural chemicals bible for people engaged in farming and forestry. It is written in layman's terms and explains what products should be used for what purposes and w hat precautions should be taken.
  But the problem which the Royal Commission and I have discovered, highlighted in a reply from the Minister on 27 November, is that only 12,000 copies of the book have been sold. If we assume that 10,000 of them have been sold to farmers, we should bear in mind that there are 258,000 agricultural holdings in the United Kingdom. That means that only one farmer in 25 has a copy. If only that number of farmers have copies, what chance has the tractor driver of getting the necessary information on whether a chemical is approved and what precautions he should be taking when handling it? It is not good enough to rely on chemical salesmen to disseminate this sort of information, and I hope that the Minister will say something constructive when he replies to the debate.
  The Royal Commission also called for better co-ordination of research and development in the agricultural chemicals business. I realise that interference in industry is out of fashion these days, but the Parliamentary Secretary and, come to that, the Minister do not have reputations as hard liners in this area, and I hope that they will see fit to make exceptions.
  The existing pesticides safety precautions scheme is entirely voluntary. As such, it does not provide a satisfactory framework within which to monitor developments in such a large and controversial industry. Under the scheme, new products are submitted for approval to the advisory committee on pesticides. I am not particularly happy about that committee either. I understand that it consists of 10 academics and 15 civil servants—a mixture of boffins and bureaucrats. No doubt they are all clever, but I doubt whether any of them has had the practical problem of, for example, having to mix a supposedly soluble chemical in precise quantities into cold water

  591
  while balancing on a ladder leaning against a sprayer in the corner of a muddy field. Have they ever had to eat a sandwich meal in a tractor cab with their hands covered in DDT and miles from the nearest tap, let alone proper washing facilities? Have they had to try to dispose safely of a large quantity of contaminated empty five-gallon spray drums?
  Those specialists can probably work out the mathematical improbability of accidents occurring, but the problem with boffins is that they have a bad habit of discounting Murphy's excellent law that what can happen sooner or later will happen. I hope that the Minister will consider appointing a few Murphys to the committee and will bring some practical expertise into its deliberations by including representatives of the NFU, farm workers and foresters.
  The Royal Commission also recommends that the committee on pesticides should liaise with the United States environmental protection agency about the risks posed by the herbicide 2,4,5-T, which has rightly had a great deal of publicity recently. I do not want to start scare mongering. In practical terms. 2,4,5-T is excellent. I have used it to clear brambles, ivy and the regrowth of tree stumps.
  A report by the advisory committee on pesticides to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) in March claimed that 2,4,5-T was safe. I accept that. But the problem is not just 2,4,5,-T. The problem is an impurity which is, apparently, invariably present in 2,4,5-T, namely, TCDD, which is better known as dioxin. That is an extremely dangerous chemical. The advisory committee says that it is one of the most toxic chemicals known. In fairly small doses it can be lethal and in smaller doses it can cause cancer, abortions or miscarriages.
  The trouble appears to be that there is no satisfactory way of analysing how much dioxin is present in any given sample of 2,4,5-T. That is borne out by American authorities and by our advisory committee, which said in its report in March:
  "The Advisory Committee is not however satisfied that a reliable analytical method yet exists for the determination of such very low
  592
  levels of TCDD in formulated products, given that these contain a number of other substances which interfere to a considerable extent with some analyses. The Advisory Committee therefore recommends to Government departments that experimental work be carried out to provide a method for the determination of TCDD in formulations and thus to allow it to set a workable standard."
  That is not good enough. There are too many "ifs" and "buts". It is clear that we cannot analyse every batch of 2,4,5,-T, and even if we could there is no foolproof way of determining how much dioxin is present. Meanwhile, large quantities of the material are being sprayed, sometimes from the air, into forestry plantations, and it can drift in the wind. There is considerable and reasonable doubt about the safety of the material.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): Did the hon. Gentleman say that he thought that 2,4,5-T was sprayed from the air?
  Mr. Home Robertson: I understand that the formulated product can be sprayed from the air and is sprayed by the Forestry Commission on to conifer plantations. I am concerned that the Ministry is apparently refusing to take any action until it gets conclusive evidence that excessive quantities of dioxin are present in 2,4,5-T. In other words, it probably will not do anything until someone suffers diagnosable dioxin poisoning.
  As the Minister knows, the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers has already advised its members not to handle 2, 4, 5-T. The Governments of the United States of America, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and Italy have all decided that the circumstantial evidence against it is strong enough to justify banning the material until such time as it can be proved safe. That attitude has been taken because of the dioxin factor.
  There is no need for me to go into all the scare stories—for example, the defoliation programme and the contamination with dioxin in Vietnam, and the dioxin leak at Seveso in Italy. The stories are not strictly relevant to 2,4,5-T as used in Britain. However, recent evidence of miscarriages suffered by women in Oregon is relevant. I sincerely hope that the Minister will consider suspending the use of 2,4, 5-T in the United Kingdom, especially as safer alternatives are available to the industry.

  593
  I conclude my remarks by referring to the penultimate recommendation of the Royal Commission's report, which advocates that the initiative for action to deal with pollution caused by agricultural practices should rest with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to reply to some of the matters that the Royal Commission and I have raised. I hope that he will refer in particular to 2, 4, 5-T.
  7.18 am
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) for initiating the debate. I am glad that he chose to adopt a broad approach by considering the important topic of pesticides as a whole instead of confining himself to 2, 4, 5-T. He may be interested to learn that it accounts for 0·005 per cent. of active ingredient used in crop protection in the United Kingdom. It seems that parts of the media devote 10 per cent. of their attention to it. The hon. Gentleman was wise to discount much of the concern expressed in public that is based on stories from Vietnam and Seveso.
  I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments about Paraquat. It is tragic that some of the accidents involving that important pesticide result from sheer carelessness. However, in some instances there is deliberate use of it for suicide. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that.
  The hon. Gentleman said that it is important not to be paranoiac about agricultural chemicals. I entirely endorse that view. His attention to matters such as labelling, reading instructions and using the correct quantities is something that I endorse. Care must be taken when using any weapon against the enemies of agriculture. We are dealing with powerful items.
  It may be of interest to the hon. Gentleman if I deal with 2,4,5-T. I discovered that "Agent Orange" in Vietnam contains 450 times as much dioxin as any product that is permitted to be used in Britain. Therefore, any comparison between the two is to a large extent irrelevant.
  We require the dioxin impurity not to
  594
  exceed the 0·1 milligrams per kilogram safety limit set by the World Health Organisation. As this very small quantity drops, so the difficulties of analysis become greater, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, but at that figure it is, I understand, fairly accurately measured.
  May I seek to put the matter in perspective by pointing out that at the highest rate that 2,4,5-T is used in this country, mostly in forestry, the amount of dioxin distributed is the equivalent of one grain of sugar spread over a football pitch, and if one put together all the dioxin in all the 2,4,5-T formulations used every year in this country it would not fill a salt spoon.
  The hon. Gentleman and I as he said, share personal and constituency interests in agriculture, which give us common cause in promoting efficient food production and in ensuring that farmers continue to have access to the safe pesticides needed to protect their crops.
  There are reputable calculations that without the use of pesticides the yield of cereals in this country would fall by 45 per cent. in three years. We must not forget, either, that pesticides earn valuable export revenue, bringing in some £130 million in 1978.
  The hon. Member and I have a common interest also in ensuring that the use of these products does not put users, bystanders, the environment, domestic animals or wild life at avoidable risk. This is precisely what the pesticides safety precautions scheme was set up to achieve nearly a quarter of a century ago. Under the scheme, which is a formally negotiated agreement between the Government and the trade associations representing the pesticides industry, manufacturers submit all the data necessary for the Government to judge whether a pesticide product should be allowed on the market and, if so, what warnings and restrictions to ensure safety in use should appear on its label.
  The success of this scheme owes much to its skilled supervision by the advisory committee on pesticides, which has given good counsel on pesticides safety to successive Administrations—the present Government are no exception—ever since 1954. As the hon. Gentleman said, the committee consists of 10 independent medical and other specialists who are

  595
  among the most eminent in their profession. They have no emotional or commercial axes to grind, and they are working alongside experts from 14 Government Departments on a body which commands immense international respect.
  I should need very substantial evidence that there was a case for altering that committee in any way. It seems to me—I confess to being relatively new to this task—that the committee has performed an excellent job. It is above reproach in every respect. It is constantly on the alert for any new information about any product.
  In that connection, I think that the hon. Gentleman was a little unfair on the booklet "Approved Products for Farmers and Growers". It is a fairly technical book, as he knows, and I do not think that even if I were to arrange to give everyone in agriculture a copy it would in fact make any difference. The importance of safety lies in labelling, in making things clear to the chap who is actually using the chemical, and I believe that, as a practical farmer, the hon. Gentleman understands that to tell farmers all the technical implications of every chemical they use would be an impossible and overburdening task.
  For whatever reasons, over the years there have been long organised campaigns against 2,4,5-T herbicides both in this country and abroad. No doubt this was why the previous Government asked the advisory committee to prepare a reference document on the subject so that there would be
  "an authoritative medical and scientific appreciation to set beside any assessments or opinions from other sources".
  That document was published last March, and it explains why the advisory committee believes those brushkillers to be safe provided that they are used in the recommended way. Like their predecessors, the present Government have accepted that advice.
  Mr. Home Robertson: In his capacity as Minister, has the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to see the evidence which led the various overseas Governments to whom I referred to ban the use of 2,4,5-T? I think here of the United States in particular. What do they know that we do not know?
  Mr. Wiggin: Perhaps I could just deal with four commonly quoted cases against the chemical and the point raised.
  First, the United States authorities have suspended certain uses of 2,4,5-T following the release of a report which purported to show that the use of the chemical was linked with miscarriage rates in Oregon. The advisory committee has reviewed the report and, as I told the House on 26 July, the committee, like similar expert bodies in Australia and New Zealand, found the report wanting in material respects. So I was not surprised to see that America's own advisory committee has since reported in reassuring terms, which I quote:
  "After extensive review of the data we find no evidence of an immediate or substantial hazard to human health or to the environment associated with the use of 245-T or Sorbex on rice, rangeland, orchards, sugar cane and the non-crop uses specified in the decision documents."
  That is a quotation from the United States Environmental Protection Agency document. The agency there is having second thoughts. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
  In the second case, press reports have alleged that 2,4,5-T spraying by the Forestry Commission in North Wales caused a woman to have a miscarriage. This incident has been investigated by medical staff of the Welsh Office health department, which found no evidence to link 2,4,5-T with the miscarriage. I might add that a miscarriage, distressing as it may be to the individual concerned, is a common event and has many causes. One in five pregnancies ends in this way. In the same area press reports have also referred to the dumping of unwanted pesticide drums in an old mine shaft. This had been investigated by the local environmental health officer and the Welsh water authority. They were both satisfied that there was no danger of contamination from this dump.
  Thirdly, we have examined some sensational material, on which an organisation sponsored by the Church of Scientology elected to hold a press conference, about reported lamb losses in Somerset caused by an alleged spraying incident. As my noble Friend stated in another place, we received no evidence whatever to connect these reported losses with herbicide spraying. In fact, there is a welter of published scientific data which

  597
  call those allegations into question. The motives behind the interest of the Church of Scientology is not a matter on which I should like to speculate this morning.
  At the time of its review in March, the advisory committee on pesticides recorded in paragraph 7 that
  "a recent review by the Royal Swedish Academy of Scientists has concluded that carcinogen city studies so far completed have not provided evidence of any carcinogenic effect of 2,4,5-T".
  That is the latest authoritative statement on the subject from Sweden. Since this, there have been some studies in Sweden, none of which has yet been evaluated by the Swedish authorities, concerning people who were exposed to various dioxins in various chemicals, including 2,4,5-T. A published account of some of the work reveals that the research workers themselves, who sought to establish a link between the use of various chemicals and the incidence of a rare form of cancer, have not been able to attribute this to the use of any specific chemical. I understand that the relevant data and the official evaluation by the Swedish authorites will not be available until about February or March, but when we have these data they will be immediately examined by the advisory committee on pesticides.
  The 2,4,5-T brushkillers have been in use in this country for 35 years; and our advisory committee has yet to receive any data or allegations which, on investigations, argue a case for withdrawing them. On this and all other questions concerning safe use of pesticides, the Government and the advisory committee prefer to rely on scientific data rather than Scientologists' dogma, and upon medical evidence rather than upon emotional headlines.
  Thirdly, and not least because of its, potential for sensational publicity, we are
  598
  mindful that the campaign against 2,4,5-T will doubtless continue here and abroad, but The Lancet—that most authoritative document—said last month:
  "It is a waste of effort, resources and credibility to cry 'wolf' about 2,4,5-T when there is no wolf."
  In any event, the advisory committee will immediately inquire into any further evidence that is received about this or any other pesticide, including allegations where these are supported by hard evidence.
  The Government are deeply concerned that the public should be reassured. We are dealing here not with children's toys but with powerful chemicals, which can be good friends if properly used.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Royal Commission on environmental pollution. Among other things, the Royal Commission was quoted as saying that the United Kingdom had an impressive safety record in this sector. It addressed itself to other matters such as the safety of individual products and the safeguards attending their use. It pointed out that attention to these matters had perhaps diverted some of the observations on overall use. We shall consider this matter immediately. The Royal Commission refers to the need to keep in touch with the United States Environmental Protection Agency on the question of 2,4,5-T. This is, of course, routine to the advisory committee, and on a much wider basis. It is of interest that the chairman will soon be having discussions with the Australian authorities.
  The pesticides safety precautions scheme is one of the United Kingdom's real success stories, and we intend to keep it so.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock am

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  EAST SUFFOLK
  EAST SUFFOLK
  TUC
  TUC
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY BUDGET
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY BUDGET
  BUDGET STRATEGY
  BUDGET STRATEGY
  NORWAY
  NORWAY
  NATO
  NATO
  MOSCOW
  MOSCOW
  SECURITY
  SECURITY
  NATIONAL HERITAGE FUND
  NATIONAL HERITAGE FUND
  MUSEUMS AND THE ARTS
  MUSEUMS AND THE ARTS
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Photocopying Machines
  Photocopying Machines
  BOLTON (MAGISTRATES)
  BOLTON (MAGISTRATES)
ENERGY
  Gas Supplies
  Gas Supplies
  Departmental Staff (Private Telephone Calls)
  Departmental Staff (Private Telephone Calls)
TRADE
  Tariff Barriers (ASEAN States)
  Tariff Barriers (ASEAN States)
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Home Safety
  Home Safety
  Suits (Imports)
  Suits (Imports)
  Uranium Hexafluoride
  Uranium Hexafluoride
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Iran
  Iran
  Overseas Visitors (Overstaying)
  Overseas Visitors (Overstaying)
  Leicester Prison
  Leicester Prison
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Operation Countryman
  Operation Countryman
  Scientologists
  Scientologists
  Police Officers (Arms)
  Police Officers (Arms)
  Mr. Jonathan Pollitzer and Kay Douglas-Smith
  Mr. Jonathan Pollitzer and Kay Douglas-Smith
  Select Committee on Nationalised Industries (Tenth Report)
  Select Committee on Nationalised Industries (Tenth Report)
DEFENCE
  Victor Tanker Aircraft
  Victor Tanker Aircraft
  BUILDING SOCIETIES
  BUILDING SOCIETIES
  OPERATION COUNTRYMAN
  OPERATION COUNTRYMAN
WALES
  Accident and Emergency Departments (Children)
  Accident and Emergency Departments (Children)
INDUSTRY
  Mechanical Engineering
  Mechanical Engineering
  Dereliction (Travel-to-work Areas)
  Dereliction (Travel-to-work Areas)
  Motor Cars (Imports)
  Motor Cars (Imports)
  Strategic Metals
  Strategic Metals
CIVIL SERVICE
  House of Commons (Official Report)
  House of Commons (Official Report)
  Private Offices (Staffing)
  Private Offices (Staffing)
  Steel (Import Penetration)
  Steel (Import Penetration)
  Members of Parliament (Salaries and Pensions)
  Members of Parliament (Salaries and Pensions)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Government Borrowing (International Comparisons)
  Government Borrowing (International Comparisons)
  Statistics
  Statistics
  Currency Reserves
  Currency Reserves
  Mortgage Interest (Tax Relief)
  Mortgage Interest (Tax Relief)
  Taxation
  Taxation
  European Monetary System
  European Monetary System
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Public Expenditure (White Paper)
  Public Expenditure (White Paper)
  Registry of Friendly Societies
  Registry of Friendly Societies
  Mortgage Interest (Tax Relief)
  Mortgage Interest (Tax Relief)
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Public Expenditure Cuts
  Public Expenditure Cuts
  Public Sector Pensions
  Public Sector Pensions
EMPLOYMENT
  Special Temporary Employment Programme
  Special Temporary Employment Programme
  Safety at Sea
  Safety at Sea
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Farms (Safety Measures)
  Farms (Safety Measures)
  Redundancy Payments
  Redundancy Payments
  Young Persons (Grants)
  Young Persons (Grants)
  Employment and Training Activities
  Employment and Training Activities
  Health and Safety Executive
  Health and Safety Executive
  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
  Engineering Apprenticeships
  Engineering Apprenticeships
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Health and Safety Executive (Inspectors)
  Health and Safety Executive (Inspectors)
  Meccano Limited, Liverpool
  Meccano Limited, Liverpool
  Maternity Leave
  Maternity Leave
  County Durham
  County Durham
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Geriatric Hospitals (North-West)
  Geriatric Hospitals (North-West)
  Squatters (Benefit)
  Squatters (Benefit)
  Scombroid Poisoning
  Scombroid Poisoning
  Accidents in the Home
  Accidents in the Home
  Industrial Disputes (Benefits)
  Industrial Disputes (Benefits)
  Reception Centres
  Reception Centres
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Farringdon House School
  Farringdon House School
  Health Service Ombudsman
  Health Service Ombudsman
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Educational Disadvantage
  Educational Disadvantage
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Swinton Fitzwilliam Junior School, Rotherham
  Swinton Fitzwilliam Junior School, Rotherham
  Metrication
  Metrication
  Clegg Commission
  Clegg Commission
  School Curriculum
  School Curriculum
  16 to 18-year-olds
  16 to 18-year-olds
  School Meals and Transport
  School Meals and Transport
  Pupils (Financial Assistance)
  Pupils (Financial Assistance)
  Local Education Authorities
  Local Education Authorities
  Religious Education
  Religious Education
  Microprocessor Technology
  Microprocessor Technology
  Universities
  Universities
  Nursery Classes (Oxfordshire)
  Nursery Classes (Oxfordshire)
  The Open University
  The Open University
  Comprehensive Education
  Comprehensive Education
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Graduate Teachers
  Graduate Teachers
  Teachers and Pupils
  Teachers and Pupils
  Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals
  Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals
  School Welfare Services
  School Welfare Services
  Disabled Children
  Disabled Children
  Russian and Slavonic Languages
  Russian and Slavonic Languages
  Mixed Ability Teaching
  Mixed Ability Teaching
  School Meals and Transport
  School Meals and Transport
  Medical Students
  Medical Students
  GCE Examinations
  GCE Examinations
  University Students (Grants)
  University Students (Grants)
  National Union of School Students
  National Union of School Students
  Disabled Children (School Access)
  Disabled Children (School Access)
  Scottish Universities (Education Costs)
  Scottish Universities (Education Costs)
SCOTLAND
  Plant Breeding Station (Transfer)
  Plant Breeding Station (Transfer)
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Fee-paying Schools
  Fee-paying Schools
  Intermediate Treatment Centres
  Intermediate Treatment Centres
  Oil Supplies
  Oil Supplies
  Pack Committee
  Pack Committee
  Boys (Blairgowrie)
  Boys (Blairgowrie)
  Teachers (Training Costs)
  Teachers (Training Costs)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Gothenburg (Consulate-General)
  Gothenburg (Consulate-General)
  Afghanistan
  Afghanistan
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Fee-paying Schools
  Fee-paying Schools
  Prison Service (Protection)
  Prison Service (Protection)
  Gas Prices
  Gas Prices
ENVIRONMENT
  Richmond Park (Policing)
  Richmond Park (Policing)
  Departmental Staff (Pay)
  Departmental Staff (Pay)
  House Purchase Finance Review Group
  House Purchase Finance Review Group
  Sports Council
  Sports Council
  Sir Robert Cooke
  Sir Robert Cooke
  Public Inquiries (Inspectors)
  Public Inquiries (Inspectors)
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Liverpool Exchange Station
  Liverpool Exchange Station
TRANSPORT
  Severn Bridge
  Severn Bridge
  M66
  M66
  Orange Badge Scheme
  Orange Badge Scheme
  M4 (West Drayton)
  M4 (West Drayton)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  White Fish Authority
  White Fish Authority
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
  Mackerel Fishing
  Mackerel Fishing

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Saint Albans.
The Lord Delfont—Took the Oath.
The Viscount Bledisloe—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

MINERALS: EXPLORATION AND SMELTING CAPACITY
Viscount HANWORTH: 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, hearing in mind the difficulties with the supply of minerals which are likely to arise in the future, they will pay for surveys of our own resources and promote increased smelting capacity of mineral ores in this country.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, the Department of Industry already funds a comprehensive programme of minerals investigation designed to promote the economic development of our indigenous resources. This includes mapping and reconnaissance programmes carried out by the Institute of Geological Sciences, which aim at providing necessary geological information on which subsequent minerals exploration by companies can be based; and there is also the Mineral Exploration and Investment Grants Act 1972, under which the Department is empowered to pay contributions of not more than 35 per cent. towards expenditure incurred on searching for and testing certain mineral deposits. Increases in smelting capacity are a matter for commercial judgment. Any application for Government assistance would he considered against normal criteria.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for that reply, may I ask whether he would agree in the first place that the exploration grants are not very successful in encouraging firms to do the work, no doubt because they are afraid of not getting planning permission to exploit something that they have found? Would he, secondly, think that perhaps the right policy might be to tend to leave our resources in the ground until they are really needed because there is a world-wide shortage; and, if so, does he also agree that it is important to press ahead with exploration to a greater degree than we are doing today?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for those supplementary questions. The planning position is one on which we are certainly interested to receive views, and have already received views, from all concerned. We believe that discouragement has not only centred around the planning situation. There is more than one opinion whether the planning stage in exploration should be treated on its own or as part of a possible final exploration. We are looking at this closely. As far as leaving the resources in the ground is concerned, I believe that we have enough resources to develop the minerals that we need in the shorter term. I believe that the balance of the programme is about right. If some of our mineral resources are to stay in the ground successors may be happy. We believe that the necessary degree of exploration will continue with the funds that we are supplying.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, does the Minister think that that is necessary, seeing that the Government are bent on destroying the steel industry at the present time, and on doing the same thing to the steel industry as they did to the coal industry in the past 20 years?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, those are largely separate questions but, as to the fact that the steel industry has considerable problems, it could be, in your Lordships' opinion, that this is because the problems have not been adequately faced in the past.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, will the noble Viscount tell me when the

1531
primary plan to complete the palæozoic exploration of the sub-surface rocks in the South-East of England will be completed?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I will look into that question and let the noble Earl know.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Viscount a further question to do with smelting. Does he agree that if we can promote more smelting in this country it will be a safeguard against the time when supplies of smelted ores may not be available from abroad while the ores themselves might still be available? Therefore, does he regard it as a good insurance if it is possible to encourage more smelting here?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, as I have said, I think the decisions as to the installation of new smelting capacity must be mainly commercial. If installations were undertaken in our assisted areas at the moment, and if the criteria of additionality to GTP (which are the new criteria) were to apply—and I think they would—considerable assistance is available. I do not think that one can go further than that. One must recognise that smelting is usually done where the minerals are dug.

EXPORT MARKETS: RETAIL PRICE FORECASTS
2.44 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will publish estimates they have made of the change of average retail prices in the countries which provide our major export markets from the fourth quarter of 1979 to the fourth quarter of 1980.
The MINISTER of STATE, TREASURY (Lord Cockfield): No, my Lords, I do not think it appropriate for Her Majesty's Government to be publish-
1532
ing forecasts relating to the economic performance of other countries, who might well feel that this was intrusion in their domestic affairs. The OECD, which is an international body, does publish such forecasts every year, including forecasts of price movements. Their forecasts for 1980 are expected to be published in the next few days.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is not such a forecast implied in the statement made by the Treasury in their document Economic Prospects for 1980 that the United Kingdom's costs and competitiveness have not greatly changed from their recent level, taking the fourth quarter of 1980 on the fourth quarter of 1979? Does the noble Lord still think that the assumption on which this calculation is based—that there will be a progressive reduction in the level of settlements over the coming year—is justified and that the rate of retail price inflation will come down over this period to only 14 per cent., bearing in mind the rapid acceleration in the rise of retail prices over recent months?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a number of questions. Inevitably—as was clearly stated in the document to which he refers—it was necessary to make certain assumptions. The assumptions were as stated. There is of course a difference between an assumption and a forecast. So far as the level of pay settlements is concerned, it is a matter of great importance that it should come down. We believe that the present level of inflation does impose very great difficulties for our exporters, and we think that the best way that these difficulties can be overcome is by reducing the level of inflation. It is to that end that Her Majesty's Government's policies are directed.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, may ask one further question? Even if we reduce the level of price settlements to the 14 per cent. assumed in the document, is the noble Lord really telling us that in the other OECD countries inflation will proceed at this rate of 14 per cent. year on year, the fourth quarter of 1979 on the fourth quarter of 1980? If it will be at some much lower rate than that, how can the document say that our price competitiveness will be maintained?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, success in exports of course depends on a large number of factors other than price competitiveness. It depends on the quality of goods and on excellence of design. It depends on good delivery dates; it depends upon adhering to those delivery dates; it depends upon after-sales service and the availability of spares. Moreover, there is a difference between price competitiveness and the level of retail prices. The prices in an export market do not necessarily follow precisely the trend of retail prices in the country of origin.
Lord AVEBURY: I am sorry to pursue this matter. Is not the noble Lord trying to draw red herrings across this issue by referring to all these other features of success in export markets, which are not so much as mentioned in the economic prospects for 1980? I was asking whether the noble Lord was seriously telling the House that he can stand before us and say that the price competitiveness will be maintained, knowing perfectly well that inflation in the other OECD countries will not be proceeding at the same rate as it does in this country or anything like it.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I have already made the point that price competitiveness depends upon quite a number of factors other than the level of retail prices in the exporting country. The most important of these factors is the level of productivity. Many of our exporters—and it is greatly to their credit and we should pay them a tribute for this—have succeeded in obtaining substantial increases in the level of productivity. We hope that they will continue to do so with the co-operation of their work forces and this will maintain our position in the export market.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that it would be a reasonable assumption that the forecast of the White Paper is wrong?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I am not prepared to accept any such assumption on the noble Lord's part.
Viscount DAVIDSON: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that in any case most people use statistics in the same manner as a drunken man uses a lamppost: more for support than illumination?

ROAD INQUIRIES: APPOINTMENT OF INSPECTORS
2.49 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government by whom inspectors at motorway and trunk road inquiries are appointed.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, in England an inspector is appointed to hold a particular inquiry by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Transport, on the nomination of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, was not the change in the procedure, bringing in the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as the person who nominates the inspector, designed to correct the impression in the minds of objectors that the inspectors were in fact creatures of the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment? And does it not go a long way to destroy that attempted correction when an inspector refers to the Department of Transport, as he did at a recent inquiry, for an interpretation of his terms of reference and powers? Could not the noble Lord see that the Leitch Report is properly implemented and that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has the sole responsibility for that matter?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, as I said, there are three Ministers involved. Inspectors are eminent people from all walks of life. They are chosen for their proven abilities, their open-mindedness, perception and judgment, and also for their ability to assess reasoned argument and personal integrity. I should like also to point out that inspectors, like judges, do not have to be professional experts in order to be able to assess the evidence of those who are.
Lord DAVIES of PENRHYS: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that there are motorways in Scotland and in Wales: what happens there?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the Question referred only to England and I have no brief as to what would happen in Scotland. If the noble Lord cares to put a Question down on that subject, I will find out.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, among the many essential qualities of inspectors which the noble Lord did not mention was that of independence. Would he not agree that if the objectors at motorway inquiries are to believe that those inquiries are fairly and properly conducted, the independence of the inspectors from the Department of Transport and the Secretary of State for the Environment is essential? Would the noble Lord not agree that, for this reason, those two Ministers should play no part in the appointments and that that should be a matter entirely in the hands of the Lord Chancellor?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I do not think it is quite fair to say that they are not independent: they are appointed to be independent assessors. I cannot find it in my brief—I have so much—but I think I am right in saying that out of something like 120 inquiries, in some 21 cases the inspectors have differed from the Department's suggestions and in 18 of those cases the Ministers concerned have upheld the inspectors' objections.

BBC's FRENCH BROADCASTS TO AFRICA
2.57 p.m.
Lord MERRIVALE: 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, in view of the desire of Francophone Africa to increase its links with this country, it is intended to cut the French Service shortwave transmissions of the BBC; and whether, in view of the links these broadcasts provide with Anglophone Africa, they will increase this "projection" of this country over the air.
Lord TREFGARNE: No, my Lords. As my honourable friend Mr. Blaker
1536
said in another place on 13th November, at column 1252, in 1980–81 there will be no cuts in any of the vernacular transmissions of the BBC external services.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but I did ask him whether there would be an increase in the French short-wave broadcasts to West Africa, for the reasons given in the Question. May I ask whether he does not feel that in the context of the Economic Community of the West African States (ECOWAS) more should be done towards getting a better understanding and better relations between Francophone and Anglophone Africa? Furthermore, on the question of the development of that area on a regional basis and bearing in mind the cultural aspects, have not the BBC a very important role to play in bringing together the Anglophone and Francophone countries and helping them to co-operate to a greater extent?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot foresee any increase in the services broadcast to that part of the world. I must say that we believe that the present services are very satisfactory.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he agrees that a number of Francophone countries in Africa are very anxious indeed to diversify their cultural and commercial connections, especially with the United Kingdom, and that there is a strong argument for not only maintaining the present level of external services to those countries, including Western Africa, as we have heard, but also, even in these difficult times, finding some resources to increase them?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, certainly agree about the importance of these services but I am afraid that, with the present constraints upon our resources in that area, I cannot foresee any increase. However, I certainly agree about their importance.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, further to what the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, said, may I ask the Minister: is not the most interesting thing at the moment the way in which the inhabitants of the ex-French colonies now want to

1537
learn English? Would it not be worth while to see whether the British Council and the BBC could increase the possibilities for people of learning English in those parts of Africa?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. As your Lordships will know, we are having a debate tomorrow evening about the British Council, and my noble friend might like to put his point during that debate.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the House, in my opinion at any rate, would prefer to find these categories described as "English-speaking" and "French-speaking"?
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask one further question of my noble friend? He said that the external services were very satisfactory. They are indeed, but they do need extending. As Mr. Nicholas Ridley, the Minister of State, said in another place on 13th November (at col. 1286 of the Official Report) that the Government are greatly increasing the money provided for external services, would my noble friend not feel that in effect a certain priority should be given to increasing the money spent on services to that part of Africa?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the additional funds referred to by my noble friend and mentioned by my honourable friend Mr. Blaker in another place will be used to improve the audibility of the BBC external services. There is no plan to extend the vernacular services.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, further to what the noble Lord has said—this is a most important point—would he not agree that it is most important that the BBC should be heard in China? Is the noble Lord aware that it is inaudible in Peking and indeed anywhere North of Canton? Could he not arrange for the Singapore relay system to be stepped up?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I will take a careful note of what the noble Baroness has said, look into the matter and let her know what is being done.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Gowrie will repeat a Statement being made in another place on the nuclear programme and the nuclear industry.
This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne repeating a Statement on Rhodesia.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make further provision for criminal justice in Scotland and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (GREEK ACCESSION) BILL
2.58 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. The support which Greek accession commands throughout the House has been very gratifying. During the earlier stages of the Bill a number of your Lordships underlined the basic political reason for welcoming Greece into the European Economic Community; namely the need to assist in consolidating the new democracy there. That is indeed the crux of the matter. Some of your Lordships have also quite properly pointed out the implications of widening the membership of the Community to include not just Greece but also two other Southern European economies, Portugal and Spain. The problems for the Community of having to adjust to the increase of the membership to Twelve, as with the earlier increase to Nine, will be considerable. To resolve them, the Community will need to display an effort of will and imagination similar to that shown by the founding fathers of the Community.

1539
Understandable concern has also been expressed by some of your Lordships about the implications of Greek accession for certain industries in this country, notably the textile and clothing industries. I wish to stress that the Government are not at all complacent about this problem. The need to give our textile industry time to adjust to the new world economic conditions is one of the Government's chief industrial priorities. But, as I explained during Committee stage, in Greece's case our negotiating hand was tied by the fact that there are no formal restrictions on Greek textiles under the current Association Agreement; and that in any case it is necessary to look at this question in the broader context of trade as a whole.
Finally, I should like to express pleasure at the relatively quick passage of this Bill—assuming that your Lordships agree to it this afternoon—which will, I hope, ensure that this country is the first of the present Member States to ratify the Greek Accession Treaty. To the best of our knowledge, no other Member State is as far advanced as we are in the ratification procedures. It is fitting that this country, which has throughout the accession negotiations been one of the chief supporters of Greek accession, should be about to become the first to ratify. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
3.1 p.m.
Lord CACCIA: My Lords, may I, from these Benches, also welcome the Third Reading of this Bill? In the previous stages, the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy and others, raised the various problems that may arise over Greek accession, and the Minister dealt with those fully. So I thought it as well not to take up the time of your Lordships' House on those occasions by going over again what was being so thoroughly debated.
But now I would ask for your Lordships' indulgence on a more general ground, arising from the facts of my personal involvement in the history of Greece over the last 40 years. This was first as a
1540
member, and indeed second-in-command, of our Legation, in peace and war, in Athens and then in Crete from 1939 to 1941; next it was as political adviser to our Commander-in-Chief and as Minister in our Embassy on the liberation of Greece from 1944 to 1945; and, since then, as a regular visitor and lately as instrumental in conveying to the Greek people the historic hospice in Rhodes of the English Knights of St. John.
These, your Lordships may think, are all ties so wrapped up in emotion and past history that my judgment must be suspect. I trust not. On the contrary, it has been an experience of mind as well as of heart to be a witness and, at times, a participant in the progress made by Greece. For progress, real progress, in her economy and now in politics it has been, from my first acquaintance with the country, then still struggling with few resources, except the liveliness of her people, from the debacle of Anatolia; through the unprovoked aggression on her from Albania and the subsequent German onslaught and the starvation and suffering during the occupation in the war; through brutal civil strife on regaining her freedom in 1944 to a position of increasing economic well being and restored constitutional Government.
The ineluctable law of Zeus, we are reminded by Aeschylus, is that the human race learns only through suffering. Greece having, like us, faced and survived many tribulations, sometimes through the slings of fortune, sometimes by self-inflicted wounds, we must hope—despite the gloomy forecasts now fashionable about the 1980s—that the accession to the Treaty of Rome will lead to further advance for Greece herself in which we and our partners in Europe may mutually share. Like others and the Minister himself, I trust that our ratification of this Bill will be the first.
3.4 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, because of the general desire of the House to pass this Bill as quickly as possible, we had not planned from these Benches to comment at this stage. But in view of the very moving speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, we should of course like to give our own very warm welcome to

1541
Greece on her accession to the European Communities. We have long years of friendship with the Greek nation, as we realise when we remember Lord Byron, a former Member of your Lordships' House, and his fight for their freedom. We warmly welcome them, we warmly welcome this Bill and we wish it good fortune.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, may I simply say in a minute or two that I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, who has personally witnessed events in Greece before, during and after the war, and to hear his welcome to this Bill. I should like to thank my noble friend, because I raised a number of points concerning the effects on this country, for as we welcome Greece we must also recognise that there will be problems for some of our industries, particularly textiles and clothing. I confirm that my noble friend was able to answer all the main points which I raised during the two earlier stages. As I also on Second Reading expressed the hope that we would be the first to ratify, I am very glad to hear that news brought to us today by my noble friend.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

HYPNOTISM BILL [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Perhaps I may briefly explain that, following certain amendments during the passage of this Bill, it has been reduced considerably in size. There are, however, certain points that have been raised following the amendments by those concerned outside. These will be examined with care and taken up in another place, by my honourable friend Mr. David Crouch. I am grateful for the interest and attention which this House has given to the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
3.7 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will join with me in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, who has guided this Bill through
1542
all its stages in your Lordships' House. We are all indebted to him for focusing our attention on an area of human experience which raises important issues for us all. The Government find themselves somewhat at variance with the views of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull about the scale of the problems which are thought to stem from defects in existing controls over the use of hypnotism in places of public entertainment. The views which we have since received from the licensing authorities on this point are somewhat divided, and I have to tell the House that the Government remain unconvinced of the existence of serious abuse under the present law.
As I am sure the House is aware, the future of this Bill is somewhat uncertain. Pressure on parliamentary time is such that when the Bill reaches another place further progress will be very difficult indeed. But this is not to say that my noble friend and other noble Lords have wasted their time on the Bill. The discussion which has been provoked has served a very useful purpose, in that it has caused us to look again at the small but not unimportant piece of legislation which has stood for some 27 years, and has created in the minds of both the public and those more closely involved in the practice of this skill an awareness of the difficult questions to which it gives rise. For this we are indeed grateful to my noble friend.
3.9 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, the debates which your Lordships have had on this Bill have indeed been very valuable. On a previous occasion, my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell had the opportunity from these Benches to express views about it. I have nothing further to add to that, and would only join the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on his conduct of the Bill through this House.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

POLICE NEGOTIATING BOARD BILL [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the recommendations of the Edmund-Davies Report on the police negotiating machinery (Cmnd. 7283) which was presented to Parliament in July, 1978. The committee, under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, is well-known and rightly admired for its report on police pay. The committee in fact produced three reports. The report on negotiating machinery was in fulfilment of its first remit.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the background to the report. Section 4 of the Police Act 1969 provided for the establishment of a Police Council for the United Kingdom, composed of representatives of the police authorities and the police staff associations. As at present constituted, the Police Council has dealt therefore with all negotiable matters affecting the police service for the last 10 years and has had a consultative role in matters relating to police pensions. Since 1964, there have been Police Advisory Boards for England and Wales, and for Scotland in addition, to advise the Secretaries of State on consultative matters affecting the police service.
Police pay is determined under the statutes by the Secretaries of State for the Home Office, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland. This is an essential part of the Secretary of State's power to ensure the efficiency of the police service. The Edmund-Davies Committee endorsed this principle. But before making pay regulations the Secretary of State has been required to take into account any recommendation made by the council.
In practice, changes in regulations have rarely been initiated by the Secretary of State. What has happened is that amendments have been produced in response to a recommendation made by the Police Council. The procedure has been for the two sides of the council to negotiate, with the object of reaching agreement. In the event of failure to reach agreement, the matter could be referred to the Police Arbitration Tribunal, a panel consisting of three independent members appointed by the Prime Minister, whose decisions have been binding on both sides.
1544
But in July 1976 the Police Federations for England and Wales and for Northern Ireland walked out of the Police Council and announced that they were no longer prepared to negotiate with the local authority representatives who formed the major part of the official side of the Police Council. The immediate issue was the question of the pay settlement under the pay policy then prevailing. The Police Federation, which, as your Lordships will be aware, represents police officers up to the rank of chief inspector, said that in future they were prepared to negotiate only with the Secretary of State. At the same time, the Police Federation made it known that they would no longer be prepared to take part in the work of other bodies like the Police Advisory Board. This decision would only be reconsidered by them after more acceptable negotiating machinery had been established.
It was in this atmosphere therefore that the Edmund-Davies Committee was appointed by the previous Home Secretary in August 1977 to review the police negotiating machinery and to make recommendations. Four months later, their terms of reference were extended to include the issue of police pay.
The appointment of the Edmund-Davies Committee did not of itself solve the problems besetting the police service. Experienced police officers were leaving the service prematurely in uncomfortably large numbers and recruitment was failing to keep pace with wastage. Between the end of 1976 and the publication of the committee's report in July 1978 the strength of the police service in England and Wales decreased by nearly 1,700. Most forces were under strength, some of them seriously so. But the appointment of the committee by the previous Home Secretary gave the police service hope, and that hope proved to be more than justified.
The committee's report on pay has completely reversed the trend during the two years preceding its publication. Recruitment has been stimulated and is now running at 40 per cent. above the rates for the 12 months ended 30th September 1978. Wastage has been curtailed and is now some 35 per cent. below the rate in the months preceding the publication of the report. Between July 1978 and the

1545
end of October of this year, the strength of the police service in England and Wales has increased by over 5,000 to a total of nearly 113,000, which is an all-time record.
But if the present high state of police morale is to be maintained it is essential that the police service should be provided with negotiating machinery in which it has confidence, and it is for this reason that the Edmund-Davies Report on the police negotiating machinery, a report which naturally attracted little attention when it was published simultaneously with the committee's report on pay, is so important.
The committee endorsed the general shape of the existing negotiating machinery. They recommended that the new negotiating body, like the Police Council, should comprise an official side and a staff side. They accepted that the official side should similarly comprise not only, as the Police Federation had recommended, representatives of the Home Departments but also of the local authority associations as the representatives of police authorities, reflecting the fact that police forces are maintained and financed locally as well as nationally.
The Edmund-Davies Committee did, however, recommend three important changes. First, that the new negotiating body should have an independent chairman and one or more deputy chairmen, appointed by the Prime Minister. This was designed to provide both continuity and a genuinely neutral voice in the to-and-fro of negotiation, which may help considerably in bringing the two sides to agreement. Secondly, that the new body should have an independent secretariat to be provided by central Government. Thirdly, that one-third of the English and Welsh local authority representatives on the official side should be magistrates. This was designed to ensure that the national negotiating body should reflect the composition of police authorities which, as your Lordships will know, are composed of two-thirds elected members and one-third magistrates.
The Edmund-Davies Report recommended that legislation should be introduced as soon as parliamentary time could be found to give statutory effect to the new body. Meanwhile, it should
1546
operate on a non-statutory basis. The new body, to be known as the Police Negotiating Board, was accordingly established in July of this year under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Plowden.
If I may briefly explain to your Lordships the terms of the Bill, Clause 1 provides for the establishment of the Police Negotiating Board. Subsection (1) provides that it is to be composed of representatives of the police authorities and the police staff associations and that it is to consider such matters as police pay, allowances, pensions and conditions of service. Subsections (2) and (3) leave the detailed arrangements for the establishment of the board to be made after consultations between the Secretary of State and the bodies represented on the board, but require the chairman and any deputy chairman to be appointed by the Prime Minister. Subsection (4) gives the Secretary of State power to defray any expenses incurred by the board and to pay fees to the chairman and deputy chairman, with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service. Subsection (5) provides that, on the establishment of the board, the Police Council for the United Kingdom shall cease to exist.
Clause 2 confers certain statutory functions on the board. Subsection (1) requires the Secretary of State, before making regulations about matters with which the board is concerned, to have regard to any recommendation made by the board and to furnish the board with a draft of the regulations. As under existing legislation, this requirement does not apply to pension matters in respect of which the Secretary of State is only required to consult the board before making regulations. Subsection (2) of Clause 2 requires the board's constitution to include suitable arrangements for reaching agreement on recommendations to the Secretary of State and for the reference of any dispute to arbitration. Clause 3 deals with the short title and commencement.
This, then, is a small and, I hope, a non-controversial Bill. May I remind your Lordships that it arises because of action which was taken under the previous Government and which is now being put to Parliament for the first time under the present Government. It is, although a

1547
small Bill, none the less very important, because its effect will be to establish on a statutory basis the negotiating machinery which is essential to the long-term well-being of the police service. It is for this reason that I commend the Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Belstead).
3.20 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has indicated, we all owe a great debt to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies and his Committee of Inquiry on the Police for the immense amount of work they have put into their task, a very demanding one indeed, not only on this particular aspect of their inquiry but also on the others as well. Their first report on the negotiating machinery led directly to the Bill we are debating today. The House will also be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his admirably clear and concise explanation. I fear that I shall not be able to be quite so concise, but I shall be as rapid as possible.
The Edmund-Davies Committee confronted all the most difficult issues, and that is no less than one would have expected with the chairman and membership it had. In considering this Bill, it is important to recall some of the background against which it is brought forward now. One of the basic facts the committee had to face at the outset was the special position of the police services, the problems that that creates and the need to solve them by having the right sort of machinery and conditions of service. As the report says, at paragraph 15 of the Introduction:
"The unique role of the police officer is reflected in the unique restrictions and limitations to which he is subjected, … the arduous and increasingly dangerous nature of his duties, a workload which involves night duties and often requires working over weekends and on rest days, and restrictions upon where he may live, even the work which members of his family may and may not do".
I think this is something which is generally not sufficiently recognised, still less acknowledged, outside. The report goes on to refer to what it describes as perhaps the most important statutory restriction,
1548
against membership of a trade union or association aiming at controlling or influencing pay or conditions of a police force, with criminal sanctions for anyone causing a police officer to withhold his services or commit breaches of discipline. To use the report's own words:
"There is no room to doubt that … such provisions sprang from the conviction that they are necessary to ensure and preserve the matchless role of the police".
Then, after considering whether those provisions may be repealed without imperilling the part played by the police in preserving law and order, and saying that that issue was one of the gravest by which the committee had been confronted, the committee concluded:
"Careful consideration has led us inexorably to the conclusion that the police should not have the right to strike".
The reference, particularly just now, to the increasingly dangerous nature of some police duties is perhaps especially noteworthy. We are not infrequently finding ourselves praising members of the police service for responding beyond the call of duty, but sometimes in praising them, quite rightly, for those actions we are in some danger of failing to acknowledge the extremely high standards of duty expected of them as a matter of routine, and it is right once in a while to give due praise for that and for the daily and often unnoticed acts of courage as well as for the more spectacular acts of heroism. I think it is true, too—and this is something which we should not omit to mention in the context of this Bill—that the police service is to some extent vulnerable and subject to undesirable pressures which occasionally lead to corruption. When that happens, they expect, and indeed we expect them, to be especially vigorous in rooting out the, happily, few bad elements in their midst.
In recalling the background, we should not minimise the importance of the immediate events which led to this inquiry and the need to review the negotiating machinery. It was a dispute over police pay in 1976 and early 1977 which played a crucial part in the breakdown of the negotiating machinery and which led directly to this review we are now considering. It was indeed differences over pay policy which were major factors leading to the loss of confidence of the Police Federations of England and Wales

1549
and Northern Ireland in the Police Council and subsequently to the withdrawal of the federations from the work of that council and other bodies.
Although this Bill is itself a small measure, and although moves towards it were already in hand before the present Government took office and before the last Government left office, we should not minimise the significance of the step now being taken if your Lordships pass this measure. If these proposals work as we on this side hope and believe they should, they will mark an important stage in the provision of a sound basis for the future negotiation on pay and conditions for the police service. The Bill itself follows closely some of the recommendations of the Edmund-Davies Committee and the committee did regard its proposals as radical, which indeed they are, if in a rather quiet and unobtrusive way.
One shortcoming of the Police Council, which this Bill replaces, was that it was little more than a formal body with chairmen who have been, essentially, figureheads. I do not say that with any disrespect to them personally; it was part of the system. The aim of the Committee of Inquiry seems to be to make the new board, with its committees, much more involved in all the negotiating work and not just with a role of overseeing the work of the committees. I feel sure that, with the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, as chairman, the new board will indeed be a real working body.
The committee's recommendation, embodied in this Bill, to have an independent chairman of the new board appointed by the Prime Minister, with a deputy chairman or additional deputy chairmen, similarly independent and similarly appointed, is a radical departure, aimed, I take it, at strengthening the body itself, its status and indeed confidence in it, and it is certainly to be welcomed.
It also seems right, as the committee recommend, to retain the existing collective bargaining system which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has explained, with the present police staff associations and the various Government Home Departments as before. The official side also had on it representatives of local authority associations and indeed, while the report was being prepared, while the Committee
1550
of Inquiry was actually sitting, there was considerable controversy over whether these bodies should continue to be represented, and over the proportion of local authority representatives who should be magistrates. I believe the committee was undoubtedly right to include the local authority representatives in its conclusions, but I think it would be useful to have it on record from the Minister whether that matter has now been satisfactorily resolved. The committee itself said:
"By far the chief problem we have had to consider was on local authority representation"
—that is to say, so far as membership was concerned.
I note that Clause 1 of the Bill provides that detailed arrangements for the establishment of the board are to be made after consultations between the Secretary of State and the bodies represented on it. I wonder whether the Minister can indicate any time-table for those consultations, or how plans for them are proceeding.
I have already referred in passing to the committees of the old Police Council. I say "old", but it will of course remain in existence unless and until this Bill is passed. The Edmund-Davis Committee recommended retaining the existing committee system. It also envisaged, I think, that the independent chairman would preside over the main committees of the new board as well as full meetings of the joint board itself. Again, there would clearly, I think, be greater working involvement of the independent chairman and deputies who would preside over some committees if the recommendations were followed. I should be pleased if the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, could tell us the Government's intentions or inclinations about the committee system.
I come to one other of the Edmund-Davies Committee's departures to a more radical approach—the recommendation for the appointment of an independent secretariat, a recommendation which was made, I think, partly to overcome the feeling within the staff side that the existing one appeared to be too closely associated with the official side; and the recommendation that the personnel for the independent secretariat should be drawn from the Office of Manpower Economies so that they would not have, as it were, an official side stamp upon them. That proposal is obviously accepted by the

1551
Government, as is clear from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill. However, if I may say so, the odd thing is that there is no mention of an independent secretariat in the Bill itself; there is no explicit provision for it in the Bill. Yet, it can be catered for, as the memorandum suggests, under the Bill's provisions.
I am bound to say that I find it strange that the independent secretariat is not provided for in the Bill itself and that the independence of the secretariat is not enshrined in the Bill. I am not at all convinced that that is satisfactory and certainly its omission stood out glaringly when I first looked at the Bill. The Edmund-Davies Committee made much of the need for an independent secretariat. Indeed, to quote one of the passages in its report on this matter, it said:
"We see the independent secretariat as the cornerstone of the new negotiating body".
One is bound to wonder why it has been left out and one perhaps almost fears that, if what is regarded by the committee as the cornerstone were to be left out, dangers would arise for the future of the whole edifice itself. Its absence from the Bill is something to which we may need to return in committee if the Bill receives a Second Reading and if we cannot be reassured.
As the committee said:
"The proposals we have made are radical, and we hope that in time they will produce that transformation in attitudes which we consider essential … The introduction of an independent chairman and secretariat provides a wholly new format, and fundamentally changes the existing framework which has led to the creation of what we think was avoidable suspicion and hostility".
The committee goes on to hope that the new machinery will protect the position of the police in what it calls the "pay league" and so obviate the need for major reviews of this kind, of which I believe the Minister himself said there have been four since 1949.
It is indeed the case that both sides of the new negotiating body will be jointly engaged in reaching agreements to ensure that in the United Kingdom we have efficient and contented police services. I would share the committee's view that:
"The attainment of that goal is vital to the well-being of our society",
as it mentions in paragraph 126.
1552
There have been some encouraging signs, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has indicated—for example, on recruitment—since the first two Edmund-Davies Committee reports came out, in July last year and since the announcement of my right honourable friend the then Home Secretary, Mr. Merlyn Rees, on 17th July last year accepting, albeit in two stages, the recommendations of the Committee on Police Pay; and indeed since the present Government's own announcement. It is useful, I think, to be reminded and to have set out those recruiting details.
It is, in my submission, part of Parliament's job to provide the right basis on which police services can operate effectively and, indeed, enthusiastically. This Bill is a step in that direction and I would wish to give it a general welcome.
3.35 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, with that lucidity which one is accustomed to expect of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, there are two propositions set out in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the joint introduction to the reports with which I know all your Lordships will entirely agree. Paragraph 6 simply reads in this way:
"We live in a parliamentary democracy. The concepts of law and its impartial enforcement are fundamental to it".
Paragraph 7 then adds:
"The instruments essential to the continued fulfilment of these concepts are an independent judiciary to interpret the law, the police to maintain and enforce it, and the armed forces to protect us from external aggression. These three groups of people are unique in our society and essential to its continuation".
It is because of that that this apparently modest Bill is, in fact, of considerable importance. It is of importance because it deals with the machinery for the negotiation of pay and conditions for this extremely important group in our community—the police. Therefore, it is right that the Bill should be given considerable attention in your Lordships' House.
Of the three principal recommendations in the Edmund-Davies Report, the Bill in fact deals specifically with only one: that is, the proposition that there should, in future, be an independent chairman of the negotiating board. That has, of course, been tried on previous occasions.

1553
Your Lordships may recall that after the Oaksey Report many years ago there was an independent chairman, the late Sir Eric Coates, and the system of having an independent chairman was tried. It did not at that time meet with complete success and in the result, after the 1960 Royal Commission, the present system was adopted, under which, instead of having an independent chairman, the chairman was provided by the official and the staff side in alternate years. That again, it is clear from recent history, has not been successful—largely, of course, for the obvious reason that such a chairman is not best suited to be able to exercise a conciliatory or arbitrating role as between the two sides when he is so clearly the representative of one of them.
Therefore, it is, I venture to think, right that the Edmund-Davies Committee on balance came down in favour of reverting to the former procedure and having an independent chairman, which is what this Bill provides. Where the Edmund-Davies Committee's Report goes further—and this is clearly envisaged by the Bill—is as regards the second recommendation, that for the first time this independent chairman will have an independent secretariat to support him. That, I believe, will make a great deal of difference to the prospects of success for the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, in his difficult task.
The position up to date, as your Lordships will know, is that the secretariat has, in fact, been provided by the Local Authorities Conditions of Service Advisory Board, known somewhat clumsily, I believe, as LACSAB to those who are devotees of naming people by the initials of a particular body. The position, in fact, was that the secretary of the official side on the police board was the chief official of LACSAB, and it was quite inevitable that in those circumstances he was thought to have a somewhat advantageous position over the secretary of the staff side with whom, nominally, he was intended to be on an equal footing.
It appears that the proposal to have a small independent secretariat will be of very great importance in the future in supporting the role of the independent chairman. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, said about the fact that this Bill does not specifically
1554
provide for an independent secretariat. I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has to say about this, but it may be that one would hardly expect an Act of Parliament to provide for the formation of a secretariat perhaps in precisely those terms. But clearly it is envisaged by the Bill; as the noble Lord, Lord Boston, pointed out, the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum quite specifically refers to the fact that the board will have a small independent secretariat provided by the Office of Manpower Economics. It is clear from what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said today that the Government entirely accept that obligation.
That is really the full extent of this Bill as it stands. There is, of course, the third important recommendation of the Edmund-Davies Committee—which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—that there should be magistrate members of police authorities represented in force on the official side of the new negotiating board. That, again, is a proposal that we would very much welcome. It would appear to us that magistrate members of police authorities are perhaps a little less likely to be politically partisan on occasion than are the elected members of those local authorities and they might, therefore, help to add an independent and perhaps rather more stable element to the official side of this board. That, of course, is not specifically provided for in the Bill. As I understand it, the provisions for the constitution of the board remain to take effect after the Bill has passed into law. But it would no doubt be of assistance if the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, would indicate that the Government are committed to accepting that third recommendation of the Edmund-Davies Committee. With those few observations, we on these Benches welcome the Bill and wish it well.

NUCLEAR PROGRAMME AND NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
3.42 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EMPLOYMENT (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, if it would be for the convenience of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable

1555
friend the Secretary of State for Energy on the nuclear programme and the nuclear industry. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement.
"Safe nuclear power and a strong nuclear industry are essential to this country's energy policy. On present prospects, supplies of North Sea oil and gas will he declining in the 1990s. Even with full exploitation of coal and conservation, and with great efforts on renewable energy sources, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to meet this country's long-term energy needs without a sizeable contribution from nuclear power.
"The British nuclear power programme has been in decline over the last decade and the structure of the nuclear industry has been under review for nearly two years. If we are to reverse this trend and ensure that the industry is on a sound footing we must act now.
"The Government have therefore held urgent consultations with those most directly concerned.
"We believe that there must be continuing nuclear power station orders if our long-term energy supplies are to be secured and current industrial uncertainties are to be resolved.
"The last Government authorised the Central Electricity Generating Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board to begin work at once with a view to ordering one Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor station each as soon as possible. This is in hand.
"The last Government also endorsed the intention of the CEGB to establish the Pressurised Water Reactor as a valid option by ordering a PWR station provided—and I quote,
'design work is satisfactorily completed and all necessary Government and other consents and safety clearances have been obtained'.
The present Government agree that the nuclear and electricity supply industries should now proceed along these lines, and we have made clear to them
1556
our wish that, subject to the necessary consents and safety clearances, the PWR should be the next nuclear power station order, with the aim of starting construction in 1982. With the approval of the Government, the CEGB have endorsed the National Nuclear Corporation's selection of Westinghouse as licensor for the PWR, and will shortly issue a letter of intent to NNC to authorise the design and, subject to the necessary approvals, manufacture of a PWR. In consultation with the CEGB, the NNC will prepare the safety case for the board to consider and submit to the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. Statutory consent actually to build the station will also be needed and an inquiry will be held in due course.
"We attach overriding importance to the safety of nuclear power and will want to ensure that the lessons of events at the Three Mile Island station in the United States have been learnt. I am today publishing preliminary assessments of the Kemeny Report on this incident provided to me by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and other authorities in the United Kingdom.
"Looking ahead, the electricity supply industry have advised that even on cautious assumptions they would need to order at least one new nuclear power station a year in the decade from 1982, or a programme of the order of 15000 megawatts over 10 years. The precise level of future ordering will depend upon the development of electricity demand and the performance of the industry, but we consider this a reasonable prospect against which the nuclear and power plant industries can plan. Decisions about the choice of reactor for later orders will be taken in due course.
"The Government attach importance to the steady build-up of the NNC into a strong and independent design and construction company, fully able to supply nuclear power stations at home and abroad efficiently.
"The boards of NNC and of its operating subsidiary, the Nuclear Power Company, will be brought together into a single-tier structure with full responsibility for the affairs of the company. The supervisory manage-

1557
ment agreement between the NNC and the General Electric Company will be terminated. The management of the NNC will be built up to suit the needs of our nuclear programme.
"Lord Aldington, chairman of the NNC, has told me that he wishes to retire shortly. I would like to pay tribute to the valuable and unstinted service which he has devoted to the nuclear industry over the last six years. I will be arranging for a successor to take over the chairmanship in due course.
"The immediate task of the NNC is to carry forward their work on the AGR programme, including early commissioning of the remainder of the first AGRs, and to complete work on a PWR design, ready for safety scrutiny. In addition, it is the Government's wish that the company should take on total project management responsibility for the first PWR, drawing on whatever resources it may need to support it in this role. The company may also wish to consider moving into some areas of manufacturing in due course.
"The future success of our nuclear programme is of great importance to the prosperity of this country. I ask all concerned to give their active support to the decisions which I have announced."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement of my right honourable friend.
3.49 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, we on this side of the House are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, for repeating that Statement. We agree with the general point made at the beginning of the Statement, that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to meet this country's long-term energy needs without a sizeable contribution from nuclear power. On the other hand, there is considerable public disquiet about nuclear installations, and I welcome the fact—as confirmed in the Statement—that the Government attach overriding importance to nuclear safety and that they want to ensure that the lessons of events at Three Mile Island have been learnt.
We accept the need for the AGR. Indeed, the last Government envisaged a
1558
steady ordering programme of AGRs. But we have reservations on the wisdom of a change to the PWR, and the onus of proof for this must surely rest with the CEGB, particularly since the Three Mile Island accident and the cracks reported to have appeared in the French PWR. I must ask the Government whether there will be a full-ranging inquiry, with terms of reference to discuss comparative safety, costs between the two types, suitable sites and other relevant factors. I must also ask the Government if they will publish all the documents provided by the nuclear inspectorate and other authorities in the United Kingdom, and not confine themselves to publishing only a preliminary assessment of the Kemeny Report, as the Statement implies.
Are the Government planning also to keep open the option for the fast-breeder reactor? They have committed themselves to setting up a full public inquiry. May I ask the noble Earl when this will take place and what kind of inquiry it will be? With regard to the proposed reorganisation of the nuclear power industry, we note that a single-tier structure is proposed, and there will no doubt be an opportunity for this to be debated in your Lordships' House in due course. I must associate my noble friends on this side of the House with the tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. I note that the name of his successor is to be announced in due course. Will the Government confirm that whoever is chosen as the new head will be acceptable generally to the shareholders of the various supplying companies involved?
3.52 p.m.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, we too from these Benches wish to thank the noble Earl for giving us the Government's Statement on the nuclear programme and the nuclear industry for the next ten or twelve years. Our position is also quite clear. We believe it is necessary that a nuclear element does exist in the energy policy for this country. We are also pleased to recognise in the noble Earl's Statement that there are some issues here which will revitalise the nuclear industry in this country. There is one point on which I must disagree with the noble Earl, when he said: "The Government have therefore held urgent consultations with those most directly concerned." We accept that this

1559
may be the case with regard to the technical and commercial interests involved in this nuclear programme, but by far the largest interests concerned are those of the general public, and we believe that there has not been the fullest public discussion with regard to this programme.
It is pleasing to note that the noble Earl has said that there will be a public inquiry. We sincerely hope that during the course of that public inquiry a number of the outstanding issues of safety will be raised and some reassurances given to the public on the general disquiet that there has been over the safety record of the nuclear programme, especially in the United States. I see from this Statement, if my addition is correct, that it is the Government's intention to order 12 nuclear power stations between now and 1992. If the lessons have been learnt from the events that took place on Three Mile Island, will the Government first of all say today that the 100 safety issues that were unresolved at the time of licensing of the Three Mile Island station and which appear to be still unresolved will be clearly answered and clearly resolved before licensing is given to the new corporation for the manufacture of PWR reactors in this country?
While these technical issues remain to be discussed, and discussed publicly, we should like to support the Government, but we will give the Government our fullest support only when a public inquiry has resolved the issues so that my noble friends and I on these Benches and also any member of the general public can understand them.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I am grateful for the general response of noble Lords for the official Opposition and for the Liberal Party. May I take first the broad issue of public confidence which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, raised, and then the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, followed on? Obviously public confidence in nuclear power depends on a general sense that safety issues are being treated openly, so it is the policy of the Government and all concerned with the industry to make available as much information on nuclear safety as is reasonably possible. In that connection I have here an excellent brief on nuclear
1560
energy and the nuclear industry, issued by the Department of Energy, which does not duck these sensitive issues, and which I am arranging to have put in the Printed Paper Office for any noble Lords who may be interested.
The Health and Safety Executive published a summary of their assessment of the generic safety issues of pressurised water reactors in July 1977. A more detailed report of this work has recently been made available. A lengthy version of the Marshall Report on the integrity of PWR pressure vessels—one of the inputs into the Health and Safety Executive's exercise—has also been released. I understand that it is not possible to envisage the release of safety documentation prepared for existing stations, which was not written with a view to general release. However, the CEGB do intend to publish next year a substantial document on AGR safety, and that will cover administrative and procedural aspects of safety as well as safety analysis, and principles and emergency plans. In relation to subsequent stations, including the first pressurised water reactor, I have been assured that the appropriate safety documentation supporting the initial licensing will be published as well. I will keep the House informed about that.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, while broadly welcoming our Statement, said that he had some reservations about the PWR as against the AGR. I think it would be foolish for this country not to recognise that pressurised water reactors are now a considerable growth industry in the world's reactor technology, and it would be extremely difficult for us not to play our part, or participate, in a programme which is heading in this direction. The PWR is a well established and proven system with substantial operating experience behind it, and of course it is substantially cheaper than the AGR. But I did make clear our commitment to a mixed energy system; and indeed what we are talking about, even if this programme goes ahead or develops as fast as we should like, is about 30 per cent. or less of our total energy needs by the end of this century.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked me whether decisions had been reached on the fast reactor. The answer to that is, not yet. The United Kingdom Atomic

1561
Energy Authority, in consultation with the others mainly concerned, have been considering the option for developing the fast reactor in this country, including possibilities for international co-operation. I expect to receive their report soon. Future policy in this area will be considered early in the New Year, and the House will of course be informed. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked me whether I would publish more information on PWR safety. As I think I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, a lot has been published already. The NII published a summary of their assessment in 1977, but we will see that continuing publications are made available.
3.59 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, the noble Earl, in giving us the Government's Statement about their reactor policy, has answered only one question, and that is whether the Government have made up their mind. With regard to the rest, the whole position is left in very grave doubt. I should like to ask the noble Earl one or two questions on this matter. First, what is going to be the impact of the proposals of the Government upon the coal industry? It was previously stated that we would have a substantial need for coal throughout the 1980s. But the Statement of the Government implies that in effect there is to be a replacement of coal stations by nuclear stations, because there is no necessity for 12 15-gigawatt stations in addition to what is already being produced, and therefore some of these must be replacing coal stations. What will happen to declared Government policy on the coal industry? Does the noble Earl mean that in effect there will be a reduction in the development of the coal mining industry, which will have grave repercussions?
These stations are described as nuclear stations, but every station demands turbo generators. What will be the position with regard to the supply of turbo generators in this country when our capacity for supplying these has been run down over the years? Is the industry in a position to supply the necessary turbo generators for operating with these nuclear stations? Are the Government assured of an adequate supply of uranium? All the evidence is that there will be a shortage of uranium in the 1990s, and unless the
1562
Government have a guaranteed supply of uranium, it is madness to go in for a programme of this type, especially when we know perfectly well that the French have already embarked on what is, in my opinion, an over-ambitious programme, for the supply of nuclear stations. That leads inevitably to the question: why are the Government not giving high priority to the development of the fast reactor, which is the only one which can operate satisfactorily and safely when there is not a guaranteed supply of uranium?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I think there is a general tendency, when Governments announce a programme in an area which affects every aspect of our daily and economic life, to assume that what they are talking about and what they are planning will in some way be at the expense of something else, and I would like to correct that impression. I hope I have made it clear in some of the supplementary remarks to the Statement as well as in some recent Unstarred Question debates in this House that the Government are committed to a mixed economy where energy is concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, raised the question of coal. As he knows, coal is providing about 70 per cent. of current electricity generating needs. I would not imagine that that figure would necessarily alter very much, particularly in view of the fact that as North Sea gas tends to run out we will need more and more coal to provide sources of gas, which is a useful and fairly inexpensive fuel. So I do not think there are grave implications for the coal industry here; and the Government, as the noble Lord is aware, are committed to a programme of development in the coal industry, though we have always in connection with that industry offered the warning, as the last Government offered a warning, that of course if wage costs exceed the economic relevance of coal then obviously other or cheaper forms of energy could fill the gap.
I would also point out to the noble Lord that nuclear power stations now planned will be coming into operation only in the late 'eighties and 'nineties, and before the end of the century we will, as I said, be using coal to make substitute natural gas and we will be looking for nuclear power to fill the gap. The noble

1563
Lord also raised the issue of uranium. My information is that we have secure supplies of uranium until the end of the century, but it is exactly because of uncertainty about further supplies that my right honourable friend is investigating the fast breeder reactor, and I said that an announcement of the result of his investigations would be made early in the new year.
4.5 p.m.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, while the Minister's reply to my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones on the question of coal is satisfactory as far as it goes, may I ask him to accept that if we are now to see the closure of quite a number of pits in South Wales consequent on the run-down of the steel industry, there will be great resistance to the idea of more nuclear development because the miners will not believe that there will be the same demand for coal? In the Statement the noble Lord said the PWR was more economic than the AGR. My recollection is that when we agreed on the AGR we knew that it would be more expensive to install but that the economic performance would be cheaper. Was the noble Lord referring, then, to the installation when he said the PWR would be cheaper than the AGR, or was he saying that the economic performance would be cheaper?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, to take first the point about coal, South Wales and steel, I do not think, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, that that is really relevant to the case that we are discussing now about nuclear energy for electricity supply. The reason there is trouble in the South Wales pits is of course the failure of demand from the steel industry, but we do not expect there to be failure of demand generally for coal for electricity or power generation. He asked me about the AGR versus the PWR. As I said, at the moment our idea is to operate both; we are looking to a mixed economy here. There are advantages in both systems, but we do not feel that we can remain out on a limb, if I may put it that way, by restricting ourselves to the AGR, which is fundamentally a British device, when the world energy industry is moving towards PWR and where we would lose out in
1564
technical know-how as well as in cost considerations if we did not develop in this area as well. But we are not looking for areas of mutual exclusivity; we are trying to run a number of systems to make a sensible overall programme.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he is much to be congratulated, as is my right honourable friend in another place, on taking this immensely difficult technical decision which other Governments have not found easy to take in the past, and we certainly wish him well with the outcome of it? However, is he aware how disappointing it is that after our very long experience in nuclear generation with the Magnox, where we were pioneers, which has been most satisfactory from the point of view of safety and the commercial factors involved, we should have had to turn to overseas technology for the solution of our next move? How does my noble friend see the capacity of our research facilities in this matter? Why is it that we have failed to build on the excellent experience we had in the past to find our own solution and continue to lead the field?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those comments. He pointed out, and it is indeed ironic, that we have been developing gas-cooled reactors in this country for 25 years, starting, as he said, with the Magnox stations. I believe that all is not lost, because what we are doing under the terms of the Statement is effectively to buy the latest recipe, if I may put it that way, for development of the PWR. We would expect that that purchase and the development of that technology, allied with our own expertise, would mean that increasingly the PWRs that came out of that system would be developed and made here, with all the implications for our own research and development and for the employment that that would imply.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I wonder whether I misheard the noble Lord, because I understood that his noble friend congratulated him and the Minister in another place for taking decisions that no other Government would take. It may be that I am a bit dense, but I understood that the Minister said that basically he

1565
had accepted the decisions of the previous Administration. So while in this season of the year I would not deprive him of the congratulations, at least let us get the matter clear.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I think that there is a certain continuity of energy policy, and that is what we should have. However, I am not a politician for nothing, and I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, that some of these rather tricky decisions were anyhow temporarily postponed by the last Ad ministration.
Lord WOLVERTON: My Lords, I am sure that the House is very grateful for the Statement by Her Majesty's Government on this very important matter of atomic energy, but I am very disappointed, and so is the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, that there is no statement about the fast breeder reactor, because nearly all countries in Western Europe are going in for the pressurised water system. I am quite certain that there will be a shortage of uranium before the end of the century, and in my humble opinion the fast breeder reactor is the answer. We were the pioneers of that system, as we were the pioneers of the Magnox system. I am disappointed that Her Majesty's Government have not made an announcement today that, subject to a proper inquiry, they are intending to build one experimental commercial station on the very successful Dounreay system, which has been going now for about 10 years.
On the AGR system, it is very disappointing that it has taken so long to develop. The Dungeness system, good as it may be, has taken 10 years and the first station is not in operation yet. So I think that there is a great deal to be said for the pressurised water system, provided, naturally, that it passes all its proper tests, and we are assured that it will not be embarked upon unless it passes the proper tests of the inspectorate. It is cheaper to construct and to run, and the main point is that much of the system can be manufactured in factories and sent to the site, while the AGR has to be built entirely on site; and there seems to be great difficulty with strikes, lock-outs and that kind of thing on the sites. I think that we ought to consider building one station if the inspectorate agree that it is safe.
The EARL of GOWRIE: My Lords, I am glad that towards the end of his remarks my noble friend welcomed what we said about the development of the pressurised water reactor. But I would reassure him, as I tried to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, that there is no question of the issue of the fast breeder reactor being shelved. No system which depends on uranium is anything other than finite in our view, and, as I said, we shall be coming to conclusions about that and we shall inform the House when we do so, which I understand will be early in the new year. However, while the shortages to which both noble Lords have drawn attention may indeed become acute, they are not acute at the moment. There is certainly a lot of life ahead for the pressure water reactor, and in our view there is no reason not to investigate the possibilities of developing it here.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, we have been dealing with this Statement for about 30 minutes and I wonder whether it is the feeling of the House that it is probably time for us to move to the next Statement.

POLICE NEGOTIATING BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Second Reading debate resumed.
4.14 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, we return now to the Police Bill and I rise not to make a debating speech, but simply to ask the noble Lord two or three questions, about which I spoke to him in the Lobby earlier. The Bill is drafted in very general terms, so I do not think it unreasonable to ask questions, as other noble Lords have done. I am glad to say that the noble Lord has cleared up the question of the status of the chairman and vice-chairman, but there is still the question of the size of the board and the balance between the different interests. On occasions like this there is a great temptation for all and sundry to claim representation on the board, which in the end has "Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all" as members, and so becomes so large that it is very difficult to come to clear decisions; much

1567
of what it then decides is compromise. I hope that the noble Lord can say something about the size of the board that he has in mind.
Then we come to the question of regulations. What parliamentary control will there be over the regulations mentioned in the Bill? Can Parliament pray against them? I think that that is possible, but it is not clear in the Bill; and if it cannot, what else can Parliament do?—because Parliament must surely have some status in this matter. I ask this particularly because it seems to me that there is confusion in the police world between what are regulations and what are simply recommendations from the Home Office, which are sent as letters and addressed both to the chairman of the authority and to the chief constable. Those letters are not regulations, however great may be the respect paid to them.
Then we come to Clause 2 of the Bill where there are references to Sections 33 and 35 of the Police Act 1964, and where one notices that Section 34 has been left out. Section 33 concerns regular police. Section 35 concerns cadets. As I understand it, regulations made under the Bill would be laid only after consultation with representatives of staff associations. I may be very ignorant, but I did not know that cadets had a staff association. If that is so, I wonder who is going to represent the cadets before such regulations are made.
We ought to turn for a moment to the section which is left out, Section 34, which concerns special constables, of whom there are now 23,000 in this country, unpaid, and underrated by all of us and by the regular police. It is possible that in the foreseeable future they might be paid a bounty on the lines of the Territorial Army. If we come to that, is there power in the Bill to decide the rate of such bounty? Is there authority for any such decision to be made? If these steps are taken in the future, who will represent the special constables? They have no staff association, no national organisation, and no means of having their voice heard on a national issue.
Then we have what used to be called the first police reserve. I think I am right in saying it faded away at the end of the
1568
war, but still exists on paper. If that is so, how is their pay to be decided? How is their voice to be heard before such decisions are made?
This vague drafting gives the impression that the agreement with the federation is still very brittle. There has already been reference to the objections which the federation made to the representation of the staff associations on the board. We know that the federation upset the Police Council for about two years—the Minister told us this again this afternoon—and brought the Police Advisory Board to a complete standstill, as was shown in the Answer to a Parliamentary Question only last week. For over two years the Police Advisory Board simply did not function. Even the Patriotic Front, which recently held up the Rhodesian negotiations for three months, was not as successful as the Police Federation has been in delaying negotiations for about two years. I see the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who is sitting opposite, smiling. What signs can the Minister give us which will strengthen our confidence that these tactics will not be repeated the moment something comes to the fore which the federation does not wholly approve of?
My last point concerns numbers and quality. We have twice this afternoon been told to applaud the increase in the number of recruits to the police service, which we all welcome. Neither of the noble Lords who spoke from the Front Benches mentioned the question of quality.
In the police service it is not just numbers that count; it is the quality of those who join the service which is so important. We consider, rightly I think, that our police are leaders in the world in so many fields. But they are not leaders in the minimum educational attainment required of recruits; nor are they leaders in the pattern of training which we provide for them. The minimum educational standards required are revealed in a national examination set by the Home Office. I think it would shame many noble Lords if they saw some of the tick-in-the-box papers. I am going to ask the Minister now whether he would arrange for a set of these papers—say a year or two years old—to be put in the Library, so that we can in fact see what is required of recruits who have not the necessary four O-levels, of which English

1569
and elementary maths must be two, which is a low enough standard.
My Lords, I would submit that the important things in a police force are their standards and their relations with the public they serve; and public confidence depends on their being as open as possible. Of course, we must also ensure that the police forces of this country receive proper remuneration and can look forward with confidence, knowing that Parliament will see that this happens. I hope this Bill will contribute to this confidence over pay, and I hope, too, that it will contribute to happier relations between the police and the public whom they are paid to serve.
4.21 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I propose to speak very briefly because I did not put my name on the list of speakers although I informed the Parliamentary Under-Secretary that I was going to say a few things this afternoon. First of all, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, who always takes a very keen interest in matters concerning the police, although, as he will recognise, he has gone rather outside the precise terms of the Bill we have before us today. He referred to the question of special constables. Like him, I attach the greatest importance to them; but I think he is a little unfair in saying that their value is in some way underrated by the police force generally. Certainly chief constables I know attach the highest importance to them; and certainly anything that the present Government can do to stimulate recruitment would be very welcome to many of us, including the noble Lord. Secondly, the noble Lord referred to the question of police training, and perhaps we may come back to that on some occasion because, again, it is outside the terms of this particular Bill. Nevertheless, like the noble Lord, I attach the greatest importance to it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said when he introduced the Bill, this measure has had to he presented to Parliament because of the breakdown in the Police Council; and think he sketched in the background to the dispute very fairly. There were obviously incomes policy reasons behind the dispute; of course there were. But there were other disagreements as well, and these were touched on by my
1570
noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. One was the composition of the official side of the Police Council. The problem, undoubtedly—and the federation representatives at the time put it to me very firmly—was that they were extremely dissatisfied with what they regarded as the over-political attitude of the local authority representatives.
I think we have to recognise the fact that the police service is not like other services of local government. I think it does require special and very sensitive treatment; and I think there is a great deal to be said for bringing magistrates into these negotiations. I think it will solve quite a number of the problems which have arisen in the past. Speaking for myself, I welcome it, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will come to this point when he winds up.
I should like to say only two other things. First, I very much welcome what my noble friend Lord Boston has said about the police service generally—about their courage in many intensely difficult situations and about their high standards of professionalism. I think it is necessary to say this, and to say it fairly regularly, because there unhappily appears to be something of an obsession in this country by way of denigrating the police service. One hears it all too often from some Members of another place and some sections of the media. I think it is right, when we are discussing a Bill of this sort, to express our admiration for the admirable job which the police service does and acknowledge the very heavy debt we all owe to them.
Secondly, I think it is only right to say a few words about the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, who has taken over the chairmanship of this important new body. The noble Lord, Lord Plowden, was in fact the deputy chairman of the committee of inquiry presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, and I think we are very grateful to him that he has taken on this extremely important job in addition to his existing job as chairman of the Police Complaints Board. I do not think we could possibly have anybody of higher standard doing this important and sensitive job, and I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House in thanking him for doing it and in expressing our

1571
pleasure that the Government have thought it right to offer him this appointment.

RHODESIA: LANCASTER HOUSE FINAL AGREEMENT
4.26 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will repeat a Statement about Rhodesia being made by my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal in another place.
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on Rhodesia.
"All parties at the constitutional conference have now initialled the final conference report. Formal signature of the report and of the cease-fire agreement is expected to take place within the next two days.
"The conference has thus reached final agreement. The Government welcome the spirit of compromise shown by all the parties and are grateful to the other Governments involved for their contribution towards a settlement.
"The House will wish to know that in the light of the requirement for a monitoring presence and its need for self-sufficiency of road and air transport within Rhodesia, the latest estimate for the cost of the pre-independence arrangements is £27 million.
"In the interests of reconciliation following a settlement, the Government intend to instruct the Governor to confer an amnesty in the law of Southern Rhodesia which will apply to acts committed in good faith by both sides.
"Many problems still lie ahead, but I am sure the House will agree that the successful conclusion of the Lancaster House Conference opens the prospect for peace and prosperity in Rhodesia."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.28 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are all delighted with the news that the final conference report has been initialled,
1572
and will be formally signed by all the parties concerned in the next day or two? Is he further aware that this will be immensely encouraging to the noble Lord, Lord Soames, and his staff, in their very difficult task of implementing the agreement which has now been reached by everybody concerned; and that we hope and, indeed, expect that all parties in Rhodesia will now co-operate fully with him as Governor in organising free and fair elections leading to an independent Zimbabwe, hopefully within the Commonwealth?
In conveying to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary once more our warm congratulations on the success of his efforts, will the noble Lord also convey our confident hope that the constructive attitudes shown by the leaders of the Patriotic Front, by Bishop Muzorewa, by the Front Line leaders and by the Commonwealth Secretariat during the negotiations will now be repeated during the critical pre-independence period that lies ahead? Finally, will he again ask his noble friend to ensure the same consensus in the British Parliament as has been achieved in Lancaster House by agreeing to the Affirmative Resolution procedure in regard to the order we discussed last night; or, at least, to seek a report on the conduct and validity of the elections in Rhodesia which Parliament—the Parliament of the paramount country—may consider immediately before that order is implemented?
4.29 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, we, naturally, also greatly welcome this Statement, and regard it as a splendid step forward. We share the Government's hope that the conclusion of a cease-fire agreement will give us a prospect of what we all hope will be a lasting peace. We note, however, that we must still await formal signature, even though this appears, as I understand it, to be practically certain. My Lords, beyond once more congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and all those associated with him, there is not much more that we can say now over and above the things which have already been said. The way is now practically clear for Lord Soames to be able to deploy all his great diplomatic skill and all his innate authority in order to get everybody into line.

1573
I have only two small questions. First, I note that a very considerable sum—I think, £27 million—is to be expended in order to make the monitoring force self-sufficient in road and air transport. Will this include a number of suitable mine detectors (in order to prevent members of the monitoring force being blown up on unfrequented roads) similar to those now being employed by General Walls and his army? Secondly, I note the proposed amnesty. Very welcome though this is in itself, it will apply to what are called "acts committed in good faith" by both sides. I am in some doubt as to how this provision can be interpreted legally. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to tell us whether it would cover a murder committed in good faith.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am much obliged to both noble Lords for what they have said in response to the Statement. Certainly, I shall convey all their good wishes to my noble friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. I shall also convey to my noble friend what the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, has said about his desire for the order about the date of independence. I can give no undertaking, I am afraid, as to what my noble friend will decide on this matter, but I will bring the noble Lord's words to his attention.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked about mine detectors. I do not have to hand a precise list of stores and equipment available to the monitoring force, but it seems to me inconceivable that they do not have mine detectors. I will look into the matter and write to the noble Lord. I think that those were all the points that were raised.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, the point about "good faith"?
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes, my Lords. The point about the amnesty is an important one. The precise details of the amnesty will be published in the form of a Governor's ordinance within the next few days. The ordinance will set out the terms of the amnesty and I will arrange for a copy of the document to be placed in the Library of the House. It will apply to acts done in good faith by both sides since UDI. It will be those acts—all acts—done in good faith in the furtherance of
1574
the purpose of resisting and frustrating the illegal administration, for example. It will not apply to acts not done in good faith; for example, where the real motive was personal gain or private vengeance.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, may I from these Benches add our words of congratulation to all those who have been involved in these negotiations at their successful outcome? It has been a very long, anxious, worrying and wearying process. We have watched with the greatest possible admiration the way in which, with patience and understanding, the negotiations have been conducted. I think that the whole House must feel proud that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has brought this to a successful conclusion. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Soames, knows that he has our support and prayers in the very difficult task which he has ahead in implementing this very satisfactory outcome.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: My Lords, may I add my congratulations and echo the words of the two noble Lords opposite and of the right reverend Prelate. Since the Commonwealth Conference in Lusaka, this has been a most exemplary exercise in skilful diplomacy; and I hope that everything will be well in the end. May I ask a question on a matter which I do not think has been mentioned so far? How many places of assembly will be available to the Patriotic Front?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, 16. We believe that these will provide fully adequate capacity for all the Patriotic Front forces.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, will the noble Lord be kind enough to turn his mind to the answer that he gave me yesterday when I asked whether he would give the House an assurance that all the operational aircraft, and particularly helicopters, supplied by the South African Government, and the officers of the South African Government, and the officers of the South African Air Force who have been flying them operationally, would be withdrawn? He said—and I can understand the reason—that it would be inadvisable to answer me but that he would write to me. Will he be good enough to address his mind to that problem with some sense of urgency? Sending a letter to me is not of much

1575
importance. I should be wholly satisfied if he gave an undertaking that, whatever his answer to me may be, he will make it available for public consumption—in other words, through the Press.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I shall have to consider that. I shall certainly be writing to the noble Lord as I promised, but I should wish to consider further whether the matter should be made public.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to everyone concerned in the success of this conference? I am sure that the Minister and all his colleagues will agree that this is still only a first step and that we hope that we shall all be able to assist in its successful conclusion. May I ask two questions which arose out of the debate on the Bill yesterday? Can the noble Lord tell us who is actually responsible, once the cease-fire has been signed, for suppressing any incidents in which that cease-fire is broken? Will it be the Salisbury security forces' responsibility to suppress any incidents from their side and the Patriotic Front's those on their side, or is there any danger of either side being used against the other?
Secondly, as a supplement to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, am I not correct in adding to the answer of the Minister that, although 16 assembly points have been agreed at present, the way has been left open, if there are more Patriotic Front guerrillas than has been estimated by the British and Salisbury Governments, for the Governor to increase the number of assembly points as those men are identified?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I can answer the second point readily. The question of additional places will arise only if the Patriotic Front forces assemble with their arms and equipment in numbers greater than can be dealt with at ail the assembly places designated in the cease-fire agreement. We do not expect that that situation will arise.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: What about the responsibility for suppression of incidents?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we certainly do not foresee one side firing on the other. This is what I think seems to be in the noble Lord's mind. We think that the best way to contain any potential breach of the cease-fire is by self-discipline on both sides.

POLICE NEGOTIATING BOARD [H.L.]
Second Reading debate continued.
4.38 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I shall now reply to the speeches made on the Police Negotiating Board Bill. May I express my gratitude to noble Lords who have spoken on this Bill, thereby showing their interest in its importance, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, for reminding us of the responsible and often dangerous duties of the police. If I may say so, my noble friend Lord Inglewood was absolutely right to say that these duties require the police service to have officers of high quality; and it has been to the advantage of this debate that we have had the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, with his experience of the police service, saying that he feels that the police service is finding these men and women to enter the service.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood asked me if I would reply to him on the question of whether this new body (to be called the Police Negotiating Board) is to be soundly based. I believe it is and for these reasons. First of all, the board is being set up as a result of recommendations of the Edmund-Davies Committee. It is fair to claim, on the evidence that we have of the Edmund-Davies recommendations, that the Committee was shrewd and indeed far-seeing with regard to the matters to do with the police service. Secondly the board is being set up as a result of consultations which are written into the Bill. These consultations have to be undertaken, and therefore when the board is set up it will be as a result of consultations with everybody connected with the police service.
At the same time—and this was a point that was put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham—the

1577
Edmund-Davies Committee said that the committee structure was for the new board to decide. The Edmund-Davies Committee was very careful to say that it endorsed the same committee procedures which had proved that they worked under the Police Council. I have confidence in the future of this new board because it has a very able chairman in the noble Lord, Lord Plowden. I am grateful to noble Lords—not least the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, with his knowledge of the police service—for welcoming the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, whose services we have been most fortunate to secure.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood asked me about the composition of the board. The information that I can give my noble friend is that it is the intention that it should have 62 members: 33 on the official side and 29 on the staff side. If my noble friend thinks that this is a large body, may I remind him of what I have just said: the board will have a committee system, five committees. I think that the Police Council had five committees and the intention is that this board shall have the same number of committees. Therefore the real work of the Board will be undertaken in sensibly-sized committees.
Your Lordships have all asked me about representation of magistrates upon the board. It is the fact that the Edmund-Davies Committee recommended that the representatives of the local authority associations on the official side of the new negotiating body should reflect the composition of local police authorities by including one-third magistrate representatives. It is also the case (as your Lordships have made clear from your speeches that you realise) that there was disagreement between the local authority associations and the representative bodies over this recommendation. The recommendation has, however, now been accepted by both sides of the board. Therefore, when the board is set up on a statutory basis when this Bill becomes law, the composition of the new board will be determined as part of the arrangements made under Clause 1(3) of the Bill; and it is now agreed—may I make it quite clear to your Lordships' House—that this will accord with the recommendations on this particular subject of the Edmund-Davies Committee.
1578
The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, asked me about the bringing into effect of the Bill. Clause 3(2) provides that the Bill shall come into force two months after the Royal Assent, and before that time is up the consultations referred to in Clause 1(3) which refer to composition and procedure of the board must be completed. I hope that this debate has made clear that all the consultations conducted so far have reached agreement. I therefore believe that if both Houses of Parliament pass the Bill, the board will be ready to begin work on a statutory basis within two months of Royal Assent. The noble Lord also asked me about the independent secretariat—something in which the noble Lords, Lord Wigoder and Lord Boston, also expressed interest. May I make it crystal clear that the Government accept absolutely the Edmund-Davies recommendations for the independent secretariat. But the Government also took the view that this ought to be done only after consultations which are written into the Bill under Clause 1(3). That is why the secretariat is not provided in the Bill. I give the House an assurance that the Government accept that the independent secretariat is needed, and none of the police bodies concerned has commented adversely on this recommendation. The secretariat is therefore being provided for by the Office of Manpower Economics—as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder reminded us, it is in the Explanatory Memorandum.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood asked me about the regulations in the Bill. They are subject to the Negative Resolution and therefore can be prayed against in both Houses of Parliament. My noble friend referred to the position of special constables and cadets He wondered whether they were—and, if not, why not?—provided for in the Bill. The cadets are represented by the Police Federation; that is why they are not provided for specifically in the Bill. The police advisory board working party in 1976 agreed that special constables ought not to receive payment and the question of their representation on the new Police Negotiating Board does not therefore arise. May I make it clear that I take very seriously what my noble friend says about the voluntary elements in this country and also in policing in this country. I should like to say on behalf

1579
of the Government that we believe that the voluntary contribution to policing is met, and should be met, through the special constabulary, which we all want to see as a vital and effective body.
May I reiterate my thanks to your Lordships for taking part in the Second Reading of what is a short Bill but none the less an important one. I hope that your Lordships will now agree to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HILL LIVESTOCK (COMPENSATORY ALLOWANCES) REGULATIONS 1979
4.47 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th November 1979 be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, these regulations, which apply throughout the United Kingdom, consolidate the Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) Regulations 1975 and the three amending regulations and give effect to the higher rates of hill sheep and hill cow allowances which my right honourable friend announced on 22nd November.
Last July, draft regulations were laid before the House for the purpose of implementing a 50p increase, for 1979 only, in the higher rate of hill sheep compensatory allowance. When they came before the House, I said that the Government recognised that many hill farmers, and particularly sheep farmers, had experienced serious difficulties as a result of the prolonged bad weather of last winter. But we firmly believed that a judgment on the need for further increases in compensatory allowances should be deferred until we could take account of the prices which were obtained by hill farmers during this autumn's main period for the sale of store lambs and suckled calves. It is indicative of the present very serious state of the hill livestock sector and also of the correctness of our judgment in deciding to wait for the autumn sales before taking a decision that the House is being asked today to consider a
1580
more substantial increase in the rates of compensatory allowances than could have been foreseen in July.
Hill and upland farmers play a particularly important role in the livestock sector of our agriculture. They provide, in the United Kingdom as a whole, some 60 per cent. of the specialist beef cow herd and 20 per cent. of the total beef and dairy breeding herd, while the hill sheep account for some 57 per cent. of the total breeding flock. The role of the hills is therefore fundamental to the cycle of renewing the national breeding flock and the production of suckled calves and store lambs.
We have carried out a review of the economic conditions in the hill livestock sector in consultation with the farmers' unions which has provided clear evidence that the prolonged period of bad weather last winter led to an above average loss of animals in some areas and greatly increased feed costs, particularly for sheep. We have also had regard to the relatively depressed state of store market prices this autumn. These factors are expected to lead to a substantial fall in net farm incomes in the year 1979–80. Because of this, and bearing in mind that the hills are such an important sector of livestock farming, we have decided that there is a need for a sizeable increase in the rates of hill livestock compensatory allowances to be paid next year.
The regulations now before the House therefore provide that the rate for hill cows should be increased from £29 to £35, which is an extra £6; the higher rate for hill sheep, from £3·60 to £5·50, which is an extra £1·90; and the lower rate for hill sheep, from £2·85 to £4·25, an extra £1·40. The increase in the higher rate for sheep includes and consolidates the 50p increase announced in July. The differential between the higher and lower rates of hill sheep allowance has been maintained at the level existing since the July increase of the higher rate, which accords with the wishes of the farmers' unions. These increases, which will be paid with the allowances due at the beginning of 1980, will be worth £20·6 million.
The regulations additionally implement a change in the maximum rate of allowance payable under the Less-Favoured Areas Directive. In terms of sterling, the new

1581
maximum is £40·58, which represents an increase of £6·53 per hectare. The increase in the maximum amount payable per hectare will benefit a comparatively limited number of hill farmers—only those who stock their land at a rate which is somewhat greater than one livestock unit, which is the equivalent of one cow or six sheep.
The higher rates of allowances which we have proposed will increase the amount paid to hill farmers through these allowances by 37 per cent. They have been welcomed by the farmers' unions, who recognise them as a substantial demonstration of the importance that this Government attach to the hill areas and of our belief that hill and upland farmers should enjoy a reasonable standard of living. I therefore ask your Lordships to express your support for the Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, that the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th November 1979 be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for having explained this very important award, if I may use that term, of £20.6 million. That is quite a considerable sum of money and I am glad that the money is to be injected in the hill and upland farm areas.
When the noble Earl talked about his Government doing this, I would support them. I only wish they had given me the support when I brought in the Pennine Rural Development Board, which I had hoped would improve the money-earning capacity of hill farmers. Unfortunately, one minister was very doctrinal and as soon as there was a Conservative Government he destroyed that system. I regret it, but I do not in any way blame the noble Earl! May I say that this instrument has gone through the necessary committee. There is no difficulty there, and I welcome it on behalf of the Opposition.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I, too, should like to welcome the increases and to endorse what the noble Earl has said about the importance of the hill areas. They are the source from which the final production of beef, mutton and lamb reaches the consumer in this country.
1582
I do not wish to appear ungracious or to look a gift-horse in the mouth but, particularly with regard to cattle, the noble Earl will be aware that the value of the hill cow subsidy has depreciated enormously over the years. When the subsidy intitially came on, a hill farmer could purchase the whole of his winter feed—say a ton of hay per hill cow—with the subsidy. Now, with £36 and with the cost of transport to the hill areas, he cannot purchase half a ton of hay with the same money. While I do welcome this increase—and obviously £20 million is a lot of money—I think we perhaps might look at indexing the support for the hill cow in the same way as we index support for retired civil servants and others. Surely the hill cow needs it a great deal more than do some of the others in receipt of indexed pensions.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, speaking as a hill farmer and one of those who, I am glad to say, will have something coming to them out of this regulation, I should like to thank the noble Earl and the Government very much for having come forward now with an appreciable increase and with sympathy, which we all appreciate, for our plight.
It really has been the most disastrous year I can remember in 40 years of farming. While this is something which will help a great deal, I should like to point out that it will take certainly two or three years to make up for disasters that have resulted from the appalling weather and the desperate conditions. Nevertheless, this is Christmas-time and there is goodwill towards everybody ! I should particularly like to thank the Government for having now brought this out—a little later than I had hoped for, but anyway it is here—and I thank them very much indeed for their contribution.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I should also like to welcome these regulations very much. Last week, I drew attention to the fact that the beef herds in Northern Ireland have gone down by 30 per cent. and an awful lot of beef conies to this country from Northern Ireland. There are a great many farmers in Northern Ireland who depend entirely on it.
As my noble friends have said, the past year has been disastrous as regards

1583
weather. With us, it has been the last 18 months, because since 12th July last year—I do not know whether or not that was a symbolic date—it has not stopped raining. Last year people fed expensive concentrates to their animals, hoping that prices would pay for them; but prices have been disastrously low and people are not prepared to do that now. I should like to ask my noble friend why, when the EEC, as I understand it, allowed a slightly higher subsidy to be paid in view of the disastrous situation that has arisen, they have not gone a bit further. I know that £20.6 million is a lot of money but to a farmer, certainly in my part of the world where hay is £2 a bale, what we have in fact got is the price of three bales.
Since I last spoke in this House there has been another review of the slaughterings of female animals, which are after all the absolute lifeblood of the herd. In the last six weeks, slaughterings of female animals are now 94 per cent, higher than they were in the same period last year. I do not know whether we have found this more disastrous in my part of the world than has been the case in other parts, because I do not know other parts of the world; but may I ask the Government very urgently to take another look at this, to receive representations from people and to see whether something cannot be done? What we are doing is not only crippling farmers as regards their expansion later but also crippling the future of our very important beef industry, together with the employment which goes with it. On these particular farms there is no alternative—you cannot go back to anything except milk and we do not want any more milk—so I feel that this is a very serious situation and I urgently ask the Government to take another look at it. At the same time, I welcome what they have produced.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am very grateful to your Lordships for the welcome which has been given to this statement. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, had the advantage of being both succinct and brief. He simply said that he supported these regulations and I am grateful to him for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, tried to equate this allowance with the price of a bale of hay. I think it is always dangerous to start equating one thing with another.
1584
It may be that the price of hay is excessively high, but I thought he was really rather shooting off at a tangent when he suggested that we ought to index a cow instead of a civil servant. That was a fairly rash observation by any standards, and I think he might well regret having made it because the Directive sets out a maximum that is payable as well as a minimum, and we have to operate within the Directive. Even if we did not operate within it and even if there were no maximum there would still be the problem of public accountability and of persuading the Government of the day that, where public funds are concerned, it was correct to pay out more money on one item, which would inevitably mean less money on another. We think that we have got it about right—"generous" is not the right word—and we have tried to give the farmers almost the maximum, but not the total maximum, allowed within the EEC Directive.
My noble friend Lady Elliot said that, because of the disaster which they had last winter, it would take three years to get the situation right on the hills. I agree with her that it will take a long time. When disasters happen to animals and breeding stock, you do not get over them in the course of 12 months or by a form of immediate payment. All I would say to her is that we recognise the problem and hope that this payment will go some way—I put it no higher than that—towards helping hill farmers over the difficulties which they have encountered.
I take the point of my noble friend Lord Brookeborough about the situation in Northern Ireland and we will certainly be prepared to consider that problem. He asked why we did not pay more under the terms of the Directive when this allowed us to pay more. The answer to that is that one has to make a judgment as a Government as to what is the right thing to do, and, just because there is a maximum which may be paid, that does not mean to say that in the judgment of the Government it is the right amount. We consider that by these compensatory allowances we have made a fairly substantial payment. In reaching that conclusion, one has to judge the severity of the problem and to take into account, as I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, public accountability and the public availability of funds. At a time when, as everyone knows, the Government are under constraint in

1585
regard to funds, the hill farmers and those in Northern Ireland, too, have had a fair result. I hope my noble friend will agree with that, and I am grateful for the observations which your Lordships have made.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOCIAL SECURITY (CONTRIBUTIONS, RE-RATING) (NO. 2) ORDER 1979
5.3 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Social Security (Contributions, Re-rating) (No. 2) Order 1979, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th November, 1979, be approved. This order has effects for both the employment protection and the social security legislation. So far as the employment protection legislation is concerned, I would start by explaining that the Redundancy and Maternity Pay Funds are both in a state of steadily growing surplus. The Redundancy Fund now stands at approximately £132 million and the Maternity Pay Fund is approaching £35 million. There are two ways of controlling the level of surplus; either by reducing income, increasing expenditure or some combination of both. It is with the first of these possibilities—namely, reducing income—that we are concerned today.
Both funds are wholly financed by an allocation from the secondary Class I earnings related contributions paid by employers in respect of employed earners. The present allocation, equivalent to a contribution rate of 0·25 per cent., is apportioned on receipt from the Department of Health and Social Security as to 0·2 per cent. and 0·05 per cent. into the Redundancy and Maternity Pay Funds respectively. The first effect of this order will be to reduce the allocation from 0·25 per cent. to 0·2 per cent. with effect from 6th April 1980. It is expected to cut the allocation income in respect of 1980–81 by £49 million and actual receipts during that period by £43 million. The difference in the two amounts is accounted for by the time lag involved in collecting social security contributions.
The Social Security Act 1975, under which this order is made, also provides
1586
that any change in the employment protection allocation rate must be matched by a corresponding change in the parent National Insurance rate from which it is financed; that is the secondary Class 1 contribution. The present contribution rate is 10 per cent. It is due to be increased by the Social Security (Contributions, Re-rating) Order 1979 to 10·25 per cent. on 6th April, 1980. The effect of this, the No. 2 Order, will be immediately to reduce that rate to 10·2 per cent. As far as employers are concerned, therefore, the practical effect of this order is that they will have to pay only a secondary Class 1 rate of 10·2 per cent. instead of 10·25 per cent. as from 6th April next year.
As regards the apportionment of the new allocation between the Redundancy and Maternity Pay Funds, it is proposed to apply the whole reduction to the Redundancy Fund income. As from 6th April next the allocation of 0·2 per cent. will be apportioned as to 0·15 per cent. and 0·05 per cent. between the Redundancy Pay Funds respectively. It may be that even this 25 per cent. reduction in Redundancy Fund income will not prevent the continued accumulation of surplus over a period of years. But it will certainly check the excessive growth rate which has persisted since the end of 1976.
It will do, of course, nothing to prevent the continued growth of the Maternity Pay Fund. It can be argued that the reduction should have been apportioned between the two funds, or that it is not enough. On the first point, we think it right to give priority to the fund with the greater surplus. On the second point, we have to recognise that these are public funds and reduction in income can be achieved only at the expense of the public sector borrowing requirement. The full year cost to this requirement of £49 million in respect of 1980–81 is already substantial. The alternative of a reduction by 0·1 per cent. so as to leave a reasonable tidy national insurance rate of 10·15 per cent. would have doubled the cost to the public sector borrowing requirement—and that would have been too much in present economic circumstances. I trust that I have made clear the need for this order and the effect it will have. It is an important step in the right direction and one

1587
which I am pleased to recommend for the approval of the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th November, be approved.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
5.8 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I shall be as succinct and brief as my noble Leader was a moment or two ago. I want to thank the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, for setting out this order so clearly and so precisely, and to say that we on this side of the House approve it. We recognise that it has been before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and that in their Eleventh Report they have no comment to make on it. I also note, if have understood the position correctly, that it has been before another place without comment. Therefore, we approve the order.
The EARL of GOWRIE: My Lords, I am grateful for those words from the noble Lord speaking for the Opposition.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PNEUMOCONIOSIS ETC. (WORKERS' COMPENSATION) (PAYMENT OF CLAIMS) REGULATIONS 1979
5.9 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE The Earl of GOWRIE rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5th December 1979, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, these regulations are to be made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979, which was passed by the previous Parliament immediately before the dissolution in April this year, and came into force on 4th July. Regulations enabling claims to be made came into operation on the same day. The regulations which your Lordships are asked to approve tonight set out how the amounts to be paid to those who satisfy the entitlement conditions under the Act will be determined and, by means of the tables, enable the actual amounts payable in particular cases to be precisely calculated.
It had originally been hoped that these regulations might be approved before the
1588
Summer Recess and, when it became clear that this could not be done, that they would be laid as soon as Parliament reassembled after the summer. The preparation of the regulations has, however, proved a very much more complex task than had been envisaged. It is most unfortunate that this has inevitably delayed payments to those unlucky and, for the most part, elderly people.
The regulations take as their starting point the provisions of that part of the National Coal Board's pneumoconiosis compensation scheme, introduced in October 1974, which covered sufferers, and dependants of deceased sufferers, who had been diagnosed as suffering from pneumoconiosis prior to that date. This was foreshadowed when the Bill was introduced in April. There are, however, a number of variations from the details of the NCB scheme, and I will call attention to the most important of these.
Regulation 3, taken in conjunction with Table 1, is the key regulation, which sets out how payments to living sufferers from one of the diseases covered by the Act are to be determined. The amount of the payment is to be decided by reference to what is called the first determination that the sufferer was suffering from the disease—usually by a Pneumoconiosis Medical Board. The amount the sufferer receives will depend on his age at the time of that first determination, and the extent of his disability assessed at that time.
Those familiar with the NCB scheme will know that under that scheme, five year age bands were used whereas we have adopted single age bands. Single year bands seemed fairer to us; five year bands would have led to some people losing a great deal if their birthday fell just the wrong side of the dividing line. However, the major variation from the NCB scheme is in the actual amounts to be paid at corresponding points on the tables.
The NCB scheme was introduced in October 1974. Because of inflation, money is now worth only about half of what it was then. So it seemed right that an average payment under tile Act should be about twice what it would have been using the NCB tables. The obvious way to achieve this would have been simply to double all the NCB figures. However,

1589
there was a good reason for not doing this. If the amounts of the payments to be made in particular cases are to be determined by reference to the age and level of disability of a sufferer when he was first discovered to have the disease, then obviously the amounts should take into account the likelihood that the disability might become more severe as the sufferer gets older. This factor is most important in cases where, at the time of first diagnosis, the disease was not very severe—that is, where the assessment at that time was only 10 per cent. or 20 per cent.
It seemed clear, both from the Department of Health and Social Security statistics and other information, that the proportion of those first diagnosed as 10 per cent. and to a lesser extent 20 per cent. disabled, progressing to the more severe levels of disability, is considerably greater for the main groups who will benefit under the Act—slate, cotton and asbestos workers—than it is for coal miners. The most satisfactory way of reflecting this seemed to be to reduce the differential between the amounts payable for those first diagnosed at any given age at the lower levels of disability and the amounts payable for those diagnosed at the same age with higher disability levels. The amounts from the NCB tables were therefore increased for sufferers first diagnosed as 10 per cent. disabled by 50 per cent.; for sufferers first diagnosed 20 per cent. disabled by 25 per cent.; and for sufferers first diagnosed as 30 per cent. disabled by 10 per cent. All the figures in the resulting table were then increased by 60 per cent. This is estimated to produce average payments approximately the same as if there had been a straight 100 per cent. increase in the figures in the NCB tables.
Regulation 4 covers payments to the great majority of dependants of deceased sufferers. It follows very closely the pattern under the NCB scheme. If the sufferer was receiving disablement benefit for the disease, the dependant receives an amount arrived at by taking the amount which would have been payable to the sufferer if he were still alive, and then deducting from it the amount which would have been payable to him if his age when he was first diagnosed had been his age when he died. If the sufferer died as a result of the disease, an additional
1590
payment will be made in accordance with Table 2 of the Schedule. These amounts have been increased over the NCB equivalents in the same way as in Table 1. A dependant who is entitled to a payment but where disablement benefit was not payable to the sufferer in life will receive only the latter payment.
Regulation 5 deals with the special case of dependants of sufferers who died from diffuse mesothelioma—a cancer caused by sharp asbestos fibres piercing the wall of the pleural cavity, and medically distinct from asbestosis. These rather complicated provisions are needed, partly because this fatal disease almost always progresses within a year or two from first diagnosis to death, and partly because those who develop it may well also be sufferers from pneumoconiosis.
Regulation 6 contains special provisions covering those sufferers who were also suffering from tuberculosis when pneumoconiosis was first diagnosed. These are needed because if and when the tuberculosis becomes inactive, the assessed level of disability may actually go down—the only circumstances in which this happens.
Regulation 7 covers the minority of cases where it will be impossible to confirm from any available official records the information necessary to work out the right payment in accordance with the tables. These should be confined to a small group of dependants, unlikely to number more than a hundred altogether. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn special attention to these regulations on the grounds that the provision in this regulation for the Secretary of State to pay whatever amount appears in any particular case to be just and equitable in the circumstances is an unexpected use of the powers in the Act. The effect of the provisos to the regulation will however be to determine the precise amount payable in substantially all the cases concerned. We adopted the form of words which the Joint Committee has questioned because we are most anxious to avoid claimants being precluded from receiving a payment in accordance with the foregoing regulations because of some purely technical deficiency in the information available.
Regulation 8 sets a minimum amount of £725 to be paid to any dependant who is

1591
entitled to a payment. Table 1 sets the same minimum for sufferers, but without Regulation 8 the dependant of a sufferer who died shortly after the disease had been diagnosed, but not as a result of the disease, would otherwise receive nothing, or only a derisorily small sum.
In conclusion, may I apologise again for the complexity of these regulations. I could have wished they might be simpler, but I believe that in the circumstances these regulations are as fair as any that could have been devised, and I ask the House to give them their approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5th December 1979, be approved.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
5.17 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, again we on this side of the House are grateful to the noble Earl for explaining, albeit in some detail, the purpose of this order. I noted that the noble Earl referred to the comments of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in their Twelfth Report. However, I am not quite clear whether what the Government are doing is to the advantage or disadvantage of those who have some entitlement to an award.
As I understand the order—although I may be quite wrong about this—the amounts are fixed according to the age of the individual and the percentage arrived at in respect of disability. I am wondering whether it will be possible for that to fluctuate. If authority is given under the order to use discretion, presumably that discretion can go below or it can go above. In some respects, this seems to me, unless I have misunderstood it—and it is quite possible that I have misunderstood what the noble Earl has said—to act sometimes to the advantage of the individual and sometimes to his disadvantage. If it is possible for the noble Earl to clear up that point I shall be grateful.
I know that my noble friend Lord Hale, who has spent many years campaigning on behalf of people who are suffering from these various diseases, will, like me, be glad to see that the matter has at least
1592
been finalised. I am grateful to the noble Earl. We on this side of the House approve the order, but I should be grateful for any comment which the noble Earl may be able to make about what I have said.
5.20 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I think it would be appropriate if I were to say a few words now. I paused for a moment to enable the Liberal Party to avail themselves of their right to follow the noble Lord on the Front Bench; I gather that they do not intend to intervene. I am grateful to the noble Earl for the clarity of his exposition. Had I heard all he has said in the last few minutes I might have been able to give more attention in the early hours of the morning to what is happening in Western Australia. Indeed I have been spending a great many hours trying to find our precisely what the Act means. The noble Earl has explained it in a way that will commend itself to both sides of the House and which gives rise to no comment.
I raised the question of the position of asbestosis originally when we had about two-and-a-half minutes to discuss all the stages of the Bill in manuscript, on, I think, 2nd or 3rd April. There were some additional notes provided in writing. As mesothalioma undoubtedly has some connection with asbestosis it was said that asbestosis was included. I was wrong, of course, because it is already included in the Act of 1975 and is so catalogued in many of the tables recently published in relation to industrial diseases. Although I think that academically it is a little dubious, it is extremely advantageous to everybody, and therefore we are not worried about an academic point, which in any event has now been made clear.
My Lords, I have had, I suppose, nearly 60 years' experience in connection with industrial diseases in various forms, but I frankly had never heard of mesothelioma until I came into this House when these problems were being ventilated. There is provision, of course, in the Act for appeals on the lines set out in the Old Cases Act, the Social Security Act 1975. I cannot, frankly, see much possiblity of points of law arising. While paying great respect to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which has

1593
obviously devoted some attention to this matter, I did in fact—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for having called my attention to it—refer to their note which tells one where the evidence that they heard can be found. I went to consult that and I find that it has not been printed and is not available. I gather it is in this respect just the opinion of the Department, properly expressed, and I should not have thought, in view of the very wide powers given to the Secretary of State, that any court was likely to question any exercise of authority.
In any event, I cannot see that the Secretary of State would have much difficulty, if he does have to assess a figure, in assessing it on the basis of exact regard to one of those published in the appropriate table in the regulations. The noble Earl was good enough to answer to a Written Question—which was certainly not put down in any way to cause embarrassment but rather to satisfy the apprehensions about alleged delay, which I did not share. I thought it would be difficult to draft; it must have been very difficult to draft. I gather that over 2,000 claims have already been submitted. This is a new instrument for a very considerable and worthy purpose, the purpose of trying to make provision for those who have been deprived of compensation, mainly by the bankruptcy of employers. It also provides the possibility of the Secretary of State reconsidering cases within reasonable bounds. I am happy to be here to welcome this.
The long story of byssinosis is a bitter story, and the remedy is now coming at the time when the disease is, happily, disappearing. Any modern factory today is likely to be substantially free from byssinosis because the modern ventilating apparatus does not allow the lungs to become clogged with what is a vegetable, cotton dust and the associated muck in which the cotton frequently arrives in England. Although I doubt whether there will be a great many claims in respect of byssinosis, I do believe there are a substantial number of claims which are in difficulty in relation to mesothelioma.
I just wanted to ask the noble Earl one question: Whether, in view of the highly complex nature of the asbestos industry, in view of the fact that after a decision of the House of Lords largely in favour of
1594
workers about 10 years ago a factory closed down and in view of certain amalgamations, it will be easily possible for trade unions to be able to answer the vital question postulated in Section 2, the company having wholly ceased to carry on business. I should have thought that the Health and Safety Executive might be collecting a certain amount of information in relation to some of these matters which could be made available to bona fide inquirers. Subject to that, I thank the noble Earl very much for the courteous way this has been done, and for the considerate way in which the new Government has considered a measure first presented by the old one.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and the noble Lord, Lord Hale, for their reception. Obviously in this sad area of industrial disability where people have worked hard and made their contribution and suffered accordingly, we are looking for the maximum continuity of policy possible. If I may give the pure point of information for which the noble Lord, Lord Hale, asked, it is in fact just under two-and-a-half thousand, 2,434, claims which have now been made under the Act, just under two thousand, 1,905, from sufferers, and 529 from dependants of deceased sufferers. I have a breakdown of information as to cotton industry, slate industry, pottery and the like which I can give to the noble Lord if he wishes.
In reference to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, obviously the difficulty we have had with framing these regulations is trying to provide, within the limitations of a single payment to each individual, for a very wide variety of possible situations. Everyone's ailment has a different character and, of course, the individual conditions of those who suffer from the ailment may affect what is ultimately paid out. That is why the Secretary of State has perhaps rather peculiar and substantial powers to be just and equitable. The effect of the provisos in Regulation 7 will be that he will be enabled to determine the precise amount payable in substantially all the cases concerned. It seems to me that where there is the possibility of such individual variation, we must give some discretion to the Secretary of State; the

1595
object being to ensure that where certain information cannot be totally confirmed, but as to which there is no real doubt in common sense about the patient's case, the Secretary of State will not be precluded from making the payment in accordance with the tables; and that seems to us to be clearly right.
As in all questions where rather detailed payments are having to be tailored to individual cases, there are, as I have said, complexities involved. I should like to look at the points in detail made by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and the noble Lord, Lord Hale, in particular—who spoke at some length—and perhaps take them up with officials and see whether any modifications are necessary in the light of those remarks.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am obliged.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOSIERY AND KNITWEAR INDUSTRY (SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH LEVY) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1979
5.33 p.m.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Hosiery and Knitwear Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved. This order, if approved by Parliament, will be made under the authority of Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947. This short order makes provision for the amendment of Statutory Instrument 1969/882—the Hosiery and Knitwear Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order 1969—so that the scientific research levies shall cease to be payable in the hosiery and knitwear industry after the levy period ending on 30th June 1982. It also provides that, from 1st January 1980, the level of exemption from liability to pay the levy will be increased from a chargeable turnover of £5,000 to £250,000 per levy period.
Your Lordships will remember that it was necessary to withdraw this draft order laid before the House on 23rd October so that the levy exemption limit could be amended to £250,000 per levy period—that is, £500,000 per annum. This was as a
1596
result of a misunderstanding between the Hosiery and Allied Trades Research Association and the Department when calculating the likely effect of the exemption level on HATRA's income. The Department's calculations were based on raising the limit from £5,000 to £500,000 turnover per levy period—that is, six months—whereas HATRA, and others, assumed £500,000 per annum. When it transpired that there had been a genuine misunderstanding my right honourable friend accepted that HATRA should not be obliged to live with a sudden loss of levy income of at least twice the level which the association, after careful consideration, had considered it could accommodate. My right honourable friend was reinforced in this view when further contact with the two trade associations primarily concerned revealed that the industry too had assumed that the agreement had been to exclude firms with a chargeable turnover of up to £500,000 per year, and not per levy period.
The new exemption limit of £250,000 per levy period—Article 2(b) of the draft order—properly reflects the understanding reached between HATRA and the industry and the Department and involves a loss of income tolerable to HATRA.
I think it would be helpful to the House if I explained, at this point, some of the background to the statutory levy. In the late 1960s the Hosiery and Allied Trades Research Association, known as HATRA, which was formed to carry out research on behalf of the United Kingdom hosiery and knitwear industry, requested the imposition of a levy, under the 1947 Act, so as to spread the cost of research, which benefited the industry as a whole through a gradual improvement in knitting techniques, on as equitable a basis as possible to all firms within the industry; and in so doing to augment its income to the extent necessary to carry out research on a scale suited to the needs of a highly competitive expanding industry, with considerable export potential. After consultations, the then Minister agreed the request and the order, which we are now seeking to amend, came into operation on 1st July 1969 to provide funds for HATRA which had been carrying out collective research for the industry since 1949. The proceeds of the levy are paid over gross to the research association.
The present proposal to discontinue the statutory levy stems from various criticisms

1597
made within the industry. In particular, some firms, many of them small, producing relatively low volume of high value knitwear—for example, cashmere and other fine animal hair knitwear—considered that they were bearing a disproportionate part of the cost of funding HATRA. It has also been argued that the present method of funding HATRA does not sufficiently encourage it to utilise its resources in the ways which the majority of the industry would like to see. Indeed, it has often been said that the research carried out by the research association is not directly applicable to many companies, particularly the many smaller firms who by their nature cannot benefit from, for example, developments in large-scale production techniques.
Having said that, I hasten to pay tribute to the much valued work which HATRA has, over the years, carried out to the benefit of the whole industry. Indeed, I should make it clear at this point that, having conducted full consultations with the industry, as required by the 1947 Act, it is the view of the industry as a whole that a research organisation with the standing and capability of HATRA will continue to be needed. However, a clear majority of the firms within the industry indicated in response to the department's inquiry that they considered that the present statutory system of funding HATRA was unsatisfactory and should be discontinued.
I am convinced that it would be quite wrong simply to discontinue the levy overnight. A period of adjustment to whatever new system of funding the industry and HATRA decide to introduce is obviously needed, and that is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry has proposed to phase out the levy over a period of some two and a half years. The proposal does, however, contain a provision to assist at once the smaller firms in the industry by raising, with effect from 1st January 1980, the exemption level below which firms do not have to pay levy, from £5,000 to £250,000 chargeable turnover per levy period. In addition, I understand that it is the intention that smaller firms, thus exempted from levy payments, will still have access to the services and research results of HATRA, and that the association will undertake specific projects for those firms who are prepared to pay for them.
1598
At present the levy yields about £250,000 per year which represents about 50 per cent. of HATRA's total income. The remainder of its income comes from contributions to approved Textile Research Council Contracts from the Department of Industry, subscriptions, rent, royalties and the like. It is estimated that under the proposal which we are now considering HATRA's income from the levy will be reduced by approximately £20,000 in a full year. I should say that it is difficult to quantify precisely the effects that raising the exemption level would have on income since, as I mentioned earlier, the levy—0.033 per cent.—is calculated on turnover which, noble Lords will appreciate will, vary.
The industry will have between now and the end of June 1982, to decide what system of contribution should replace the statutory levy. Discussions with the industry have suggested that in future a much higher proportion of HATRA's income than hitherto would be related to the provision of specific services for the individual firms or groups of firms. It is not the intention that research for the industry carried out by HATRA should cease to exist, but rather that HATRA should become more commercially orientated and responsive to the needs of the industry which it serves. I believe that the alteration proposed from a statutory levy to voluntary support, combined with charges for specific services, will be the most effective way of bringing about this change in direction. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th November be approved.—(Viscount Long.)
5.41 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, first I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Long, for the very detailed and lengthy explanation that he has given. May I also express gratification that the dropped stitches have been picked up and that at last we are able to deal with this order, only just in the nick of time, because I understand that the Recess starts on Thursday. Generally speaking, from the information that I have already gleaned from the noble Viscount, we have no objection to this order. I should like to ask him how the order originated. Did the initiative come

1599
from the industry? Furthermore, what organisations were consulted and, indeed, was the decision unanimous by both management and unions? Apart from that, it is obvious that there is no real objection to the order. Therefore, I wish it godspeed.
The Earl of SHANNON: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Viscount for explaining in such detail this order which is now in the correct amended form, as was agreed with the Hosiery and Allied Trades Research Association and the industry concerned. At this point I must declare my usual interest in matters of industrial research. I fully appreciate that the attitude of Her Majesty's Government is that they do not wish to continue indefinitely with compulsory payments by industry. Nobody likes paying statutory levies, even if they are for one's own benefit. However, I must ask Her Majesty's Government to bear in mind the vital necessity—and it really is a vital necessity—for British industry to keep very fully abreast of the modern technology available. It will be our only means of maintaining our industrial economy in the face of competition from developing nations, especially in the low labour-cost areas. The textile industry has produced some classic examples of where we have not kept abreast of the latest technology and of where, as a result, we have lost out.
The noble Viscount gave some figures of the percentage that was being spent on research. How pitifully low! Let us hope that when this statutory levy finally comes to an end, the industry will realise that it cannot possibly continue to meet world competition if that is the only sum of money which it and many other industries in this country are prepared to spend on the only means of keeping themselves abreast of modern technology and in the race at all. I hope that this observation will not be lost on Her Majesty's Government; that they will do everything they can to encourage industry, both large and small, to adopt new technology; and that they will also do everything they can to ensure the continued viability of all organisations which have a long record of transferring new technology to industry, with the all too obvious beneficial results to the nation and to our economy.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, before the Minister replies perhaps he would be good enough to answer one question. As I understand it, the Government object in principle to levies being imposed by statute, and the Government's attitude in relation to the order which is now before the House is conditioned by the fact that they object in principle but will allow two-and-a-half years to elapse. I am not interested in the two-and-a-half years, but I am interested in the Government's attitude to the principle of levies raised by statute.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, for taking part in the debate on this very important order. Yes, we did manage to gather up the stitches. I have already said that we had to withdraw the order because it was not quite right. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked me one or two questions, in particular where the views and ideas originated. The industry as a whole was informed about the changes. The order stems from a request made to the department by the Scottish Knitwear Council in mid-1977 for the revocation of the 1969 order owing to the high cost of their knitwear. They felt that they needed that revocation, As I understand it, in Scotland there are many more smaller firms than there are in England.
In October 1978 a referendum was held in which 61 per cent. of the firms on the department's levy list voted in favour of the abolition of a statutory levy—I think that this is the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg; 24 per cent. voted against, and 15 per cent. either held no view or did not reply. Therefore, it was not the Government which pushed this ahead; it was a referendum which produced the results.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I take the point that the Minister is making, but I am not interested in the results of the referendum. I want to know what is the Government's attitude towards levies raised by statute.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, the Government are now very happy to allow the industry to adopt this voluntary method of raising the levy. That is what

1601
the industry wanted and the Government are in full agreement with them. I know that two-and-a-half years is a long time, but I think that the industry probably want to do it in a shorter period.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I do not want to involve the Minister in an interrogation, but I wish that he would answer the point. The point is this. The industry wants to do something. Obviously the Government, who are sensible people, will want to go along with the industry. I want to know what is the Government's attitude towards levies raised by statute. Are the Government impartial or do they hold the view—which, after all, is in accordance with their general philosophy—of being opposed to levies imposed by statute and thus will sooner or later lift them?
Viscount LONG: My Lords, the Government are eventually looking towards lifting them.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, so the Government are opposed in principle?
Viscount LONG: My Lords, in his remarks the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, referred to the vital matter of money for research. Not only do I agree with him, but it is important that the whole of industry—not only knitwear and hosiery—receive money for research. It is vitally important at this stage because of the vast competition which this country faces with the rest of the world. I think that I have answered most of the questions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NUCLEAR DETERRENT: REPLACEMENT POLICY
5.50 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY The Earl of KIMBERLEY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to replace Britain's existing nuclear deterrent. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I raised this Question in May 1978 and I make no apologies for raising it again tonight. Last May—18 months ago—there were five or six speakers; tonight we have 12, and it is a very distinguished list because we have two noble and gallant Lords; the only one missing is a Marshal of the Royal Air
1602
Force. In the last 18 months the situation has, if anyting, deteriorated because of the increased strength of the Soviets in both numbers and technology. If we are going to have our nuclear deterrent in the 1990s we do not have many months left to decide what it is to be.
Let us look into a crystal ball at a few possible situations which may happen in the 1990s. NATO may not exist, or it may exist in a much changed state. It is not even impossible that we may have some form of federal European defence. On the other hand, the United States might have an isolationist policy in ten years' time. They have had one before. One thing is certain, and that is that France will still have its own nuclear deterrent. Maybe there is an opportunity to think about doing some collusion and having some entente cordiale with France over this if we cannot afford our own. I just put that out as a thought.
We have to be prepared for the worst possible situation, and I do not want us to be impotent either strategically or politically at any future summit meetings. Therefore, we must be in a position of strength whereby we can establish ourselves not only as the leader, perhaps, of defence in Europe but simultaneously as a voice which is heard and paid attention to; a voice which is now, and will be, capable of exerting both influence and power in international affairs.
I am given to understand that my noble friend Lord Strathcona will probably stick very closely to his brief tonight. But it is a comforting thought that one of the many subjects my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is discussing with President Carter is this very subject. She is a brilliant negotiator, and so I hope that perhaps my small feelings of optimism will not be unjustified. I am not an expert able to decide which form our nuclear deterrent, if we have it, should take—whether it be Cruise missiles, or Tridents, or a mixture of both—although personally I would prefer the Trident, which I believe my noble and gallant friend Lord Hill-Norton favours.
I am sure that the noble Lords, Lord Ritchie-Calder and Lord Noel-Baker, will attack me rather in the same way that they did 18 months ago. I most certainly respect their views, but they are

1603
views that fill me with great alarm because I think they are completely wrong. We all know the horror of the Bomb, and that is why it is a deterrent and why we have had peace for 30-odd years. Eight days ago "Panorama" did a programme on this subject which I watched with great interest. I believe that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, was taken somewhat out of context in it, but I am not going to speak for him tonight. I watched this programme with great interest. I thought it was biased and, in some parts, quite despicable, particularly the interview with the unfortunate Commander of "HMS Resolution". I believe that my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing is going into this in greater detail later.
May I try to make myself perfectly clear: just because I maintain that we should have our independent nuclear deterrent in no way means that we should not also have comprehensive and strong conventional defence forces. I agree that all this costs money, but somehow we have to find the money, even if we have to tighten our belts. Even President Carter said the other day that he was going to increase his defence expenditure by 5 per cent.
To digress slightly, I can only approve wholeheartedly of the NATO decision to supplement our present defences with ground launched Cruise missiles and Pershings, because I personally do not put a great amount of faith in Mr. Brezhnev's propaganda in withdrawing tanks and troops. The balance in favour of the Warsaw Pact countries is still far too heavy. When he has removed his 1,000 tanks it will still leave him with 15,000, and NATO will have 6,500. The SS 20s and the Backfire bombers are what are needed to go. Let nobody be deluded, as some of the Dutch seem to have been, by the Soviets' pernicious and insidious propoganda. Let the Russians put their money where their mouth is. Let them start removing these implements of war which are not covered by the SALT 2 agreement.
Contrary to the belief that some noble Lords have about me, I assure them that I am not a warmonger. But I remember as a young man and as a young solider during the war what nearly happened to
1604
us in the 1930s. I do not want it to happen again. By all means let us have mutual and balanced force reductions, but in this instance "mutual" must be the operative word. Do not let us forget that SALT 2 does not cover the SS 20 and the Backfire. We in the West have the two most cherished possessions that the human race can have. We have freedom of thought and freedom of speech. They are sacred possessions, but they are not idly given to us. The powers of evil would dearly like to take them from us, and we shall keep them only by fighting unremittingly for them.
I appeal to my noble friend Lord Strathcona, when he answers tonight, to give our freedom-loving people the knowledge that the security of our country is uppermost in Her Majesty's Government's mind. I should dearly love to see a world free of military and police forces, but with our so-called civilisation of today that is not possible. Until such time as it one day becomes a reality, let us remain strong and retain our own independent nuclear deterrent.
5.58 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, it is good that the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, should have succeeded in arranging for us to discuss what I believe to be the all important and even overriding question of our strategic nuclear deterrent, and that we should be concentrating this evening on that issue alone. Usually it gets mixed up with such things as pensions, the Territorial Army, the Highland Regiments, armoured personnel carriers, or even the uniform for the Brigade of Guards, in a debate on a general defence review, which is unsatisfactory. The real debate on nuclear weapons—of course outside closed Government circles—is conducted not here but in learned journals, in specialised groups and institutes, and even occasionally in the quality Press. The general public regard it as a sort of impenetrable mystery, unless of course they are pacifists in which case they are just against all nuclear weapons on ideological grounds.
The Liberal Party has for some time conducted its own inquiry with the advice of reasonably qualified persons, and has reached a conclusion from which I believe it will only be dislodged with difficulty. In its view the existing Polaris

1605
force, which may be supposed with luck to be to some extent effective until the early 1990s, should not be replaced, and the money which the Government seem bent on spending in order to replace it by Tridents—apparently about £6 billion, but in all probability much more—should be devoted for the most—
Lord WIGG: £6,000 million.
Lord GLADWYN: I said £6 billion, and in all probability much more—should be devoted for the most part to the improvement of our so-called conventional forces; that is to say, new tanks, new antitank and anti-aircraft weapons, adequate reserves of munitions, which is most important, new aircraft, new patrol vessels and new hunter killer submarines. The reasons for this conclusion—which must, given the time limits imposed on our debate tonight, be severely compressed—I will now give.
The existence of a British force of four submarines with nuclear weapons capable of reaching the Soviet Union, only one of which I believe is normally on duty at any one time, can in no way by itself deter the Russians from attacking the West if they are ever disposed to do so, for any threat to use it, unless the Russians halted their offensive would clearly be ignored, seeing that, if it were carred out, it would inflict only limited damage on the Soviet Union whereas the United Kingdom would cease to exist as a nation by reason of Soviet nuclear retaliation. The bluff, in other words, would be called.
The force can therefore deter the Russians only from themselves proceeding to bomb the United Kingdom directly, or to threaten to do so, on a first strike. But it is most unlikely that as things are the Russians in the event of war would do any such thing, preferring, after advancing to the Rhine, unless held up by "tactical nukes", to rely on a conventional sea and air blockade in order to bring NATO, or at least its European members, to the conference table. The existence of our strategic force might indeed deprive the Soviet Union of the possibility of then, in those circumstances, forcing the United Kingdom to surrender by the threat of nuclear action. It might deprive the Soviet Union of the opportunity of doing that, always supposing of course that
1606
surrender was not achieved by conventional means. But as I have said, conventional means would, always given the Soviet occupation of much of Western Europe, be only too likely to be effective.
It is true that in the terrible event of general nuclear war involving the two super-Powers, the British Polaris might be launched against the Soviet Union, but in that event they would add very little to the devastation presumably already created by the Americans which would no doubt also by that time have been extended to the United Kingdom. We can therefore conclude, I believe, that in practice the existing British nuclear deterrent is to a large extent merely a monument to Britain's departed imperial glory and great power status which includes a desire not to be thought inferior to the French who, whatever they may say, are in precisely the same boat as we are.
It might be added that, although the present Polaris force becomes obsolete, as I understand it, in the early 1990s—wear and tear, increasing noise and so on—it may well in practice become obsolete well before then, as might indeed any replacement, owing to some perfection of anti-submarine devices by the Russians who may eventually be able effectively to tail any British Polaris submarine as it emerges from the Holy Loch or even to interfere with its communications. Nor is there any reason to suppose that the replacement of the present Polaris force by Tridents would alter this situation very materially. Certainly a Trident force, more especially if it consisted of, say, five submarines, could do much more damage to the Soviet Union than our existing Polaris, but if it ever got as far as doing that we for our part would cease to exist. Knowing that we should know this, the Russians could still disregard any threat of the use of Tridents on a first strike.
The deterrent effect of its possible use on a second strike—always presuming it is not somehow taken out or immobilised by Soviet submarines before it could be operated—would admittedly be greater, but not significantly so in the general nuclear context if the Russians were to be in any way successful in advancing to the Rhine and thereafter organising a sea and air blockade of these islands. To spend £6 billion and, no doubt in the

1607
end, £10 billion in replacing the Polaris by Tridents would seem to me, for all these reasons, to be indefensible.
It would be far preferable to devote this large sum, or any portion of it, to increasing our conventional means of defence, preferably in common with our European allies, this in itself going a long way towards raising the famous nuclear threshold. And it would be all the more undesirable if, as no doubt we shall, we agree to the stationing of a certain number of mobile cruise missile launchers in this country as part of a NATO move to neutralise the Soviet SS20 missiles, if not, unfortunately I suppose, their Backfire bombers.
I know-because the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, explained this to us the other day—that under the present proposals the cruise missiles to be stationed in this country will be under the exclusive control of the United States. This, though it obviously increases the risk for us, is reasonable enough—though I believe it will not be regarded as reasonable by a good many people—seeing that, unless we do accept this additional risk, the Germans will no doubt not agree to the whole scheme coming into operation. We must assume, however—and this is something I would ask the Government in their reply to confirm or deny—that SACEUR would authorise the use of cruise missiles based in this country against the Soviet Union only in the event of the Soviet Union's making first use of its SS20s against targets in the NATO area. In other words, the use of tactical nukes by one side or the other in what is called the theatre of war would not in itself necessarily involve the operation from this country of what in effect would be strategic nuclear weapons. That is something on which I should like a reply.
The argument that ground-based missiles in this country would be sitting targets for a Soviet nuclear attack, though it must be taken seriously, is at least questionable. Theoretically it might, I suppose, be possible for the Soviet Union, entirely out of the blue and at one fell swoop, to take out all nuclear cruise missile launchers in Western Europe with its SS20 missiles. But that is surely
1608
quite improbable. How could the Russians be certain that at least some launchers would not already have been displaced, which could be done at very short notice? How could they be certain that there would not, in such circumstances, be some comeback? How could they be assured that the Americans would not make some riposte of some kind?
There remains the argument that the Russians might well after a few years be able to install an effective anti-cruise missile defence system. In the long run there is, I imagine, always a defence against anything. But a missile flying beneath radar screens in bad or foggy weather would, on the face of it, require a good deal of detection, and even if it was eventually shot down by a fighter it would presumably go off and kill many people somewhere on enemy territory, including the pilot of the aircraft, one would suppose.
Yet if all this is so, what exactly would be the deterrent role of any continuing exclusively British submarine-based nuclear force? Always supposing that in the last resort it would be the Americans and not ourselves who on some second strike would bombard the Russians from British bases, in what imaginable circumstances could we do the same on our own? Only, I suppose—this point was touched on by my noble friend Lord Kimberley—if the Americans had gone back to America and taken all their nuclear weapons with them. But in such distressing circumstances Western Europe would be indefensible. The Germans would have no option but to become neutral and do a deal with the Russians, and Western Europe, deprived of United States support, would then be at the mercy of a Soviet conventional blockade which neither we nor the French would be able to counter by the suicidal threat of nuclear action on a first strike. If this is not a logical deduction, then the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government will certainly tell me why.
Our conclusion, therefore, is that while there has up till now been at least some logical grounds for maintaining a so-called independent British strategic nuclear force, there is—always assuming that NATO is to continue in being and that strategic nuclear missiles of a "European" nature are going to be placed in these islands

1609
under the sole control of the Americans—no such impelling reason for renewing it at such vast expense. Moreover, if we decide not to do so, the chances of success in the SALT 3 talks are, I suppose, likely to be somewhat increased, while our abandonment of a bogus "Great Power" role, together with a great increase in our conventional strength, would surely result in our being a much more influential member of the North Atlantic Council. If the French want to persist with a policy of grandeur, that will be up to them, but there is no reason why it should hurt us very much if they do.
In taking this line I am well aware that there are some in my own party who will not share it, either because they are pacifist in inclination (and their views are to be respected) and thus against the possession by this country, or the stationing in it, of any nuclear weapons, or because they may still believe, as I think some do, that an independent British strategic nuclear force may have some validity, even if it is very small.
I suspect, however—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will tell us—that the Labour Party is much more divided on this great issue than we are, and I even wonder whether all members of the Tory Party are convinced, for the reasons that I have been trying to develop, that we should be well advised to go in for replacing the Polaris by the Tridents in the years to come.
My Lords, I have not touched upon the possibility of replacing Polaris by submarine or air-launched cruise missiles—referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley—both of which are reasonable alternatives, if you accept the need for replacing our present strategic deterrent at all. It is even arguable that we might at small expense buy some of the Cruise missiles, if we wished from the Americans and place them, I suppose, in suitably camouflaged small surface ships which could then, in theory at least, provide us inexpensively with a small, "independent" stategic nuclear capability. But if the main body of Cruise missiles are in any case to he installed on land in the United Kingdom under United States command, what could be the point of that?
No, in all the circumstances, and certainly not for any sentimental reasons,
1610
but only those dictated by what I believe is commonsense, I conclude, my Lords, that we should be well advised not to take any steps towards replacing our present strategic nuclear deterrent.
6.12 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I take off exactly from where the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, left off. I adjure our friends—I hope that they are our friends—at least I adjure the Government to take this opportunity to get rid of something which is now becoming completely meaningless by any analysis, not just by sentiment. In this season of the year, if one goes around the toy shops one will be struck by the fact that all the toys now being produced for intelligent children are board games—Monopoly to train little capitalists, or war games to train militarists. But at least they are fun games. We are talking tonight about something that is not funny and is not a game, but you can do exactly what the children do: you can deploy, redeploy, you can toss dice, do this and that.
For 30 years now it has to me been competely meaningless that Britain should have an independent deterrent. It has no role. If, in wisdom, my own party in Government all those years ago had not decided to have the bomb at all, I should have been satisfied. In the 1950s it was manifestly plain that by no stretch of the imagination could Britain afford a meaningful deterrent. All we could do was what the French are doing—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn: they have follie de grandeur; leave them with it. It was not evident then, as it is now, that in the grand strategy—I call it grand nonsense, by and large—of the whole nuclear game, we are going to be a minute part of a system in which all we are doing, by being that minute part, is attracting possible destruction.
But, apart from that, there is, I suggest, the humiliation of being the trigger-man in a situation in which, as in the case of the Cruise missile, we are not even the masters of the missile but are being asked to take the penalties, and, as in the case of involvement with a Polaris fleet in NATO, we ourselves have no ultimate initiative. What are we? We are the "hoods", hired by someone else, like the Hessians, in some sort of military situation in which

1611
we are acting as the instruments—and not only acting as the instruments but paying for the weapons which we are going to use. To me this is total nonsense. As the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, has pointed out, I am basically a pacifist. I make no apology for that. It is a very sincerely held view. But, apart from that, I am also rather adept at looking at the facts both of the nuclear content and indeed of the numbers game that we are all playing.
We are playing a numbers game. Let me put it to your Lordships quite simply. If we have our so-called independent deterrent, if we move into a situation in which we are hiring American technique (as we are doing with the pressurised water reactor), we are in fact putting ourselves rather in the situation we are in at the moment, when I gather that the Prime Minister is not only negotiating for the new nuclear deterrent but is actually negotiating for ammunition for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. As I say, the Americans can withhold it. Let me be quite clear. We should be, we must be, aware that if we replace the Polaris by a Trident force, it would cost anything from £6,000 million to £10,000 million.
Lord ORR-EWING: £5,000 million.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: No, that has been recalculated. Inflation has taken place since last Sunday when that was published in the paper. We are talking of those orders of magnitude. Your Lordships realise that in that picture the component for which we are paying—four Polarises, possibly five Tridents—would mean that in terms of potential we should be about ·01 per cent. of the Russian retaliation potential. Work it out, my Lords. You can do the numbers game; we all play it. It means, however you act, that you are putting up a little Roman candle in a sort of ultimate defiance, and it will not be noticed anyway because by that time the world will have moved to its ultimate destruction.
We are doing this with the most incredible short-sightedness. It is not just a question of what it is costing. First, let us be quite clear. There is nothing in the moves that we are making, nothing in the defiance by the French or in this symbolic defiance by the British which will ulti-
1612
mately impress the Russians, or indeed our American allies. I suggest that we are now in a position to look again at this colossal waste. This is not a cowardly position that I am taking. This policy is ultimately invoking the take-out—and it will be the take-out. If there is to be a first strike, the first strike will take out that minute fleet. As we pointed out, they will be trailed anywhere by the Soviet, or whoever is our potential enemy, both by ground and by satellite devices. We shall be taken out, and at that moment the British Islands will be taken out, too.
The second matter I would come to is the question of the Cruise missiles. I think this policy is folly. We have tried to say this in this House before, and we have discussed it before. I think it is folly, exaggerated by the fact that we have no say in it; that we are just the "hoods", we are just the "trigger men". It means that we have provided targets for all that assemblage of potential destruction which we are always hearing about and which could be released by the Soviet Union, presumably, in some mad moment of first strike, plunging the world into a nuclear war and then inviting reprisals. The only thing I have to say to your Lordships is that at that moment Britain neither will have the potential to reply nor will it exist to reply. Therefore, if we are going to play the numbers game, let us look at it clearly and sensibly, at least to this extent: by realising that in eventually misdirecting this vast amount of money from all these other things, as our Government keep telling us we must do, we shall not only be worse off but shall actually be extending an invitation to total destruction.
6.21 p.m.
Lord HILL-NORTON: My Lords, it is obviously impossible in a discussion on an Unstarred Question to deal adequately with such a huge subject as that opened up by the Question so ably put by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, and I hope your Lordships will agree that a subject of such overriding national importance deserves at least a Short Debate early in the New Year. I hope, further, that when this occurs this particular issue will not be confused with the problem of long-range theatre nuclear forces, which is of a quite different nature. The barest bones of the subject we are discussing today are starkly simple, it

1613
seems to me; but so much misinformation about strategic nuclear weapons appears regularly in the Press and on television from alleged experts that it is as well to be clear what are the real issues that the Government are now facing, and what options are available to them.
In essence, the heart of the problem is whether we are to continue to be a strategic nuclear power or whether we are to get out of the business which all our Governments have supported for the last 15 years. Put another way, we are not deciding whether to go strategic nuclear, but whether to remain so. The noble Earl's Question does not precisely differentiate between strategic nuclear deterrents and other nuclear weapons which may be deployed as a deterrent themselves, either within the European theatre or on the battlefield, but I take it from what he has said that he inquires about the strategic weapons. Surely, my Lords, there can be no reasonable doubt (with respect to the noble Lords, Lord Gladwyn and Lord Ritchie-Calder, with whom I warmly disagree in this particular matter, both in general and in particular) that what has been, since its inception, a vital cornerstone of our defence policy must be maintained for as long ahead as anyone can foresee. I personally have no such doubts.
It is clearly necessary to review the ways of maintaining it, having regard, above all, to the overriding need for it to be convincing and for it to be capable of deterring attacks on our own vital interests, on the one hand, and of making an important contribution to the Western strategic nuclear forces, on the other. There is not time today, nor is your Lordships' House the place, to rehearse all the advantages and disadvantages of possible solutions, running, as they do, the gamut of technological, economic, industrial and practical options. May I simply state, as the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, has suggested, that I have no personal doubt that a submarine-borne ballistic missile solution has no serious rival for this role on any of these grounds, although it would be wise not to repeat the cheeseparing which led to our Polaris fleet comprising only four submarines. Five are necessary, my Lords, on both political and military grounds. It is quite irrelevant what proportion four or five, or any other small number, is of the
1614
Russian force if we are talking about deterrence. We are not talking about a nuclear exchange.
From a technical and industrial point of view, and very likely from an economic and political point of view, too, there can be no doubt that collaboration with the United States over a new missile—but not over the warhead, nor the submarine—on the lines of the Nassau and Polaris sales agreements of 16 years ago must be the course most likely to meet the aim. I have read in the Press—indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, has just said—that the Prime Minister may have discussed these matters in Washington this week, and if this is so I, for one, hope that she was successful. It has been said, and it has been closely argued, that there is no need to decide to replace the Polaris force for a long time yet. I hope the noble Lord the Minister shares my view that this is simply not true.
It has also been said that we cannot afford to spend the very large sums involved. According to the best unclassified sources, we are talking about £400 million a year over a ten-year period. But history has shown that our country always has spent what has had to be spent on its defence, and I devoutly hope that this is not going to become the exception to that rule. It is perhaps 4 or 5 per cent. of the present annual defence budget; and, to put that in some perspective for your Lordships, it is quite likely that the total expenditure just for the Tornado aircraft for the Royal Air Force will actually be more. It has been argued, too, my Lords—and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has just argued it again—that such money would be better spent on conventional weapons systems, but this does not seem to me, at least, to be an option now before the Government, if the arguments for maintaining our strategic nuclear deterrent force intact are as compelling as I believe them to be. I would warmly agree that the maintenance of this ultimate sanction should not be at the expense of our conventional arms, for I believe them to be inadequate now. May I repeat, my Lords, that if some new money has to be found, so be it. It is the height of folly to let your life assurance policy lapse and to spend the money saved on a shiny new motor car which you may never live to drive.

1615
I have said nothing about the very involved and subjective arguments about deterrence and how best it may be achieved; nor have I touched upon the great importance of another strategic nuclear deterrent centre; nor the host of interlocking situations, such as time-pressure for a decision, whether we want the French to be the only nuclear power in Europe and whether our allies do, which have led me to my own conclusions. Should your Lordships wish, as I hope, to return to this nuclear scene, and perhaps to discuss the quite different long-range theatre nuclear force problems, about which the Government have happily already taken the right decision, it may be more appropriate to say something on those occasions.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, it is a fearsome matter to have to follow a Chief of the Defence Staff on his own subject. It becomes positively nerve-racking when one knows that another is to follow immediately afterwards. It would be agreeable to the nerves to be able to agree with both; but I suspect that it may turn out that they do not agree with each other. Therefore, I find myself compelled to disagree with one or the other. A certain boldness is needed to take this course and, luckily, I am feeling slightly bold, I believe, this evening.
Familiarity with one's surroundings has the effect of blunting the perceptions so that after a time we no longer see them as they really are. If year by year, one lives in one's own household surrounded by one's own people and their belongings, gradually its components and its members will begin to appear not at all as they really are or as they seem to an outsider or an infrequent visitor. Everything is so familiar and so precisely to our own liking that it may come as a shock to learn that anybody might be upset by the wallpaper or by the oleograph of Great-Uncle Fred. One may be offended, incredulous even, to learn that, despite our own impeccable good taste and ready wit, there are some who find our surroundings tasteless and depressing and us a bore.
As in the home, so it may be in the wider world, in the world of NATO, for example.
1616
Is it possible that we have lived in it so long and grown so used to it that we no longer see the realities of it as they truly are? It is possible that our vision has become clouded? I am sure this is possible and think it has actually occurred. If it has, we are living in a deceptive world, and, possibly, a make-believe world, and I hope that nobody imagines that that can be safe. We might test the matter by stepping through the Iron Curtain and turning to see what meets our gaze as we look back from the point of view of the Russians.
Let us now forget the analogy, my Lords. It has, I hope, enabled me to make the point that, if we wish to forestall or prevent any kind of nuclear adventure from the Russian side in our direction, we must make an appreciation from the Russian point of view. This is not an original notion but it is one that is all too often forgotten or overlooked. It might be easier to do it if we could get rid of one or two illogical attitudes, and irrelevant arguments. I rate highly among irrelevant arguments the frequently expressed belief that the Russians do not want war—the conclusion being that if they do not want war it is much less likely to happen. Of course, they do not want war. Hitler did not want it and I dare say Ghengis Khan did not want it. What we may expect the Russians or any other aggressively-minded people or nation to want is that they should be able to get as much they want without fighting for it. The way to get it is to make it plain that they are prepared to fight for it, if absolutely necessary, in the end and as a last resort. Only when this process is exhausted does war actually begin.
Before it does so, there comes the critical moment when the apprehensive world holds it breath—and a long drawn-out breath at that—while the aggressor is forced to make his decision, when he is faced with a line of reasoning that goes like this. He says to himself: "I have all that these people are going to let me have. To get the rest, I shall have to fight for it. The question is, 'Do I want it badly enough to take the risk?'." Then comes the key question. "What exactly is the risk?" The moment when a potential aggressor finds himself faced with that inescapable question is the moment when the intended victims' power of deterrence takes or does not take effect.

1617
In assessing the likelihood of an attack against ourselves from whatever quarter, we thus have to evaluate and balance, one against the other, the answers to three questions. The first is, what does the other side want? the second, how badly does he want it? and the third, what do we have to dissuade him from trying to get it? To the first question we know the answer. It has been proclaimed throughout the whole world long ago: the universal success of the Revolution, which means world domination, no less.
There is no need for me to weary noble Lords with any assessment of how far the Russians have gone towards achieving this aim. They have gone a long way and, equally certainly, they mean to go a long way more. What they are doing, I have no doubt, is to build up so powerful a force by land, by sea and in the air that they could expect no one to dare to withstand them. Thus, by the sheer weight of the threat, they will eventually be able to achieve their heart's desire without fighting. They will supply weapons and arms and "advisers" to other people, of course, and will stamp ruthlessly on smaller nations such as Hungary; but never at any serious risk to themselves that they can possibly avoid. Therefore, they are unlikely to attack NATO which holds the nuclear deterrent, the American nuclear deterrent.
Now, my Lords, if you were engaged in strategic planning on behalf of the Warsaw Pact powers and in drawing up an appreciation, what would your thoughts be as you gazed across the wall westwards in the direction of the United Kingdom? You would be looking at it with, what to us would be, an outsider's eye. What you would see would be a spectacle not quite the same as the sights familiar to us. You would see, I think, the strategic key to the whole situation: a large offshore island protecting, commanding and served by the European ports and the North Sea oilfields. You would see it also as the home of various NATO air bases and of numerous nuclear missile sites. You would observe also that it was virtually without means of defence and without means of defending its own civil population. "What a plum!" you would say. "What a prize!"—and, you might calculate, close enough to be overrun quickly and without too much difficulty from the west, from the seaward side, without interfering with any
1618
other country at all. And you might calculate that when you had control of it, you would be able to pick off, isolate or subvert the other European countries one at a time and at your leisure.
Of course, you would be unlikely to recommend such a plan to be put into effect immediately in the face of the terrifying nuclear threat from the United States. So your next step, I fancy, would be to work away at the problem of isolating Great Britain, step by step. At about this point in the argument, we come upon an example of what I have described as illogical attitudes. To a proposal that we should have our own nuclear deterrent, someone is certain sooner or later to ask, "Do we not trust the Americans?" It is the wrong question. The right question would be, "Do you think that the Americans are certain to fire their rockets as a first strike"—for a second strike is no good to us—"if they see that we are in danger?" The answer is, No. It is not a question of trust and, in my view, it is dangerous, not to say mischievous, to use this highly emotive word.
It is not a question of trust because the Americans have never undertaken to do any such thing. And we cannot, and must not, count on them to invite the certain destruction of their own cities and millions of their own people, in the hope of averting a disaster to our own small country. The idea is simply not reasonable. Indeed, it is far less reasonable than it would have been to have expected them to come hurrying across the Atlantic in August 1914 or September 1939. Whether it will seem more or less reasonable in ten years' time, we cannot now know. In any case, it is now that the decision has to be made.
So we must leave the American deterrent out of our calculations altogether in making the decision that we have to make at the moment: that is to say, the decision whether or not we shall have our own independent nuclear deterrent. What we are visualising now is a situation in which the whole of the Russian threat is visibly directed against ourselves—and ourselves alone. This is a situation which, if I were on the other side, I should he keen to bring about. If I were on the other side I might also think that there was not much point in trying to bring it into being if I knew that Great Britain had her own

1619
independent nuclear deterrent, and if, furthermore, I were convinced that the tiresome Islanders would use it rather than submit.
The next step we have to consider then is the solving of a somewhat knotty problem. How are we to convince the other side that we really would use these rockets, whatever kind they and their means of delivery may be? In addressing ourselves to this problem we should be as clear as possible about the situation. We are under a recognisable threat which is a threat to ourselves alone. It may therefore be a threat of anything short of nuclear attack. Even if we cannot be totally certain that the Americans would respond to such an attack with intercontinental ballistic missiles, the Russians, for their side, could be even less certain that they would not. Moreover, it would be egregious folly to drop rockets on Great Britain without trying to knock out the missile bases in East Anglia. That might not be difficult to achieve, but the attempt would be in fact an attack on NATO and invite the full United States retaliation—and that is not what I am talking about.
So we must be prepared to fire our rockets into Russia, not in a retaliatory second strike—since there will be no first strike to which to retaliate—but in a pre-emptive first strike of our own. Could we actually do that and could we convince a potential enemy that we would? Well, my Lords, I think we might. I think we could make it convincingly plain that in certain circumstances we would fire our rockets without waiting for any to be fired at us: and I believe, furthermore, that if we succeeded in doing that the deterrent would in fact work and we should be safe. There are lots of "ifs" in this situation.
So that, as I see it, is the only true argument in favour of our maintaining our own independent nuclear deterrent. The question is, my Lords, do you find it convincing? Have I shown that we ought to maintain an independent nuclear deterrent in one form or another of our own? If you think I have, my Lords, then I am afraid I must disagree with you, because I do not. I have done my best in the past to convince myself that we ought to maintain our own deterrent,
1620
using arguments that I have thought—and I believe thought rightly—to be valid, and I have failed. I have failed because I have recognised a vital flaw in my own reasoning. I daresay that other noble Lords have also recognised it.
I continue to believe that an independent deterrent would be useful to us in the case—and only in the case—of a threat to us alone. But, try as I will, I have totally failed to see how such a threat could possibly arise. It cannot arise overnight at a moment's notice. It must occur gradually; there must be a gradual working away at the foundations of peace from the other side which will be perfectly perceptible to all our allies as well as to ourselves. I cannot imagine any means by which, say, the oil supplies round the Cape could be disrupted without other nations being affected; how an invasion against our Western seaboard could be mounted quietly in isolation. We cannot, I believe, be detached from our allies in such a way that an attack could be made against us without its being clearly made equally against them, in which case the whole of the American deterrent operates, and our own independent one is so small as to be relatively of no significance.
Therefore I do not think there is any point in having this independent deterrent, simply because the situation does not arise. I hope that I may invite you to notice, my Lords, that there are certain arguments that I have not used. I have not used the argument, and do not use the argument, that we cannot afford it. I believe, with my noble friend Lord Kimberley that there is nothing that we cannot afford when it comes to defence. I have not used the moral or pacifist argument, although I have respect for these and indeed I believe in them. They are for individuals and they are not ones that can be used by governments which are responsible for the safety of their country. Therefore I conclude that the independent deterrent is not for us and we should not, when the Polaris rockets come to an end and the hull life of the submarines comes to an end, replace them by Tridents or by anything else of a long-range nature. I have only to add that I heartily endorse the wish expressed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, that early in the new year we may have a Short Debate on the whole subject.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him why he assumes that Russia will destroy us when in the last war she lost 20 million men fighting on our side? What makes him think that she now wants to destroy this island? It is ludicrous.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, I think that I must wait until Hansard is published in the morning in order that I may read the report of my speech and discover the illusion to which she refers.
6.46 p.m.
Lord NOEL-BAKER: My Lords, I rise to oppose the arguments of noble Lords who have urged that our Polaris submarines should be replaced in the early future by Trident submarines with Poseidon missiles. I want to argue that the NATO deterrent, and our contribution to the NATO deterrent, are enormously greater than that which is required for deterrents; are enormously greater than are required for any conceivable military purpose. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and to my noble friend, Lord Ritchie-Calder, I think that they are very gravely underestimating the power of the submarine force which we now maintain. I state it as I understand it; if I go wrong the Government will correct me.
We have four submarines with 16 Polaris missiles each. The Polaris missiles are MIRVs. Each missile can deliver 10 weapons on 10 different targets with great accuracy. Each submarine has 160 weapons. Each weapon is four times as powerful as the bomb which destroyed the city of Hiroshima in 1945. Each weapon has 50 kilo tonnes in yield; the Hiroshima bomb was 12 kilo tonnes. Russia has fewer than 500 cities of 100,000 population.
In 1977—two years ago—I was at a conference in Hiroshima which considered a report by a commission of highly expert physicists, Japanese and others, on the effects of the first two nuclear bombs. The British member was Professor Joseph Rotblat, whose competence and authority are familiar to your Lordships. The commission found that the first atomic bomb which fell on Hiroshima did far greater damage and caused far greater loss of life than the governments
1622
had ever previously admitted. On the first day it killed no fewer than 140,000 people. Many, many perished in later years. Indeed, they are dying still. A committee of social scientists discovered that the life of the survivors was almost totally ruined: nearly all of them have declared that they have lived a living death. The bomb destroyed a city of 400,000 people—completely destroyed it—and Russia has fewer than 500 cities of 100,000 population. Six hundred and forty weapons, each four times as much in yield as the Hiroshima bomb—surely that would make even the Russians hesitate, if they thought of attacking us alone.
I venture to believe that so long as we rely on what we call "deterrents", our contribution is quite as great as it ought to be and that the NATO stock of deterrent weapons is overwhelmingly greater than is required. But I believe that the time has come not only to make that estimate, but to examine, to discredit and to discard the whole doctrine of deterrents.
What is the doctrine? It is that the nuclear war must never be fought. Noble Lords will have seen the marvellous documentary film prepared by Dr. Nigel Calder, the distinguished son of our distinguished colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, entitled "Nuclear Nightmare"—a collection of statements by staff officers about the possible use of nuclear weapons. Throughout the film there came the theme: "The war must never he fought. We must build up the stocks but each weapon must be labelled with the warning sign, 'Never to be used'." To prevent its being used, both sides in the nuclear arms race must maintain a massive power to strike the other, a power completely to obliterate the other. The policy is called Mass Assured Destruction, MAD for short, an onomatopoeic acronym of singular felicity.
Each side retains the power completely to destroy the other, and therefore the other will never strike. Therefore deterrence makes us safe. It is, I would venture to submit with respect, the most glaring non sequitur in the whole history of human debate. If you intend that weapons shall never be used, abolish them all. Let both sides agree. Noble Lords on all sides of the House will

1623
accept that proposition and say: "Yes, we all want it but it does not happen".
British Governments of all complexions since 1945 have been bound by dozens of UN resolutions. From the first resolution adopted by the first General Assembly to the final document of the Special Session in May last year, all British Governments have been bound to the policy of total nuclear disarmament. The UN is now engaged on the basis of that final document with two bodies of able statesmen of great authority—the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva and the UN Disarmament Committee in New York—working out the plans by which that total nuclear disarmament can be brought about. But will anybody think that Her Majesty's Government are taking that work seriously or have any genuine belief that they can help to make it succeed if we now decide to adopt Poseidon weapons and Trident submarines in 1990?
I believe that the doctrine of deterrence is a dangerous fraud. Will it ensure that the other side will never strike? It was President John Kennedy who said in 1961 that the future of civilisation hung by the slenderest of threads, which could be cut at any moment by accident, madness or miscalculation. There have been a lot of accidents with nuclear weapons, many of them classed by the Government authorities as serious. We have had madmen in power since Hitler and Mussolini. They were mad and they were in power not so long ago. If you want miscalculations by the General Staff, look at the Vietnam war. President Kennedy was stating three very real dangers.
His authority does not stand alone. I do not need to commend to your Lordships the words of Captain Basil Lydell-Hart. I was privileged to know him, and in 1961 he wrote a book called Defence or Deterrence. It was written to prove that if the weapons existed in time of war they would be used, and would lead to utter disaster. Captain Lydell-Hart said that any man who talked of winning the war with nuclear weapons was a danger to his country and to the whole of humanity.
Then there is the speech of the late Lord Mountbatten, which was delivered
1624
in May to the Scientific Council of the Stockholm Peace Research Institute. Surely the Government and the British people will listen to Lord Mountbatten. His speech was delivered with passion and he told his friends that he wanted to be remembered by that speech. He was speaking as a military man who had given 50 years' service in peace and war to his country in the armed forces: at sea, at the battle of Cape Matapan, where he was picked up after his ship had been sunk—he swam about in the Mediterranean, a Mediterranean covered with oil, for more than an hour with a friend of mine before they were picked up—and in the great retreat through Burma, which saved India from the Japanese. Lord Mount-batten had an unqualified record in high command and in every other form of military service. Speaking as a man with that record, he said:
"The nuclear arms race has no military purpose. I cannot conceive any use of a nuclear weapon which will not lead to escalation and general nuclear war".
He quoted a Japanese journalist's description of what happened in Hiroshima, and followed it with his own terrible description of the collapse of civilisation when nuclear weapons were used. He then said:
"War cannot be fought with nuclear weapons. They only add to our perils".
Let us suppose that it happens that the weapons are used. I quote the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who, talking of nuclear war, said in another place in 1965:
"Perhaps the Chinese will survive, perhaps Asia and Africa will survive, perhaps the United States and Russia, after suffering frightful damage, might survive. But this I know. We in this island will not survive".
I venture to say to the Government, with this new disarmament negotiation going on in the United Nations in Geneva and New York, that their first task, before they think of replacing our Polaris weapons, is to give their power and their influence to ensuring that the proposals for total nuclear disarmament, which were put forward by the Special Session last year, shall now, and quickly, succeed. The second Special Session is due in 1982. There is not too long to make a preparation.
I turn, briefly I hope, to the nuclear deterrent which we have deployed with

1625
our army on the Rhine. NATO has 7,000 nuclear weapons in Europe. Some of them, it is said, are very small, as small as one kiloton, even half a kiloton—a battlefield weapon, which Lord Mount-batten said does not exist. Half a kiloton is one-twenty fourth the size of the Hiroshima bomb. Let me try to bring home to noble Lords who have some experience of war what half a kiloton really means.
In the first world war, the most powerful weapon in common use was the 12 inch or 300 millimetre shell. A 12 inch shell was a very formidable affair. I was once present when one such shell killed 60 men and wounded 120. I was once camped in a narrow valley where we had good shelter, but when we went out to do our jobs we were under gunfire. We had a lot of small calibre stuff. But once in a major battle we were bombarded by 12 inch mortar shells, 50 in a week, seven a day—not a very intense bornbardment—at irregular intervals. But the roar of their descent, the convulsion of their explosion on the earth, was such that it broke the nerve of some of my best men and I had to send them down to base. A half a kiloton weapon is the equivalent of 1,000 12 inch shells exploding at the same point and at the same instant together. If they were used anywhere near the line, it would drive the troops clean round the bend. They would retaliate with the largest nuclear stuff that they possessed. That is how Lord Mountbatten's escalation would come about.
Let us imagine that we really used our weapons to repel a Russian invasion of West Germany. Let us imagine that NATO used 500 weapons of the Hiroshima yield—12 kilotons. They would be among the smaller ranges of our so-called tacticals. Lord Mountbatten said that no nuclear weapon should be called "tactical", and when you remember that two such bombs put the Japanese out of the world war it is indeed an extravagant misuse of language to call a nuclear weapon "tactical". It is only a way of covering up, of trying to make it seem small and acceptable.
Let us assume that 500 Hiroshima bombs are used against the Russians. They are directed with great accuracy at enemy command posts, at airfields and
1626
runways, at rail centres, at road junctions, at telephone exchanges, at communications in general, at depots of arms and at manpower in barracks. Inevitably, most of those targets will be in towns and the towns of West Germany will be bombarded by Hiroshima bombs. Between the towns, there are great forests. The towns will be utterly destroyed and the forests will be burned from end to end, in fire storms that no one can stop. What will remain of West Germany? The invading Russian army will, of course, be destroyed, but so will our German allies. German society will virtually cease to exist, and when that battle is over we shall have 6,500 of our NATO stock of nuclear weapons still remaining in our hands.
I venture to submit that our nuclear deterrent is incomparably greater than is required for any legitimate purpose of deterrence and its danger, of which I have spoken—I hope at not too great length—is compounded by the fact that NATO strategic thinking, like Russian strategic thinking, like Herman Kahn's strategic thinking, like everybody's strategic thinking about nuclear weapons is in utter chaos. It was a United States minister, a deputy secretary of defence, Mr. Morton Halperin, who said:
"The NATO doctrine is to fight with conventional arms until we are losing, then to fight with nuclear tacticals until we are losing and then to blow up the world".
That is the truth about the strategic thinking of the general staffs on nuclear weapons. The only answer is the total abolition of all nuclear stocks—and the time is very short.
7.10 p.m.
Lord CARVER: My Lords, when one faces up to this very difficult question of whether and, if so, in which way to replace what is called "the British nuclear deterrent", one must answer three questions. The first is whether we should continue to maintain the capability to design, produce and maintain our own nuclear warheads. The second is whether we should continue to man the delivery systems which, in the case of the Army and the Royal Navy, and, in some cases, the Royal Air Force, are not designed or produced by ourselves. The third is whether we should continue to try to

1627
maintain a so-called independent strategic nuclear weapon system.
It is as well at this stage to define what we mean by that. "Strategic" means that it is designed to do very great damage to targets within the Soviet Union which are considered by the Soviet Union to be of such great importance that they are protected by their anti-ballistic missile system. And "independent" means that it is intended to he used by us alone when the Americans are not using theirs and that it must be capable of both penetrating the anti-ballistic missile system and carrying out the designed damage when nobody else is attempting to do it at the same time.
The answers which I would give to those three questions are the following. There are military and even stronger political reasons why we should continue to design, produce and maintain our own warheads. It is of considerable interest that practically all the evidence, if not all, given to the Select Committee of another place which began to consider this matter, was in favour of that.
I give an absolutely unequivocal "Yes" to the question: should we continue to man the delivery systems? I believe it is of very great importance to the solidarity of NATO that all its members should share both the responsibility and the risk of manning nuclear delivery systems and having them based on their own territory, whether or not they themselves man them.
But it is when I come to the answer to the third question that I believe there are considerable disadvantages and little advantage in our struggling to maintain an independent strategic system which is capable of penetrating Soviet anti-ballistic missile defences and inflicting very great damage entirely on its own.
I should like at this stage to make it absolutely clear that I am not against nuclear weapons as such. I believe that they form an extremely important part of NATO's armoury. They keep the risks of war high. It is as well that we have been reminded in such dramatic terms by the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, of what those risks are. But if we keep the risks of war high we keep the probability of war low. It is the great risk to both the Soviet Union and the United States of going to
1628
war which keeps the peace and which has kept the peace in Europe for so long—longer than in any other century.
My reasons for considering that there are disadvantages and little advantage in struggling to maintain an independent strategic system are these. First, whatever may be the sums, at 1979 prices, that have been bandied about today about the cost of such a system, I believe that it will inevitably have a serious effect on the equipment programmes, which I believe are of higher priority in the same time scale. I believe, secondly, that it fosters an undesirable concept that we can go it alone against the Soviet Union or against the Warsaw Pact. On military grounds alone I believe that this is very undesirable. Thirdly, in the circumstances in which the temptation to go it alone arose, I believe that it would produce very considerable pressure on the Prime Minister and Government of the day to employ that capability. And if that capability were employed, I believe that the retaliation would totally destroy this country and almost all the inhabitants in it.
For some 21 years I have been concerned with this subject—ever since I was Director of Army Plans just after Suez. In those days it was the Royal Air Force which manned the so-called independent strategic system. At that time the Royal Navy were quite critical of the arguments which the Royal Air Force produced to justify it. Now the boot is slightly on the other foot, although the Royal Air Force are inhibited to a certain extent in their criticism by themselves having previously used the same arguments. Over the years the arguments have shifted, and I have heard them all; but in that time I have never heard or read a scenario which I would consider to be realistic in which it could be considered to be right or reasonable for the Prime Minister or Government of this country to order the firing of our independent strategic force at a time when the Americans were not prepared to fire theirs—certainly not before Russian nuclear weapons had landed on this country. And, again, if they had already landed, would it be right or reasonable? All it would do would be to invite further retaliation.
Let me deal, if I may, with some of the arguments that are produced in favour of such a system. The first I hope we can

1629
dismiss quickly. It is called the trigger argument. It is one which has been put forward at times both by the French and by ourselves but which I regard as totally irresponsible. It is that by having our own independent strategic system, we could, in circumstances in which the United States were reluctant to employ theirs, fire ours off and the Russians would not know whose it was that had been fired. They would have to assume that it was American, so they would reply, and we should have triggered off the global strategic nuclear exchange. That argument has been seriously used at times both by this country and by the French, and I hope that your Lordships will regard it as totally irresponsible.
The second argument, which I also reject, is that there could be some vital interest of ours in the defence of which the United States and our allies were not prepared to support us when we were threatened by the Soviet Union and that, rather than lose that vital interest, we should be prepared to threaten to use, and then perhaps would finally use our own system. Like the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, I have been unable to envisage what on earth that vital interest could be, or what a realistic scenario could be which would bring that about. The risk to ourselves would be total, while the risk to the Soviet Union would be great but only partial.
A more valid argument, although I would prefer to say a less invalid one, is one in which war had started in Europe, NATO forces were engaged but the United States feared escalation to the stage of strategic nuclear exchange and refused to authorise the use of nuclear weapons at all, or refused to escalate beyond either the tactical or the theatre. In those circumstances, would it be right, would it be reasonable let alone would it be likely, that the United Kingdom should decide to go it alone? It is very doubtful that we should have the support of our allies in doing so. Indeed, in those circumstances do we think that it would stop the Russians in their tracks? I believe that the answer to all those questions is "No".
Finally, the argument which we have heard in the House this evening is that it is a form of insurance against the withdrawal by the United States of her support of the defence of Western Europe, that it is
1630
an insurance against the breakdown of NATO and that our allies recognise this and welcome it. Well, one must envisage what the situation in Europe and the world would be if for some reason or other the United States had decided to withdraw its support for European defence.
Do your Lordships suppose for one moment that any form of Western Alliance, let alone NATO, would survive such a political situation? You have only to cast your eyes around who the other members of the European Community and of NATO are. Would the Scandinavian members, would the Mediterranean members, would the Low Countries, and would that key country of all, the Federal Republic of Germany, decide to stand all together, relying on the support only of the independent strategic nuclear deterrent of ourselves and perhaps, but not necessarily, that of France also? I do not believe they would. I do not believe that they could welcome a threat by us under those circumstances to employ nuclear weapons against Russia. I believe that they would consider that the risks to them would be too great.
It is often said that our allies welcome the fact that we have such a force. I have never heard an authoritative military or political figure of any of our allies welcome the fact officially that we have an independent strategic force. I have indeed heard them welcome the fact that we are in the nuclear business, because, whether they are Americans or European, they believe that the fact that America is not alone in this is of great political value. But it is not necessarily of military value.
A further argument produced—and we heard reference to it from my noble and gallant friend earlier on—is about the second point of decision. I have never seen the point of this second point of decision. If the decision is the same as that of the United States it makes no difference. If the United States' decision is yes, they will employ theirs, and our decision is no, we will not, it makes no difference at all to what happens either to this country or to NATO. The Russians would not be the slightest bit impressed that we had decided that we were not going to use ours. If the United States' decision is that they were not going to use theirs and our decision was yes, that is a situation I have already dealt with.

1631
Your Lordships will, therefore, I hope, appreciate that I do not regard the replacement of this force as a matter of high priority. I believe the Government are heading for the same trouble they had when they were last in office, when the equipment programme became seriously overloaded. When that happens when the programme of future defence equipment gets beyond the resources of all kinds which are going to be devoted to it, the inevitable result is a series of cancellations of projects which have cost a great deal to develop over the years, and this is extremely wasteful. The £5,000 million at 1979 prices, or something of that order, if that is what it is, which this force is going to cost is going to clash with the Jaguar Harrier replacement programme for the Royal Air Force, with the Chieftain tank replacement programme for the Army and many other important projects, and also some very sensitive projects for the Royal Navy.
Having said what I think the Government should not do, it is incumbent upon me to say what I think they should do. I believe they should regard our nuclear force as a theatre force, as most of our allies in fact do, and that they should look at our longer-range theatre force—I am separating this from the purely tactical force—as one; they should look at the aircraft-delivered force and the submarine-delivered force in the light of its being a theatre nuclear force, and look at its modernisation as one problem, one force. The options open to them are several in that case. One of them may well be—and I think it is a perfectly reasonable one—that the platform from which they would decide to deliver these things would be a submarine, but I do not believe that it would necessarily demand five of them. Another option could possibly be that we should offer to man some of the cruise missiles to be based in this country, and if the Dutch will not have them in their country we should offer to man them in this country.
The Americans are always saying their allies should do more, and they ought to welcome such an offer, though 11 do not believe they will. What I am sure about in my own mind is that it would be wrong of the Government, and not in the interests of this country, to commit so large a slice of future defence equipment
1632
programmes to a weapon system for which the principal justification is political machismo.
7.27 p.m.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, it is very difficult indeed to follow not only the last speech by itself, of which I think much more will be heard in the ensuing weeks, but to follow both the last speech and Lord Hill-Norton's, because when a great sailor and a great soldier disagree so diametrically about what ought to be done the civilian has to stand back and leave the matter to be judged by the only authorities which can rightly judge it, that is the Government of the day and the people who put them in office. I do remark, however, that we are discussing mostly not how the Polaris force should be prolonged but whether it should be prolonged. I just want to make one point about that "whether".
It seems to me that all the old arguments of the late 1950s, when we first went thermo-nuclear, have changed very little, and it has been a surprise to me to hear not only Lord Cork and Orrery but also Lord Carver himself include among the arguments which they reject for maintaining our nuclear force the possibility of a first strike. Certainly I, and I think probably most of those in the Labour Party who have supported the existence of the British independent nuclear deterrent, have never done so on the basis of a possible British first strike. Such a thing does indeed seem very absurd in all lights. But we have done so, on the contrary, on the possibility of a British second strike; that is, the theory of posthumous or bee-sting deterrent; namely; that, irrespective of anything the Americans may be saying, we are able to say to the Russians, "We refuse to do this even though you should obliterate us, because you will not succeed in obliterating at least one of our submarines and with that we shall obliterate a highly civilised life in your country". This is the possibility which counts and this is the option the prolongation or otherwise of which should be discussed and decided, and will be.
Here I would like to add my voice very strongly to those who have called for an early full debate on the matter in the new year. In what follows I should like to sketch various points which I hope will

1633
be taken up in that debate. I think my old friend Lord Strathcona—we served together in the last war—is going to have enough to answer without going into the thick of the theory of deterrents.
It remains true that we have no right to call on the Americans to sacrifice New York and 40 other of their cities for something which may happen here in Europe. I prefer to look at it that way round. I do not like the arguments: Can we trust them to come in? The question to me is: Have we the right to demand that they come in? This question has been familiar to everybody who has been deeply into it for many years, and it has been decided by authorities as diverse as Mr. Macmillan, when he was Prime Minister, and Mr. Kissinger, speaking in Brussels just a week or two ago, that notwithstanding trust, whichever way you look at it, countries in Europe cannot be certain that the United States would incur the certain destruction of its own culture at the moment when the countries in Europe judged the best moment in their own interests during a war. That is the argument, and to my mind the only argument, for maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent.
In this respect I would point out, especially to Liberal colleagues, that the position of France is exactly the same as ours. I do not believe either the French or we do it for grandeur or gloire, which can be simply translated as grandeur and glory, and often are by the French. These are not our reasons. We do it for the same reasons that the Americans did it first and the Russians second. The Americans developed independent nuclear deterrents because they were afraid the Germans were doing so. The Russians developed them because they knew that the Americans had done so. Britain and France developed them because we knew that the Russians had done so and because we had not the right to pull in America. China developed them because they knew that the Russians had done so. So it goes down the line and independent nation States, without the discipline of disarmament, have done so and will do so. We are just the third.
I should like to make a few comments about language. In the major debate next time can we see whether we can get away from the words "tactical" and "theatre" in talking about weapons whose size has
1634
been terrifyingly evoked by my noble friend Lord Noel-Baker and the proximity of which to their targets is neither here nor there? It is surely not the nearness of a weapon to its target which makes it tactical or strategic but the effect that it has on the economy of a country when it goes off. There is no nuclear weapon in the world which is not grossly and a hundred times strategic. Let us not let the super-powers get away with the use of the word "tactical". Let us not use the polite word "theatre" which is used to describe the field of Waterloo, even the Battle of the Somme. Let us not use that polite word for an area stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals.
At this point I should like to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, who said that modernisation of the medium range nuclear weapons in Europe was a separate issue from the continuation of our SLBM force. May we raise in our debate that very relationship? I have in mind, in particular, the question of one key and two key. Mr Pym has said in the House of Commons, in so many words, that the Cruise missiles and Pershings are to be one key—that is, they are to be American owned and American controlled. He also implied in a discussion which took place in the House of Commons that there was nothing very new about that, that all the American nuclear weapons stationed in Europe in recent years have been one key—that is, under single American control—without anybody else's finger on the safety catch, without a British, German, Belgian or Italian finger on the safety catch. I should like to ask the Government whether, after consideration, they can give a fuller statement on that, perhaps in our debate or perhaps in some other forum.
In the old days we had the Thor missiles in this country which were withdrawn at the time of the Cuba crisis. They were dual key. I think that when the Pershing force was first set up on the Continent of Europe—Serjeants and Pershings—they were all dual key. When did the system become one key? Now we are told that the Cruise missiles and so on are to be one key—well and good—and we are also told that there is to be a consultation mechanism about whether they should be used or not. I think that there is also a consultation mechanism about whether the British Polaris force

1635
should be used. We know, of course, that it rests on American rockets. It is British housed, it has British warheads but American rockets. We know that the same formula is proposed for the Trident force: British housed, British warheads and American rockets. There is, therefore, an American interest if not hold, over the use of that British weapons system.
Will the Government after consideration again compare on the one hand, the degree of influence we shall have over the use of the American Cruise missiles stationed in this country, with the degree of influence that the Americans will have over the use of our Trident force when it is operational? Will they be equal? If not, will the degree of influence in the one case be greater than in the other and, if so, which way round? If they are not equal, will the British Parliament and people be content? If it is really true that the Cruise missiles are a complete one key force, are we not approaching George Orwell's famous era when Britain was "Airstrip I"? I shall not remind noble Lords of the context, but they will remember that it comes in 1984, which is about the year in question, is it not?
I should like briefly to take up the theme enunciated so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Noel-Baker—namely, disarmament and arms control. When the Ministers adopted the NATO modernisation programme in Brussels the other day they also launched a so-called arms control programme. This country is adopting a new, independent strategic missile system. We are, after all, still the third nuclear power in the world, both historically and in throw weight. We therefore have the third best right in the world to make disarmament proposals and we are in the third most hopeful position to do so.
The Ministers in Brussels the other day launched a package of arms control proposals which was very weak. It lay about all over the place. It was not co-ordinated, but simply said that we must try to do better than we ever have before in all the disconnected fora of discussion, ranging from the special sessions, referred to by my noble friend Lord Noel-Baker, through the Disarmament Conference itself, the permanent
1636
one, to SALT; to the MBFR discussions in Geneva; to the Review Conference of the Helsinki Act, with the next one in Madrid; to the Review Conference of the MPT. There are about eight or 12 of them and most of them have run right into the sand. There is no reason why they should do any better. They have run into the sand because they are insufficiently connected. What is needed is not merely a promise to do better in a series of disconnected talking shops, but a plan to connect them all. Why should this country not produce a plan?
I am sorry that he has left the Chamber, but until a moment ago the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, was listening to the debate. I do not know how many people remember that, with the single exception of a praiseworthy, but very minor proposal about chemical disarmament made by Mr. Fred Mulley when he was Minister of Defence some 10 years ago, this country has proposed no disarmament in the international scene since the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Home, in 1962. It is a matter that bears thinking about. By "disarmament" I mean the destruction of weapons; I do not mean the withdrawal of weapons, or the inspection of weapons or arrangements for keeping each other happy about what we are doing. I mean precisely what the word says—dis-armament. No British Government, whether Labour or Conservative, has proposed any disarmament since 1962. Is not this a good juncture to do so for both reasons—the NATO modernisation and the new generation of the British independent deterrent?
7.38 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I think that we all owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Kimberley for having initiated this debate. It will clearly be one of the subjects which the Prime Minister will be discussing in Washington. I do not myself want to go deeply into the pros and cons, because I ought to make a short speech and this ought to be a short debate. Basically, I feel that we should not allow the United States of America to be the only free nation, totally isolated from the rest of us in having a strategic nuclear deterrent. On the other hand, I am attracted to the viewpoint put by the noble Lord, Lord

1637
Carver, that, in the next generation, it may be more economical, and therefore more cost-effective, to have a missile which can penetrate the defences; and to decide later whether it should be on a platform—a submarine platform, a merchant ship platform; possibly a platform from a V-bomber with an extended life; or even a large container lorry which might be the most effective and cheapest version of all, and could move about the country undetected and unidentified. I would agree with noble Lords that not enough discussion takes place on this extremely important issue. One must recognise the fact that today millions of people take their cue, their knowledge and their information not, regrettably, from this Chamber—because the high calibre of this debate reflects the expert opinion we have here—but from the television service.
In particular, I want to direct my short remarks to the "Panorama" programme broadcast on Monday, 3rd December, because I felt that that programme did not produce the balance which should be mandatory under the BBC Charter. In recent months Monday's fare has become more and more loaded. The Charter says that the BBC must produce balance. My friends who saw this programme were indignant and I was very surprised. Being unable to obtain a transcript of the programme, this afternoon I sat through a video tape on it and my surprise became even greater.
The programme was produced by Tom Mangold. I believe that it was slanted in the selection of subjects and personnel. I concede that much of the documentary was excellent, but between those excellent slices there was pure prejudice and slanted production. Mr. Pym did his best as the only man upholding the British and NATO viewpoint. In parenthesis I would say that he was exceptionally badly lit; he looked as though he was about to die. I also reflect that when the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, was Prime Minister he was also badly lit as to appear like a death mask. One must recognise the fact that, if one wants to produce a result on television, one can do it by lighting as well as by cutting the tape to suit one's viewpoint. Curiously enough, the best picture of the Minister of Defence was when he was in an aeroplane flying to
1638
Brussels for the great debate on this nuclear deterrent. Then he appeared quite healthy and likely to live for many years, in contrast to the pictures of him in the studio which made him look very, very pale, if not green.
I found that the introduction was slanted and that some of the statements were totally untrue. In referring to Britain's nuclear deterrent, the programme said that the successor would cost about £5,000 million of expenditure, but, of course, it did not mention at that stage that that would be spread over 10 years. Then it went on to say that it was a deterrent "which NATO commanders think unnecessary". It did not tell us which NATO commanders, when they said it, or where. The programme then complained about lack of debate in both Houses of Parliament. Your Lordships' House is always in advance of the other place, as we were on advocating both radio and television, so at least we are trying to set some of that right.
Then a series of spokesmen were presented, and it is the choice of these spokesmen which I want to highlight. The programme started with Dr. Rotblat, a distinguished physicist. I have known of Dr. Rotblat and his writings for some 25 years and he has always been of the extreme Left or Marxist viewpoint. As long as that is known, that is all right. I felt that after him we would get a different viewpoint. He, of course, used all the emotional terms: vomiting blood, bowels exuding blood—every emotional term that could possibly be used. However, I accepted that as long as the other viewpoint might follow.
Next, we did not have anyone from West Germany or France, who might have been allowed to put a viewpoint on behalf of NATO, but we had someone from the Polish Foreign Ministry. That is another viewpoint. I wondered who would follow. The next spokesman was an East German. wondered who was to follow him.
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but does being an extreme opponent of nuclear weapons or nuclear warfare make one a Marxist? My noble friend Lord Noel-Baker made a very passionate speech against nuclear warfare. Does the noble Lord expect him to be classed as a Marxist?
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, no; I did not seek to say that everyone who preaches peace—and we have had two excellent and moving speeches today from pacifists—is a Marxist. I know them not to be. One of them, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, is a very good friend of mine. However, I am quoting people whom I believe to be of extreme Left-wing views. I do not mind a Left-wing view—that is liberty; it is what we fight for—provided the other side of the case is put. Therefore, after those spokesmen I expected a spokesman from a different viewpoint. But the next spokesman came from Isvestia. Is that political balance? Is that in accordance with the Charter?
Later we had Mr. Frank Barnaby. He was described as an ex-Aldermaston scientist. I do not know when he left Aldermaston, but I know that for some years he has been working in Stockholm at the International Peace Research Institute. That is not a government organisation; it is a private body which receives much financial help. It is anti-defence; it believes in unilateral nuclear disarmament; in fact, it believes in unilateral disarmament.
I have given a series of people. By no stretch of the imagination could anyone say that that is a balanced presentation of the case which we are now discussing. This list shows that "Panorama" has become biased, despicable and very heavily loaded. In these interviews none of the Marxist interviewees was interrogated by the BBC spokesman. That was done only in the case of the Minister of Defence, who put forward a very well-argued and balanced reply. The BBC commentator said that the Dutch Parliament has refused to allow the Cruise missile on its soil—
"This has shattered NATO's unity".
That is both incorrect and totally inaccurate. What the Dutch said was that they would reconsider this in 1981—and there is no need to make a decision before then—when they have seen the progress with the Soviet Union in talks towards disarmament.
The whole slant was that Britain's deterrent was insignificant. I think that many years ago before Sir Harold Wilson came to power he described it as a pea on a mountain. That was both before he and Mr. Callaghan had 11 years'
1640
responsibility for retaining and updating that nuclear deterrent. But it is not as described. Two or three, and perhaps very occasionally four, of our nuclear submarines will be at sea in a period of tension. Each one has 16 missiles; each missile has three separately targeted nuclear bombs. So each boat has 48 nuclear bombs; two boats have 96 and three have 144. Each bomb has more than 20 times the power of those delivered on Japan. Therefore, this is not to be lightly set aside, and the USSR would think many times before receiving that blow. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, mentioned that this was only one ten-thousandth ·01 per cent. of what the Soviet Union could deliver. I think that he has his figures wrong. Like myself, he is a physicist, but if he reflects and takes ten thousand times 144, he will come to 1·4 million nuclear weapons. I do not think that even the Soviet Union has that.
I would add that, throughout the whole of its 50 minutes, the programme made no reference to the French nuclear submarines, of which five are operational; they are-now building a sixth. Each has 16 missiles and each has three separate nuclear heads. Do we really—and this is the argument which the noble Lord, Lord Carver, advanced—want the French to have the only long-range independent nuclear deterrent in Western Europe? If you add the French and ours together you will get a total of nearly 400 nuclear bombs, each with 20 times the power of the Japanese bomb. I submit that that is a considerable deterrent to any group of people sitting in the Kremlin. I would contend that the anti-ballistic missile systems, some of which are deployed, would find it desperately difficult if it was decided to launch that number. That total would still be for many years an effective deterrent.
I generally watch "Panorama". It has been easier recently because the House of Lords has not been sitting on Mondays. I find it to be an excellent programme, but I have noticed in recent months that it has tended to become anti-American in concept and anti-NATO, and in fact anti-Shah, too. The hijackers in Teheran seem to get far more publicity, and the Americans very little support. It is not an American problem, as is sug-

1641
gested, it is a world problem and needs to be reflected as such.
I believe that at the moment Ian Trethowan, the Director-General, has suffered a heart attack, and I am sure that the BBC miss him as much as we do. We were going to have him at a meeting of the Conservative media committee tomorrow, and now he cannot come. I cannot help but feel that since he has been away there has been a drift away from the objectivity and balance which has been the BBC tradition. Perhaps it can be said that when the cat is away the moles will play. May I suggest that the BBC should regain their balance, should honour their Charter, and should strive to re-establish the balance which is their tradition and the nation's right.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, as we say, may I ask him to accept that he is mistaken about three points? First, Professor Rotblat is not a Marxist. Secondly, the Swedish International Institute for Peace Research does not have a corporate view in favour of unilateral disarmament. Its director, by the way, is called "Barnaby", not "Burnaby". Thirdly, 144 times 10,000 is not 1·4 billion.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, if Doctor Rotblat has switched away from the extreme Left I am delighted that he has seen the light. What was the second point?
Lord PEART: Please. This is tedious.
Lord ORR-EWING: If the noble Lord does not want an answer, my Lords, perhaps I could see him later. If I was wrong in saying that, I apologise.
Lord KENNET: May I—
7.53 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think we ought to get on. I promise to be extremely brief, and I always keep my promise. I think it is good for the House, because I once moved a Motion that we should keep our speeches under 15 or under 10 minutes.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, would my noble friend—
Lord PEART: The noble Lord has made a very good speech and I think he might spoil it by wanting to speak again. If he was sensible, he would leave it as it is. He made a good speech, and I was going to refer to it. May I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for introducing this debate. We are all indebted to him. It has been a good debate, conducted without any passion or ill feeling, and with analytical speeches. May I say how much I enjoyed our two distinguished servicemen, Lord Carver and Lord Hill-Norton. Both in their own way made tremendous contributions. I feel humble, as a very junior officer in the Army during the War, but I am glad to say that today we have heard two excellent speeches. I nearly converted to Lord Carver's point of view.
I have always believed in the nuclear deterrent. When we talk about the nuclear deterrent and NATO we are really talking about the American deterrent and strategy which we have accepted. I am glad that there has been no anti-American feeling in our debate—sometimes we get that from both Right and Left—because our American allies played their part in helping us to save Europe in the best sense. I think of General Marshall with Marshall Aid, and men like that. He was a military commander who had great responsibility, and who really rescued Europe in a very difficult period.
This debate has emerged because of the defence Statement we had the other day. Many noble Lords questioned the Minister on that. There were two major decisions: first, to participate with NATO allies in the stationing of 572 new American missiles in Europe, and secondly, a decision to acquire a successor to Polaris as Britain's independent deterrent. I understand from a reference sheet which has been obtained from the Library that it is expected that the Prime Minister will raise matters about the independent strategic nuclear deterrent, its effectiveness, its operational life and its cost. No doubt when the Prime Minister returns to this country there will be a major Statement in another place, but I hope there will be another debate in this House as well—I mean a much larger debate; a full day's debate, although this is no reflection on the debate we have just had.
We have been thinking in terms of a plan to modernise NATO's European

1643
missile force. This stems directly from Russia's deployment of the SS 20, which is the new rocket capable of striking targets throughout Western Europe from mobile bases in the Soviet Union. Here is a question of whether we have new NATO weapons; whether they be American owned and operated; whether they will have an equivalent capacity; whether they will help to prevent the creation of a military imbalance. The main importance from the point of view of NATO is that it strengthens America's commitment to defend Europe and is a warning to the Soviet Union not to attempt a military venture.
However, one must ask questions. I understand that it will be three years before the missiles approved at Brussels can be built and deployed. What is the cost going to be? After all, the present Government are seeking to curb unnecessary expenditure. Will a decision be taken on this matter because of that? Will there be diversion of funds to a new nuclear missile programme? This, after all, could seriously affect our resources for conventional defence. I think that was the main theme of Lord Carver's speech; that our effective conventional defence could be seriously damaged.
We are committed to a 3 per cent. increase in the year's defence budget. I understand that we are now just beginning to fill the gaps—according to reports in the Press and from elsewhere—which existed in the equipment and manning of our conventional forces. Will there be a diversion of funds to a new nuclear missile programme? Can it really mean only a reversal of the programme I have mentioned and which is emphasised in the Defence White Paper? Can we really afford an independent deterrent? Having listened to the arguments, I must say that I am beginning to think that we just cannot. I am prepared to look at it again in the light of this debate. I have wrestled with it in my mind. I have listened to the reasons.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, made a powerful opening speech. He asked me the views of the Labour Party. The views of individual members of the Labour Party on this subject are varied, as indeed they are with all parties. No
1644
one has a monopoly here. My party has always played its part. We have had a much better defence record than Conservative Administrations over the years, but that is not the argument. I believe that we are going through a period when we have to rethink and reconsider. That has really been the message today. We must try to achieve détente in the best sense. Both Conservative and Labour Governments have recognised the principle of détente; the need to have a reduction; the need to get the Soviet Union to the table; the need to discuss expenditure and the type of weaponry to be used. This is all known to noble Lords.
If one goes carefully through the White Paper on defence policy one finds that throughout it says that steady progress has been made in the negotiations between the United Kingdom and the United States on a comprehensive test ban in order to secure a properly verifiable multilateral treaty banning nuclear explosions in all environments. That is one example. Other arms control and disarmament measures are listed in the White Paper. The emphasis is spelt out, even though we agree with a nuclear deterrent, with that policy protected by the United States, and there is still a desire to have discussions with the Soviet Union.
The noble Lord, Lora Orr-Ewing, was critical because in a way I defended the Soviet Union in respect of SALT 2 and SALT 3. He said I was trusting people who could betray their position at a later stage. If one goes into negotiations in that spirit one will never achieve anything. I think it is right and proper that we should make more effort in relation to SALT 2 and SALT 3, along with our desire to have a larger conference which will enable us to try to achieve what has been suggested by many noble Lords today. I respect my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder and, after all, he may be right. Probably he is a pacifist; he may be a realist. But for the present I believe that we must have defence and therefore I take a different view. But I think that in the long term inevitably we shall have to come to terms with this matter and have agreement with the Soviet Union.
This debate will, I am sure, be read and studied by people who are interested in our policies and in the variety of emphases which noble Lords have placed. I hope

1645
too that many of our colleagues who are not here today will read Hansard and note carefully the speeches of all who have spoken. This has been a good debate and I hope it has revealed that the House of Lords is at its best when talking about defence and other matters of scientific impact.
8.2 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of DEFENCE (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal): My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, alluded to the delicate position in which I find myself owing to the timing of this debate when the Prime Minister is discussing this among other subjects during her visit to Washington. But the noble Earl can be proud that at the very least we have had this evening a series of well-informed and cogently argued speeches which have focused the arguments and have demonstrated that nuclear strategy is not only a very complex matter but a contentious area of policy involving a number of theoretical as well as practical considerations. Almost the only thing we can agree about is that there is no consensus on this matter as yet.
The hypotheses and analyses of nuclear deterrence involve the consideration of profoundly important matters touching the futures of citizens of this and other countries for many years ahead, beyond the lifespan of most of us here. The burden of these decisions is borne by this Government in full awareness of the responsibilities that we thereby assume, and I agree with the many noble Lords in expressing the hope that we can return to this in a full debate as the relevant decisive criteria emerge as the argument develops. Meantime, this debate provides me with the opportunity to set out briefly the rationale of the Government's belief in the need to maintain the independent strategic nuclear deterrent.
Throughout this discussion let us never lose sight of that last word. Our purpose is not to match a potential great Power adversary and to be able to win a slogging match, what the noble Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, called a "nuclear exchange". We seek above all to avoid a nuclear conflict by removing the temptation of trying to score an easy victory over us without fear of retaliatory damage. First
1646
let me once again reiterate our general policy. We aim above all else to ensure that the security of this country is never imperilled, but we urgently need to divert as few as possible of our national resources into channels which make little direct contribution to the national standard of living. Also, few noble Lords would disagree that the proliferation of armaments represents a danger in itself, and that is probably the only point on which I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker. We do not want to engage in an arms race; I have said that before and I say it again. Indeed, we are seeking to achieve the greatest degree of security at the lowest possible level of armament compatible with that security.
We believe that a realist has to recognise that the search for security involves the maintenance of a balance of forces between East and West and the promotion of detente on the basis of that stable relationship. Our whole defence policy is designed to preserve peace and, if that fails, to prevent the use by any party of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. This implies that the level of armament that we must sustain must be directly related to the threat which we face, exactly opposite to the view expressed by Lord Noel-Baker. We need to maintain our capability to respond across the whole spectrum of deterrence—conventional, theatre nuclear (I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for that phrase) and strategic nuclear—and we need to preserve the close links between all the elements in the spectrum. In order to avoid the possibility of political blackmail, the Alliance must not allow itself to fall into a position where it would be unable to offer a credible response at any level of conflict.
It has often been claimed that the USSR military doctrine postulates that any conflict between the major powers will inevitably escalate to total nuclear war. I cannot believe that the Soviet Union would not go to great lengths to avoid conflict at that level and there is much evidence in the arms control field to support that view. We therefore believe that there is real value in continuing to try to contain a conflict at the lowest possible level.
Apart from conventional forces, the Alliance must maintain its ability to

1647
respond at the theatre nuclear level also, for, as many in this House will be aware, the Soviet Union has made major improvements to its long-range theatre nuclear forces with, as several noble Lords have mentioned, the introduction of new, highly accurate SS-20 missiles and the Backfire bomber which can strike targets throughout the whole of Europe. Furthermore, these new Soviet deployments are occurring just at a time when NATO's own long-range theatre nuclear forces are relatively small and are getting older. This was why, as I explained to the House on 13th December, the Alliance has decided to modernise NATO's long-range theatre nuclear forces by deploying new United States land-based systems in Europe. As I said then, the planned deployment will be comprised of 108 Pershing II launchers and 464 ground-launched cruise missiles.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked me about the nature of our influence of American control. This is one of the details that will need to be worked out in the agreement. That was a point also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and I think I shall have to write to him as to the exact nature of the single key or dual key control of the existing missile systems.
I now move to the strategic nuclear level. My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence have made clear in another place that the Government intend to maintain the effectiveness of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent into the 1990s and for a long time thereafter. The United Kingdom's strategic deterrent, consisting of Polaris nuclear submarines, has fulfilled its assigned role with distinction for many years now, and we will ensure that it continues to do so into the 1990s. Ministers have made clear that as far as a successor system is concerned the Government are considering a number of options, but we are not yet in a position to come to a conclusion.
May I now take the opportunity which the noble Earl's Question provides to emphasise the value of our independent strategic deterrent to the United Kingdom and to the Alliance as a whole. The deterrent effect of NATO's forces is directly related to what we can term an
1648
uncertainty factor; that is to say, that their credibility, the extent to which they are seen to dissuade an aggressor, is reinforced if the number of risks that an aggressor must take into account is high. Any planning by such a potential aggressor is made considerably more complicated by the existence of a wide range of uncertainties.
It is a principal function of the United Kingdom's strategic deterrent to increase these uncertainties and thereby to reinforce the credibility of the Alliance's deterrent posture by providing a second, and independent, centre of decision-making within NATO. This enhancement of the deterrent is a vital ingredient in plans to maintain peace in Europe. The second major reason for the United Kingdom's possessing an independent strategic deterrent is that in doing so we can provide an ultimate guarantee of our own security now and in the years ahead. Although they do not participate in the integrated military structure of the Alliance, the French, with their own independent strategic nuclear deterrent, also provide a further decision-making centre in the political framework of NATO.
In conclusion, let me return to my opening remarks. The aim of all defence expenditure, and the reason for the retention of all armaments, is to enhance our security. We want to see greater stability in the military relationship between East and West, and thereby a greater sense of security for all nations. Certainly we want to see a lowering of the number of nuclear weapons possessed by both sides, and we want to see further progress on the long road to general and complete disarmament.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
  MAGISTRATES AND PRISON VISITING
  MAGISTRATES AND PRISON VISITING
  AFTER-CARE: TRAINING AND WORK
  AFTER-CARE: TRAINING AND WORK
  MR. CARLOS REYES MANSO: REFERRAL TO HOME OFFICE
  MR. CARLOS REYES MANSO: REFERRAL TO HOME OFFICE
  MR. CARLOS REYES MANSO: CONTACT WITH AGENCIES
  MR. CARLOS REYES MANSO: CONTACT WITH AGENCIES
  EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY: COST OF U.K. PARTICIPATION
  EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY: COST OF U.K. PARTICIPATION
  EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY: UK TECHNOLOGY AND MANUFACTURING UTILISATION
  EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY: UK TECHNOLOGY AND MANUFACTURING UTILISATION
  EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY: L-SAT PROGRAMME
  EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY: L-SAT PROGRAMME
  COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITES: FUTURE POLICY
  COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITES: FUTURE POLICY