Sitting of 27 March 1979

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Disabled Persons
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he has taken to reduce the numbers of unemployed registered disabled people; and what further measures he proposes to take.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): A campaign, launched by the Manpower Services Commission in 1977, encouraged employers to adopt positive policies on the employment of disabled people. A considerable range of new and improved measures have been and are being introduced and there has been a substantial and encouraging increase in placings of disabled people in work by disablement resettlement officers. The Commission will implement its announced plans to develop employment and training services for disabled people over the next five to 10 years and will undertake a national publicity campaign this autumn. Meanwhile, the quota scheme is under active review by the Commission.
    Mr. Ashley: I offer the Minister my warm congratulations on the scheme that he has outlined. The response of Ministers is important. Will the hon. Gentleman continue to persuade and press
    234
    Ministers to implement the measures? If that fails, will he take firmer measures?
    Mr. Grant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. We are not complacent about the matter. Getting disabled people to work is still a major problem. However, there has been a break-through with the increase last year of more than 10 per cent, over 1977 in placings by disabled resettlement officers. That represents a drop of 9,000 unemployed disabled persons. The extension of the job release scheme will be beneficial and we shall keep up the pressure.
    Sir George Young: Is the Minister aware that the Civil Service, which plays an important role in the matter, is threatening to dismiss a blind constituent of mine who works for the Inland Revenue and who has passed all the necessary examinations? Is that not a poor example for the public sector to set the private sector?
    Mr. Grant: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am aware of the case and we have corresponded on the matter. Primarily, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, who has examined the matter carefully. It is a complex case and he has used his best endeavours to try to reach a satisfactory solution.
    Mr. Spriggs: Will my hon. Friend contact employers in industrial areas—for example, St. Helens—and notify them of their responsibility to employ a certain percentage of disabled persons? Will he remind the employers that many disabled persons are highly trained and well worth the investment in employment?
    Mr. Grant: I entirely agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's question. We are only too keen to ensure that disabled persons get equal opportunities in employment. All employers should be aware of their responsibilities. As I said earlier, the quota scheme is under active review and the Manpower Services Commission will be issuing a discussion document within about a month.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Will the Minister acknowledge that there is support in all parts of the House for positive policies to increase the employment of the disabled? There is a need for further information to be supplied to employers since

    235
    there is a blockage—I am sure not as a result of ministerial or governmental action—in communication on the matter.
    Mr. Grant: I do not believe that there is a blockage in communication. The plain facts are that some employers do not face up to their responsibilities. Following the review of the quota scheme and the publication of the discussion document, many of the options will be found to be well worth discussing and it is to be hoped that a better system will be achieved.

    Overseas Footballers (Work Permits)
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will state his reasons for refusing a work permit for Mojas Radonjic from Yugoslavia to play for Sheffield Wednesday football club, while allowing other foreign footballers from outside the Common Market to play for other British clubs.
    Mr. John Grant: The application by Sheffield Wednesday for a work permit to employ Mojas Radonjic, a Yugoslav footballer, was refused because the player did not satisfy the conditions that I announced on 28 September 1978 for the issue of permits for overseas footballers. Permits are issued only for players of established international reputation who have a distinctive contribution to make to the national game. According to the club's application, Radonjic had never played for his country in a full international and therefore could not be regarded as having an international reputation.
    Mr. Ashton: How can a Labour Government support a policy that allows the rich clubs in the first and second division of the Football Leguea to buy whomsoever they like and discriminate against the poor clubs in the third and fourth divisions which are trying to do the same thing? Would it not be much fairer if the Government agreed a policy with the Football League and the players' union allowing one overseas player per club, irrespective of his ability? Will the Minister pursue talks along those lines?
    Mr. Grant: I cannot promise talks along those lines. I understand my hon. Friend's concern for football in the city of Sheffield and sympathise with him. The whole work permit scheme is primarily
    236
    based on skill criteria, but I expect that when the season ends we shall want to review the operation of the scheme and, if the Football League and the Professional Footballers' Association want a different scheme, we shall be interested to have their views.
    Mr. Prior: Perhaps after the next election, the Under-Secretary could lend his services to Sheffield Wednesday. They could do with a bit of help.
    Mr. Grant: That does not call for a reply, but perhaps I could take this opportunity to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for presenting the Player of the Year award to a member of my constituency team.
    Mr. Speaker: That is all right, as long as no one mentions Cardiff City. I now call Mr. Hugh Dykes.
    Mr. Dykes: Am I being called to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?
    Hon. Members: No. The hon. Gentleman has question No. 3.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) to ask a supplementary question.
    Mr. Dykes: And I am not even a supporter of Cardiff City, Mr. Speaker. Do not similar considerations apply in the entertainment industry? If the Department were more flexible about the admittance of, say, one famous overseas entertainer, it would result in more employment for British actors and actresses in his show and more dollar earnings for Britain from tourism.
    Mr. Grant: I am not aware of any difficulties in the entertainment industry. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular case in mind, I should be grateful if he will raise it with me.

    Trades Union Congress
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Employment when he plans next to have an official meeting with members of the Trades Union Congress to discuss employment problems.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): I plan to meet members of the West Midlands TUC on 4 April.
    Mr. Dykes: I hope that the meeting will take place before then, but if it is even on 4 April will the right hon. Gentleman try to rehabilitate his flagging reputation—even though time is late—and press on the TUC the reasonable case for extending secret ballot procedures in unions for certain key issues where it is evident that the majority of union members would prefer such a procedure and its assurance of a private result? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the suggestion is not an anti-union move but, on the contrary, is a very pro-union suggestion?
    Mr. Booth: I understood that the original question concerned my discussing employment problems with the TUC. In so far as employment is affected by the practices of unions in balloting on questions of disputes or the election of officers, it is primarily a matter for the individual union. I am satisfied that following the talks between the Government and the TUC, which led to the recent agreement, the advice issued by the TUC on this matter is sound and will be heeded by affiliated unions.
    Mr. Hardy: When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC, will he be able to confirm that far more people are in employment today than was the case five years ago? Does he not think that the TUC will be far more appreciative of that achievement than of the job annihilation policies of the Conservative Party?
    Mr. Booth: Our statistics do not enable us to say how many are in employment, but they certainly show that employment has been sustained remarkably well through a serious world trade recession and that in March 1978 there were virtually as many people in employment in this country as there were when we came into office in 1974. If one counts the number of people employed in the youth opportunities programme and the special temporary employment programme, we have many more in employment today.
    Mr. Charles Irving: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has missed many golden opportunities to increase incentives to work by reducing taxes? Is the Secretary of State proposing to have talks on
    238
    those lines with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he is in office long enough to do so?
    Mr. Booth: One of the many factors figuring in the discussions between the Government and the economic committee of the TUC in reaching the annual assessment provided for in the agreement between us is the effect of taxation on employment. I am satisfied that recent tax changes have helped in that direction.
    Mr. Loyden: When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC, will he inform union leaders of the number of jobs lost in the private sector and the fact that, in many cases, that is frustrating the work of the Government in their job creation policies? Does he not agree that the Opposition made their position clear last week when they cynically remarked, during a discussion about unemployment on Merseyside, that there were no workers on Merseyside?
    Mr. Booth: It will not be necessary for me to remind the TUC, since it is being constantly reminded by member unions of the serious problems faced by their members as a result of decisions of firms to have massive redundancies and to close plants in developments areas. If no other factor spurred the TUC to bring about the sort of policies that can be developed under our joint agreement, that factor would do so.
    Mr. Brittan: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that many will be deeply distressed by his complacent remarks about unemployment? Is he aware that the 800,000 extra people who are unemployed today, compared with the number who were unemployed when the Conservatives left office, will listen to his complacent remarks with grave cynicism and deep disquiet?
    Mr. Booth: The hon. and learned Gentleman has misrepresented me. I have never been complacent about the problem of unemployment and I and my fellow Ministers in the Department have been exceedingly active in developing policies to assist the unemployed. The people of this country have more to fear from the sort of change of policy that some of the hon. and learned Gentleman's colleagues have been advocating.

    Unfair Dismissal Claims (Upper Age Limit)
    Mr. Dodsworthasked the Secretary of State for Employment why an upper age limit for unfair dismissal claims was specified in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): This provision was carried forward from the Industrial Relations Act 1971.
    Mr. Dodsworth: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, following the recent House of Lords judgment in the case of Miss Nothman, there appears to be considerable concern about the lack of clarity about exactly at what age retirement should commence, bearing in mind that particular contracts exist for some individuals?
    Mr. Walker: The Nothman case has caused much concern and confusion. We are studying it carefully. In the meantime, I understand that a person over the age of 60, in the case of women, or 65, in the case of men, cannot claim that he or she has been unfairly dismissed. However, if a person is dismissed when he or she is under the normal retirement age, he or she may have a case for unfair dismissal. We are looking at the matter very carefully.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that there may be widespread evasion of the unfair dismissal provisions, particularly by companies which let on that elderly people are unfit to do their work and redesignate them as being capable of only light work—when there is no light work available in the company? Is he aware that firms can thereby get round the unfair dismissal provisions?
    Mr. Walker: Section 65 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 provides that if a person has passed the normal retirement age he or she can be fairly dismissed. However, where persons have not reached the normal retirement age and the sort of thing described by the hon. Gentleman occurs, there is a right to lodge a claim for unfair dismissal or redundancy, as the case may be.

    Closed Shop
    Mr. Bulmerasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will introduce measures to protect individuals at work from abuse by trade union representatives of the power conferred on them in a closed shop.
    Mr. Harold Walker: No, Sir, but as I have said often in the House and as the joint statement says, closed shops should be conducted in a flexible and tolerant way.
    Mr. Bulmer: Has not the case of the West Yorkshire dyer, Mr. Thompson, demonstrated once again the total inadequacy of such protection for the individual worker as may exist either at law or in the union rule book? How much longer is the Minister prepared to see individual workers treated in that way?
    Mr. Walker: I have expressed publicly my concern about the way that Mr. Thompson has been treated. It is intolerable, but the case proves the wisdom of the machinery that has been set up. The case has been referred to the independent review committee under Lord Wedderburn. I understand that in the meantime the threatened expulsion from the union has been suspended.
    Mr. George Rodgers: Does my hon. Friend agree that closed shops can be introduced only with the consent of both trade unions and employers? Is it not true that many employers seek such agreements for their own convenience? Have not the Conservatives demonstrated their total opposition to trade union membership by their attitude to the Grunwick dispute?
    Mr. Walker: I do not think that the House will want to go back over the saga of Grunwick. If the Opposition wants a debate, I am sure that we would welcome it. My hon. Friend is right about the mutual benefits that stem from a closed shop agreement. A recent study carried out for the Social Science Research Council at Warwick university indicates that many employers find benefits from a closed shop and have a positive interest in entering into such agreements.
    Mr. Gow: Will the Minister of State tell the House what changes have occurred in the operation of the closed shop since the agreement of 14 February? Will he say, in particular, whether the Government propose to ask British Rail to reinstate the 43 workers who were dismissed, many of them after a lifetime of service, for the sole presumed offence of their unwillingness to join a trade union?
    Mr. Walker: As I have told the hon. Gentleman and the House before, the British Rail case is, I understand, being submitted as a test case to the European Commission for Human Rights. It would be unwise for me to comment on a matter that is, in effect, sub judice. On the hon. Gentleman's more general point, it was pleasing that the TUC reinforced what I have often said in the House about the need to practise a closed shop in a flexible and tolerant way. The joint statement also includes what I have said in the House about persuading people of the merits and benefits of trade union membership and the obligations rather than using other methods to coerce people into membership.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my hon. Friend consider introducing measures to protect workers who seek to join a trade union and are dismissed by employers for seeking to do so? Will he encourage workers to join their appropriate trade union as the best way of maintaining their living standards and improving their working conditions?
    Mr. Walker: The policy of the Government in industrial relations, as we have repeatedly said, is a system based on collective bargaining conducted by strong trade unions. We believe in encouraging people to join trade unions. Equally, we believe in encouraging employers to allow people to join trade unions and not to penalise them for doing so, as we have seen in some cases. We wish to encourage employers to recognise trade unions. There is little benefit in being a member of a trade union if employers refuse to recognise that union.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Can the Minister of State give a single example of a closed shop which is being operated more flexibly as a result of the concordat? Does he not appreciate that the case of Mr.
    242
    Thompson in West Yorkshire shows that some safeguards at law are required? In my constituency there is the case of Arthur Dungate, who was sacked by the Hounslow borough council two days after the concordat was agreed and yet no action has been taken to operate that closed shop more flexibly. What on earth is the concordat worth in relation to closed shop flexibility?
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman might let me have details of the specific case to which he refers. He must not keep shaking and nodding his head. I am merely asking him to let me have the details.
    Mr. Hayhoe: The Minister has them.
    Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman says that I have them, I must say I have not seen them. I will certainly look at the case he mentions. I have already commented on the Thompson case. I understand that the expulsion has been suspended pending further consideration by the independent review body. That illustrates that the machinery is working effectively. I am convinced that the atmosphere has been changed, as illustrated by the recent declaration of SLADE on its recruitment tactics. I was able to make a statement in the House a week last Friday to show that SLADE, since the concordat, has responded in a positive and constructive way.
    Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the gravely unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Later:
    Mr. Giles Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In answer to question No. 5, which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer), the Minister of State, Department of Employment referred to my constituent Mr. Joe Thompson and suggested that he was no longer expelled from his union. I am sure that the Secretary of State would in no way wish to deceive the House but the facts of the case are that Mr. Thompson is still expelled from his union. His case has been heard by the Industrial Relations Court once, by his union executive once and he has now

    243
    been told to go back to the IRC. May I ask the Minister of State through you, Mr. Speaker, to take note of this and to join me in making representations to try to resolve this matter?
    Mr. Speaker: I allowed the hon. Gentleman to make his point of order, and it will have been heard.

    Newspaper Industry (Casual Workers)
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with the Trades Union Congress about the conditions of service of casual workers in the newspaper industry.
    Mr. Booth: None, Sir.
    Mr. Brotherton: Does not the Secretary of State agree that it is wrong that a small section of the work force should be treated entirely differently by the Inland Revenue from the rest of the population? Will he get the TUC leaders to condemn this practice, which is contrary to the interests of the vast majority of its members?
    Mr. Booth: Taxation of casual workers, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Moonman: Rather than condemn the group of workers concerned, will my right hon. Friend agree that there are serious problems affecting those who work on a casual basis in the newspaper industry Would he refer to the latest developments at The Times? Is he prepared to make any statement? One of the elements in that dispute is the casual worker. My right hon. Friend has played a great part in trying to bring the two sides together.
    Mr. Booth: Over the years, inquiries into casual working in a number of industries, including the docks and construction industries as well as newspapers, have shown that it has frequently led to malpractices and industrial relations difficulties. In the case of The Times newspaper where the casual working practices were only one of a great many difficulties, I understand that negotiations are going ahead effectively. I hope to see that paper back in publication very shortly.

    Health and Safety Executive (Planning Applications)
    Mr. John Ellisasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average waiting time that Scunthorpe and Glanford borough councils have to wait for replies from the Health and Safety Executive when they request their observations on planning applications.
    Mr. John Grant: The average time that Scunthorpe and Glanford borough councils have had to wait for replies from the Health and Safety Executive when they have requested its observations on planning applications is five to six weeks.
    Mr. Ellis: Is not the Minister aware that there is a real problem where local authorities, under the statute, have to consider planning applications within a certain time? On the other hand, by statute, they have to consider all points appertaining to the question. There have been cases, particularly involving Glanford borough council, which, I understand, reached ill-advised decisions in regard to storage of butane at Flixborough. That may have been done illegally because the council had not got the recommendations of the Health and Safety Executive in front of it, as required by statute. On the other hand, it has to consider the matter within a certain time. What advice can the Minister give? What will he do about this situation?
    Mr. Grant: This is a real problem. The Health and Safety Executive cannot be expected to make appraisals at the drop of a hat. It takes time. I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to the difficulties and, if necessary, discuss the matter with him.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects the unemployment figures to fall in the United Kingdom and Scotland, respectively; and, if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary for Employment (Mr. John Golding): Any forecast of employment and unemployment is subject to error. However, the Government will continue to take all steps to create more jobs for the increasing number of people wanting work.
    Mr. Dempsey: Does my hon. Friend realise how much the special employment measures he has boldly initiated are appreciated? These measures have kept hundreds of thousands off the dole. Until an upturn takes place in world trade, could not these measures be extended much more ambitiously in view of the positive assistance they give to employment prospects in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Golding: I believe that the short-time working compensation scheme will do that. The Short-time Working Compensation Bill, which I hope will receive the approval of the House, will be of great assistance, as will the proposed restructuring scheme for firms.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Will the Minister say whether he expects to see some improvement in real economic jobs in the economy? How far, in any estimates that his Department has drawn up, has he taken account of the need greatly to improve productivity?
    Mr. Golding: I am glad to say that the last unemployment figures showed a reduction. More importantly, in many of our cities, the number of vacancies being notified is greater this year than last. That is a cause of some encouragement.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Department consider the unemployment problems of the steel industry? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Ford Motor Company at Dagenham is now using 71 per cent, imported steel? At the same time, thousands of our steel workers are unemployed and many more works are threatened with closure. Is it not time that this socialist interventionist Government did something about this situation?
    Mr. Golding: The practical problems of the steel industry are a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. My Department is concerned to do all that it can for redundant steel workers and areas hit by steel closures.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does not the Minister agree that our present unemployment problems are made worse by his Government's so-called temporary national insurance surcharge which is, in fact, a job tax? Many people are concerned that the Chancellor of the
    246
    Exchequer will increase that surcharge in the Budget and that this will mean increased unemployment.
    Mr. Golding: The answer to the first part of the question is "No". The answer to the second part of the question is "I would not know".

    Standing Commission on Pay Comparability
    Mr. Neubertasked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to meet the chairman of the Standing Commission on Pay Comparability.
    Mr. Booth: I met Professor Clegg yesterday.
    Mr. Neubert: Is the Secretary of State able to report progress in the work of the Commission, or is it another Government stalling device? Why is it not yet possible to indicate the groups which qualify by their preconditions for reference?
    Mr. Booth: Progress has already been reported to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend made a statement on 7 March on the general role of the Commission. Local authority manual workers, National Health Service ancillaries, ambulance men and university manual workers have been offered comparability studies. The local authority manual workers have settled their outstanding claim, as have the hospital ancillaries, and they may now proceed to their comparability study.
    Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend guide the comparability group to study the hypocrisy of Opposition Members who call for low wages when they are lining their pockets with parliamentary adviserships and directorships as fast as their greedy fingers can get hold of them? Will he encourage the group to carry out a comparability study of the work of some Opposition Members, with their directorships, and the useful work that is carried out by others such as hospital porters, ancillary workers and those who work in local government, and expose the hypocrisy of Opposition Members' utterances day after day and week after week?
    Mr. Booth: I am certain that the workers whose claims have been referred to the Commission are doing useful and valuable work. I hope that they will benefit from a fair comparison with others

    247
    doing similar work and making a similar effort in other sections of our economy. I do not want to interrupt the good work of the Commission with a review of the practices to which my hon. Friend has referred because I do not think that they are of such value to the community.
    Mr. Prior: How does the right hon. Gentleman justify that answer to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) with the attitude that the Government are now adopting towards the Civil Service, which has had a long-established tradition of pay research? Pay research is now being denied to the Civil Service at a time when the Commission on Pay Comparability is about to give comparability to other groups. Is he not aware of the strongly held view in the Civil Service that the Government are breaching the undertakings that they gave? Civil Servants ask how anyone can have confidence in a Government comparability exercise when the Pay Research Unit has been treated in such a cavalier fashion.
    Mr. Booth: I am keenly aware of the importance that Civil Service negotiators attach to the PRU system. That is why I believe that the Government are right to give an undertaking to the Civil Service that the outcome of the present PRU exercise will be fully implemented and that the matter which is now for negotiation is the staging by which that is obtained.
    Mr. Prior: Surely the Civil Service was under the impression that it had been given an undertaking that would be implemented from 1 April. Why is it that the Government have not made plain in advance their views on when implementation would take place?
    Mr. Booth: I do not understand how such an understanding could have arisen. It has been made clear from the outset to the review bodies, the Commission, the PRU and the Civil Service that the staging of the findings was a matter of Government responsibility and was to be negotiated with the Government.

    Industrial Disputes
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will discuss with the Trades Union Congress the effect on trade union and labour relations of the practice of extending industrial disputes
    248
    beyond the immediate parties concerned.
    Mr. Harold Walker: The conduct of industrial disputes is covered in detail in one of the three guides attached to the joint statement issued by the TUC and the Government. I have no plans for any further discussions on this subject at present.
    Mr. Knox: Do the Government intend to do anything tangible about this practice in view of the great damage that is done to innocent third parties, to the national economy and to the reputation of the trade union movement?
    Mr. Walker: I am not sure to what the hon. Gentleman is referring. If he has in mind what has been described as secondary picketing, that was the subject of a lengthy statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on 25 January, in which he explained in detail the legal limitations that already exist on such action.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that seeking to achieve the reform of trade unions by consent is about as hopeless as trying to reduce crime by consent of the criminal?
    Mr. Walker: That is an interesting comment, which I am sure will be carefully noted by many. The implication is that the trade union movement will be subjected to reform that will be thrust upon it if the Conservative Party ever gets the chance to do so.
    Mr. Molloy: Does my hon. Friend understand that all the questions coming from the Tory Party have no sincerity? If the Tory Party can see anything that it can use to fan the flames of any industrial dispute, it will take that opportunity. If it can cause any form of confrontation between the Government, employers and workers, it will do it. When it has achieved that industrial unrest, it talks about the irresponsibility of trade unions. It does not mind how much it damages Great Britain as long as it feels that it has helped its political cause.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been tolerant today because I sense an atmosphere in the House. However, hon. Members must ask questions.
    Mr. Walker: The short answer to my hon. Friend is "Yes". I think that everybody will now recognise that the Conservative Party is sustaining a well-orchestrated, politically motivated campaign of abuse and hatred of the trade unions which will only exacerbate bad industrial relations.

    Trade Unions (USSR)
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Employment what recent consultations he has had with the International Labour Organisation about its investigation into the treatment of the Association of Free Trade Unions in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
    Mr. John Grant: The investigation is still proceeding. The ILO's governing body, which considered the matter on 1st March 1979, was not satisfied by the USSR's general denial of the allegations concerning freedom of association in the Soviet Union and decided to press for observations or detailed information on the specific complaints.
    Mr. Blaker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Soviet Union will seek by every means to drag its feet on this investigation as the full facts will clearly show that in the Soviet Union the trade union movement is merely another arm of the police state? Will he therefore encourage the ILO to pursue its investigations? Will he draw the existing facts, which have already been revealed, to the attention of leading members of the Labour Party who show such admiration for the Soviet way of life?
    Mr. Grant: My recollection is that the Labour Party Executive has strongly supported the investigation. I do not think that it needs its attention drawn to these matters by me. The hon. Gentleman talks about the Soviet Union dragging its feet. We have to observe the due process of the ILO. I have explained that to the hon. Gentleman and to the House before. We are behind the ILO investigation and the Soviet Union is clearly in the dock.
    Mr. Greville Janner: If my hon. Friend discusses with the ILO conditions of work in the USSR, will he draw its attention to the awful conditions of exiles such as Ida Nudel and Vladimir Slepak, as evidenced so dramatically on television last night?
    250
    Will he inform it that Labour Members who are concerned with good relations with the USSR find it difficult when it behaves in that way towards its own workers?
    Mr. Grant: I did not see the television programme that my hon. and learned Friend mentioned. I should have to check to ascertain whether it was relevant to the ILO's functions.

    Birmingham and West Midlands
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons have become unemployed in the West Midlands since February 1974 as compared with other regions.
    Mr. Golding: Between February 1974 and March 1979 the number of people registered as unemployed in the West Midlands region, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers increased by 74,600, compared with an increase of 666,700 in the other regions.
    Mr. Miller: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with that state of affairs in the West Midlands? Why is he excluding school leavers? Will he be able to redeem his right hon. Friend's promise to provide jobs for all school leavers by May?
    Mr. Golding: I am pleased to say that Birmingham and Coventry, two of the cities most hit by school-leaver unemployment, have discovered this week that it is almost certain that the Government commitment will be met. I am sure that my hon. Friends will be delighted about that. Although they will be far from satisfied, I am sure that they will be delighted that the level of unemployment has fallen in the West Midlands in the past year and that the number of vacancies has increased substantially.
    Mr. Park: Without wishing to minimise the problem, may I ask whether my hon. Friend agrees that had it not been for Government assistance to British Leyland, Chrysler, Alfred Herbert, Meriden and other industrial schemes, the figures would have been considerably higher?
    Mr. Golding: Had it not been for the assistance given by the Government to the West Midlands there would have been an industrial desert in many of our cities. Not only the assistance to Chrysler, British Leyland and Alfred Herbert, but

    251
    also the temporary employment subsidy, the youth opportunities programme and now the short-time working compensation scheme will be helpful to the West Midlands.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: Does the Minister agree that there has been far too much steering of industry away from the West Midlands by the Government? I refer to firms such as IDC which were affected in Stafford, which is in my constituency. There has been a general attitude in the West Midlands of not helping sufficiently except for experiments such as at Meriden and British Leyland, which are not proving successful.
    Mr. Golding: I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his opposition to the creation of a pit in his constituency, which would create jobs, and note that 43,000 jobs were created as a result of industrial development certificates in the West Midlands in recent years since Labour came to power.
    Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures in Birmingham and the West Midlands.
    Mr. Golding: At 8 March, the provisional numbers of people registered as unemployed in the Birmingham travel-to-work area and in the West Midlands region were 41,441 and 122,882 respectively.
    Mr. Rooker: Will my hon. Friend say how greater those figures would have been if the industrial assistance presently provided by the Government by way of subsidy schemes were removed—the removal of which assistance is Opposition policy? Will he give an estimate of what the further job loss will be if all the large companies such as IMI, Dunlop and GEC have to pay all their deferred tax, which is industrial assistance and which concession will be removed by the Tory Opposition if they form a Government? What will be the unemployment figures in the West Midlands if those courses of action are followed?
    Mr. Golding: The figures in Birmingham alone would be astronomic. Through Department of Employment measures 19,000 people have been helped. In the West Midlands the figure is 95,000. The consequences not only for British Leyland,
    252
    Chrysler and Alfred Herbert but for all the components firms throughout the West Midlands would be dramatic and catastrophic were it not for the way in which the Government intervened to save jobs.
    Mr. Stokes: Does the Minister agree that the unemployment figures are disgraceful for what is the workshop of England? Why do the Government still send work away from the Midlands, which has the best work force in England, to other regions where the labour record is not so good?
    Mr. Golding: As a native of Birmingham I appreciate the problems faced by the West Midlands. The Government created the inner city partnership in Birmingham, which has tackled the problem for the first time. The Government gave massive assistance to the engineering industry, which helped it to recover from the decline that occurred under the previous Administration.
    Mr. Litterick: Will the Minister confirm that more than 100 firms in the West Midlands region have received direct Government aid since 1974? Will he give an undertaking that he will arrange to have published in the Official Report a detailed account of that financial assistance, together with the number of jobs being protected and preserved in each case, so that the education of the Opposition may be improved and so that the people will know what is at stake in the next election?
    Mr. Golding: The statistics of trade legislation prevents us from naming the individual firms. The workers in factories whose jobs have been saved know that that occurred as a result of Government intervention. They will take note of that fact.
    Mrs. Knight: Does the Minister recognise that some jobs that could be made available are not being offered because of Government action such as the Employment Protection Act, and that representations were made to his right hon. Friend on this point only last week?
    Mr. Golding: I read the report of the British Institute of Management with great interest. It regards the views of the Opposition on this point as a non-sense. The effects of the Employment

    253
    Protection Act have been completely overstated by the Opposition.

    Unemployment Benefit Office, Knottingley
    Dr. Edmund Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will postpone the date on which the unemployment benefit office at Knottingley, West Yorkshire, is due to be reduced to part-time operation.
    Mr. Golding: Yes, Sir.
    Dr. Marshall: I thank my hon. Friend for this stay of execution for the unemployment benefit office at Knottingley, where 535 members of the public called in the last week for which figures were available. Will he meet me soon so that we may have a full discussion on the future of this office before any further decisions are reached?
    Mr. Golding: Certainly. I shall be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and any others whom he may wish to bring to talk about this situation.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 March.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: May I draw the Prime Minister's attention to reports in The Guardian yesterday that EEC Governments are deliberately dragging out the talks on food prices in the hope that tomorrow's vote will lead to the return of the soft-touch Tory Government? Will the Prime Minister take it from me that the Government's opposition to any increase in food prices is welcomed in the country and that, if abrasiveness leads to a reduction in prices, we want more of it?
  The Prime Minister: It would be ill-advised of any Government to drag out the talks on such a hypothetical basis, which is unlikely to be realised. The truth is that the case we put forward for many years about the waste under the agricultural policy is at last beginning to
  254
  bite on consumers' pockets in continental countries as well as our own. For that reason, as well as the waste of expenditutre, we are receiving much more support on this matter than hitherto. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is there today to try to obtain agreement on a freeze of common prices. I hope that the House will support us in that.
  Mr. Anthony Grant: Will the Prime Minister apply his mind today to constitutional matters? In the event of the Government being defeated tomorrow night, will he follow the precedent of his predecessor, Ramsay MacDonald, and advise Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament the following day? If not, will he indicate to the House how long he expects it will be before he advises Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament?
  The Prime Minister: I have not engaged my mind on such entirely hypothetical questions as this. However, I have no doubt that if, in the event, the hon. Gentleman's nightmares and hobgoblins come true, this Government will be returned at any election held at any time.
  Mr. Sydney Irving: Has my right hon. Friend been able to consider a letter from both sides of the paper industry concerning the tariff cuts demanded of the EEC by the Americans in the present round of GATT negotiations in Brussels? Will he find time to use his influence to ensure that the success enjoyed by British manufacturers of kraft lined paper is not prejudiced by the EEC giving unnecessary concessions in response to American domestic pressures?
  The Prime Minister: This was one of the 2,000 or 3,000 letters that I get every week that I studied carefully. It seems that this industry—paper and kraft products—has a good case. I marked on the letter that I hoped that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade would take up the matter strongly. Our industry is in a good position to resist the United States proposal. The Community seems to be ready to give way on this for the sake of other concessions. I hope that we may sustain the position. I have not received a detailed report, but my right hon. Friend may be absolutely

  255
  assured that I am conscious of the problem.
  Mrs. Thatcher: I, too, would like to ask the Prime Minister a practical question. He will be aware of the reports today that the Civil Service is stepping up its strike action. He will also recall that, in a statement on contingency arrangements, he told me a few days ago that full contingency arrangements had been made to see that the Government did not default on their obligations. It is quite clear that these arrangements are not working, and that the small business man and the small investor are not getting the moneys which are due to them. What assurance can the Prime Minister give to us that new arrangements will be made?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady is—no doubt inadvertently—misquoting me. I am sure that I have never given a complete assurance of the nature that she mentioned, because that would be impossible to achieve. Strikes of this sort are always bound to interfere either with Government business or with the rights and the claims of the public on the Government. I very much hope that these will be minimised as far as possible. I can assure the right hon. Lady that we are doing that, but I cannot guarantee perfection in this matter. [Interruption.] The Opposition always shout "What are you doing about it?" One thing we could do would be to concede the wage claims in full. Is that what the Opposition would want us to do?
  Mr. Ifor Davies: Will the Prime Minister, during his engagements today, find time to clarify the position concerning quarrymen and others suffering from pneumoconiosis? Is there a deal in the pipeline? Will he agree that there is no justification for delay?
  The Prime Minister: I can say to the House that there is a Bill ready for this purpose. In view of the complete failure of the press to report the facts that it has been given day after day, I will make a statement. It is not only failure on the part of the press but in many cases misrepresentation by the press. This may not be to the taste of the Conservative Party, but it is as well to get the truth on record.
  256
  The truth is that, following the Pearson Commission report last summer, in which it said that it found great difficulties in connection with the slate quarrymen's case, the Government set up an interdepartmental inquiry at once. We told the House that we had done so. In the Queen's Speech last November we indicated that we were examining the case further. The inter-departmental committee reported to the Secretary of State for Employment in January in favour of the scheme. Ministers considered the scheme in February and agreed it in principle. They asked for more details to be given in respect of other workers in the textile and pottery industries as well as in the iron ore industries. All these matters were agreed. They came to a natural head during the course of March.
  Whatever may be the desire on the part of the Opposition or some minority parties to claim that something has been done in order to gain votes, that is a total misrepresentation of the sequence of events—and I hope that the press will print that in full.
  Mr. Gordon Wilsonasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 March.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk).
  Mr. Wilson: If the Prime Minister has no guilty feelings about the quarrymen, should he not have guilty feelings about the position of his Government in relation to Scotland, when they have cut regional industrial spending in real terms by 40 per cent, over the past two years? Does not he think that that is a scandalous position, in view of the level of unemployment in Scotland?
  Will the Prime Minister ponder also the fact that Scottish oil resources have gone up sharply as a result of the OPEC decision? Will he not enhance the degree of industrial spending in Scotland forthwith?
  The Prime Minister: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that I have no guilty feelings. I just have feelings of indignation that the press cannot report the facts which have been given to it day after day.—[Interruption.] Not all the press

  257
  but some of it. Conservative Members know which are their lapdogs in these matters.
  As for assistance to Scotland, the hon. Gentleman knows that there has been a considerable increase over the years, especialy in the funds which have been allocated to the Scottish Development Agency. This has made a substantial difference. But I am bound to say, if the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied with that, that I do not understand why apparently he would want to be walking through the Lobby tomorrow night with those who would cut out all grants to Scotland.
  Mr. Michael McGuire: Is my right hon. Friend aware that everyone will be pleased that he has set out the record concerning the Government's efforts to help the Welsh ex-quarrymen and people in other industries?
  May I ask my right hon. Friend if the principle is as enunciated by him—that is, to help people who have a just cause, and where there may be conflicts in reaching a solution? Will he advise his ministerial colleagues that there is another group of workers deserving of help, namely, a certain category of workmen's compensation cases? I remind my right hon. Friend that a Private Member's Bill that I have introduced is before the House but that, because of some complexities, I believe that it has not been given the treatment that it deserves. Will my right hon. Friend try to persuade his ministerial colleagues to advance it?
  The Prime Minister: I will inquire into this matter. The Secretary of State for Employment is aware of the Ten-Minute Bill to which my hon. Friend referred, and I am sure that he will go into it. But the Pearson Commission report on these matters as a whole needs more careful consideration than it has had so far, and we shall certainly bring forward proposals to deal with it in the next Parliament.
  Mr. Crouch: Will the Prime Minister make a statement this afternoon not of a constitutional nature or of a party political nature but rather of a statesmanlike
  258
  nature, concerning the achievement of President Carter in the development of peace between Egypt and Israel? Will the Prime Minister, in these last few days that may be left to him, say what are his views about helping President Carter to extend this peace development, so that it grows into something which will embrace all the Arab nations?
  The Prime Minister: I spoke last Friday about this matter, although it did not engage too much attention. The visit of President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin to the United States is clearly of historic importance. For the first time in 30 years, there seems now to be peace between Egypt and Israel; and that is something at which the whole world should rejoice. As I have made clear to President Carter and to Prime Minister Begin and President Sadat, we regard it as essential that we should move on from here to a comprehensive peace settlement that will engage the other Arab States and give the Arabs in Palestine—the Palestinians—the opportunity of a secure future for themselves, as well as securing peace for Israel.
  I believe that the European Community has issued a statement today. I wish that it could have been a little warmer about the peace settlement than it is, but in any case, it represents a most valuable step forward.
  Mr. Ashley: If the Prime Minister finds time today to consider any possible vote of censure, will he tell the Liberals, the Scottish National Party, the Welsh nationalists and the Ulster Unionists to go and jump in the North Sea? [HON. MEMBERS: "Or the Irish Sea."] Will he tell the House that this Government will fight on their record and future policy, irrespective of the result of tomorrow night's vote?
  The Prime Minister: Yes. My hon. Friend need have no doubt about that. As regards the Liberal Party and the Scottish National Party Members jumping into the North Sea, they have already done so. It is the first time that I have ever heard of the drowning man throwing a lifebelt to the ship.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS' MEETINGS)
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the main business to be taken by Ministers of the European Community during April. The more detailed written forecast was deposited yesterday. At present five meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for April.
A joint Foreign Affairs and Finance Council will meet on 2 April and will consider two Commission discussion papers, first "Financing the Community Budget —The Way Ahead" and secondly "A Global Appraisal of the Budgetary Problems of the Community."
The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on 2 and 3 April and will discuss the relaunching of the EEC-Turkey association agreement, relations with Yugoslavia, and preparations for UNCTAD V. Ministers will also review the position reached in the GATT multilateral trade negotiations and will discuss negotiations with China for an agreement over trade in textiles. The Council will prepare for the next, and possibly final, meeting at ministerial level of the Greek accession negotiations, which will take place immediately after the Council, and will again consider revised Commission proposals concerning specific aids given by member States to the steel industry.
The Environment Council will meet on 9 April for a general exchange of views on environment policy, which is expected to include discussion of Commission papers on waste management, clean technologies, guidelines for the assessment of the possible impact on the environment of any proposed building or construction work, and European conventions on the quality of life.
The Agriculture Council will meet on 9 and 10 April to continue discussion of the 1979–80 CAP price proposals.
A Finance, or special Fiscal, Council may meet on 23 April to resume discussion of interest rate subsidies to be paid to the less prosperous members of the EMS exchange rate mechanism, and may also consider the harmonisation of excise duty on alcoholic beverages and the three draft directives concerned with VAT.
Mr. Hurd: I thank the Minister for that full statement. It is the more welcome to us because it sometimes seems that at this time, when a lot of important business is being transacted in the Community, Ministers are usually too busy making electioneering speeches on the subject to tell us what is actually going on.
For example, will the Minister tell us whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will make a statement to the House about the outcome last week of discussions on the Community budget for 1979, in view of the great importance of the issues and the many changes of stance gone through by Treasury Ministers during the time that it was discussed?
Finally, will the Chancellor make a statement on the matter mentioned by the Minister, which will be discussed again next week, about interest rate subsidies for less prosperous countries? Is it the Chancellor's view that whether or not we join EMS we are eligible, after five years of his chancellorship, for special interest provisions on the ground that we are a less prosperous member of the Community?
Mr. Judd: With regard to the Finance Council, I assure the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) that we shall keep the House fully informed of developments after the joint Finance-Foreign Affairs Council meeting next week, which is, of course, crucial in this respect. As to the interest rate subsidies, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, we do not stand to lose, because there will, of course, be a refund of any subscriptions that we make in this respect.
Mr. Faulds: Will my hon. Friend make the point to his colleagues that while America is stuck on the hook of the Kissinger promise that there will be no recognition of the PLO until it has recognised Israel—which is like asking people of an occupied country to recognise their occupiers—there can be no real progress towards peace in the Middle East, regardless of the Camp David con, and that there will be an upping of oil prices by Arab countries until we come to the simple realisation of accepting the PLO and working for the creation of a Palestinian State?
Mr. Judd: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) has strong views on this matter. The Government have made their position perfectly clear. We recognise that the comprehensive peace towards which we hope to build on the basis of this new agreement will have to take into account the needs and aspirations of the Palestinian people. That is fundamentally important. As to the PLO, the position of the Government remains totally unchanged. Unless the PLO can come to terms with the need to recognise Israel's right to survival, there can be no question of formal recognition or ministerial contact with the PLO.
Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Minister tell the House when we can expect the Council of Ministers to discuss fishing? Will he bear in mind that these problems are mounting up, particularly in South-West England? While we need to maintain our position, we also need to move forward. Can the Minister let us know?
Mr. Judd: I am sure that the whole House wishes to see a satisfactory solution to the problem of fishing policy within the Community. However, it is perfectly clear that we are not prepared to see that solution achieved on any terms. We believe that a solution must recognise the profound contribution made to the Community by the fish stock that comes from British waters. Of course, we shall want a further meeting as soon as there are indications that progress can be made. To have a meeting that is totally unproductive will not help to find a solution.
Mrs. Bain: With reference to the possibility of aid being given to the steel industry, may I ask the Minister of State, against the background of the Government's dragging their heels over the Hunterston project and the devastation of unemployment in Glengarnock, what assurance he can give that the Government will make very firm pleas within the Common Market for no further redundancies in the steel industry, which is vital to the West of Scotland? Will he also ensure that the necessary investment takes place to make the industry competitive?
Mr. Judd: I am sure that the hon. Lady will recall that Ministers have repeatedly
262
made clear that the Government are not prepared to agree to Community proposals that could delay or prevent the advance of working capital to the British Steel Corporation and that would effectively deprive us of the power to decide upon the speed and conduct of our own restructuring programme.
Mr. Corbett: Can the Minister assure the House that before there is any question of a new agreement with Turkey, the Community will require better evidence of a willingness by that country to withdraw its troops from Cyprus and to put better efforts behind the restoration of peace and tranquility on that island?
Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friend is today meeting the Foreign Minister of Cyprus. We all wish to see the outcome to which my hon. Friend has referred, but the withdrawal of Turkish troops will be achieved realistically only within the context of an overall settlement. We are working towards that in every way that we can. We recognise our responsibility, and we want to see progress. In the meantime, as I have said before—I hope that my hon. Friend will agree—the cause of democracy in Turkey is worthy of the support of the rest of the Western world.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Having put to the Community, on behalf of the previous Government, proposals for common work on clean air, clean seas and common waste management, may I very much welcome the prospect of the Environment Council meeting on 9 April? However, is the Minister aware that there is nothing specifically in the Treaty that allows the Community to take action in these areas—rather, it is an adjunct of competition policy? Has he any proposals for the Treaty to be amended so that there can be common Community action on environmental policies as such?
Mr. Judd: We have no plans to amend the Treaty in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman, but if we can get constructive co-operation in the Community on a voluntary basis we shall go for that. However, I want to make something perfectly clear. In this sphere, as in all others, we favour action on a Community basis where this makes sense, but we favour very much a retention of emphasis on national action where this makes more sense.
Mr. Christopher Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer on Cyprus could be interpreted as an indication that the British Government now consider stability in Turkey very much more important than a just settlement in Cyprus? If he has given that impression, will he put it right now?
Mr. Judd: I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his special knowledge of the issue, would not have made that interpretation. Of course, that is certainly not the case. Anyone who made that interpretation deliberately would be being mischievous. As ever, we are highly committed to the importance of finding a settlement in the interests of all the people of Cyprus, not only because of Cyprus itself but because of the importance of stability in that whole part of the Mediterranean to the southern flank of NATO. We also believe that as fellow members of the Alliance we have a responsibility to work for stability and the cause of creative democracy in Turkey as well.
Mr. Geraint Howells: Will the Minister convey to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the wish of my colleagues and myself that he should continue his deliberations in Brussels for a complete freeze on the price review this year? Will he also convey to his right hon. Friend the fact that if we are to restore confidence to British agriculture the green pound should be devalued by 10 per cent, and not by 5 per cent.?
Mr. Judd: I shall certainly convey what the hon. Gentleman said to my right hon. Friend. I should point out that this Government are determined to stand firm on the concept of price freezes, both in the cause of rational agricultural production within the Community and also in the interests of housewives, consumers and families throughout the Community, who are being asked to pay far more than they need for their food because of this wasteful and extravagant policy.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman impress on the meeting of Foreign Secretaries the real need for Europe to play a leading part in the Middle East by supporting the amazing settlement between Israel and Egypt, and giving that success proper support instead of pursuing a pusillanimous and divided policy
264
which makes Europe the laughing stock of the world?
Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already dealt with that question. I only reiterate that we have welcomed the agreement, but I believe that everyone who looks at that great achievement will recognise, as the Community has said, that in history it must be seen as a stepping stone towards a comprehensive settlement in that area and not as an end in itself.
Mr. Spearing: As Minister responsible for our relations with the EEC, has my hon. Friend been told about the energy debate yesterday? Is he aware that it was revealed that the recent finding of the EEC Court means that all fissile material including uranium and plutonium, in this country is in the possession of the EEC, which is also responsible for security and movement? In view of that, can he tell the House when the Government are likely to commence conversations with the French Government, and at what ministerial meeting of the EEC this matter will now arise?
Mr. Judd: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the recent Court finding has demonstrated that the Euratom treaty has far-reaching implications for our own energy policy, particularly in the nuclear sphere. I am quite certain that the Community will want to look thoroughly at the implications of that Court finding, so that it can work out sensibly a rational way forward.
Mr. Michael Marshall: In regard to the meeting concerned with the steel industry, does the Minister recall that in the debate on 25 January, in which he was responsible for the Government, a problem arose from the retrospective collection of funds for the European Coal and Steel Community budget? Can he say whether, in the discussions that are about to take place, there is now a firm commitment to find a better way of financing the budget in anticipation, as it were, rather than in a retrospective way?
Mr. Judd: This is a problem that we are continuing to keep under active review with our colleagues.
Mr. James Lamond: Is my hon. Friend aware that if the talks with the

265
People's Republic of China are successful, and they are able to export textiles to this country and to the rest of the EEC, it will cause great concern among all sections of the textile industry, because they believe that the Government will have undone all the good that they achieved with the multi-fibre arrangement and with GATT?
Mr. Judd: I, along with all my colleagues in Government, understand my hon. Friend's anxiety, as well as that of others who are close to the communities in Britain that are dependent upon the textile industry. No one should underestimate the significance of the adjustments that have been made in that industry in Britain over recent years—with more than 100,000 jobs lost. I can assure my hon. Friend that this will be very much in our minds as we assess the recommendations of the Commission following its discussions with the Chinese. Of course, any arrangement that is reached with the Chinese will have to fit in with the overall strategy of the Community's textile policy as a whole, which must seriously take account of the social and economic problems faced in this country and others.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the House will co-operate with me, I shall call those hon. Members who have risen, but I hope that they will ask brief questions. There is a Ten-Minute Bill before we get to the main business, for which there is a long list of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to speak.
Mr. Marten: Did the Minister hear his hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) put his supplementary question to the Prime Minister, in which he suggested that the EEC might be awaiting the outcome of the vote tomorrow night because it thought that the Conservative Party would be an easy touch in regard to the price review? Is he aware that the Conservative Party is just as much committed to a freeze on EEC prices as is the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?
Mr. Judd: I am certain that the hon. Gentleman, with his absolutely consistent approach on these matters, is deeply committed. I wish that I were as confident
266
that the Conservative Opposition were as deeply committed as this side of the House for the years ahead.
Mr. Roy Hughes: With regard to the meeting on 2 and 3 April on aids to the steel industry, does my hon. Friend appreciate that the best form of aid that can be given to the British steel industry at present is the curbing of imports? Does he appreciate that the Ford Motor Company at Dagenham now largely obtains its steel from West Germany, while at the same time many of our own people have been put out of work?
Mr. Judd: My hon. Friend will know that the December Council of Ministers renewed the anti-crisis measures until the end of 1979. Of course, if we do not get agreement on State aids at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers we shall have to review our commitment to those anti-crisis policies.
Mr. Moate: With regard to the multilateral trade negotiations, is the hon. Gentleman aware of the grave concern expressed by the British paper and board industry at reports that the Commission is about to make some sort of concession to the United States and may offer paper interests in Europe as a sacrificial lamb in the general negotiations? Will the Minister say what the Government's view is on this matter? Will he also say what influence and power they have over the negotiating stance of the Commission's team?
Mr. Judd: That and other matters will be considered on the second day of the meeting on Tuesday, when we shall be examining the report by the Commission on the negotiations to see whether we have reached the stage where we can move forward to an agreement. We are not yet at that stage, but when the formal proposals from the Commission are available the House can scrutinise them and give its views.
Mr. Stoddart: In discussing the financing of the Community budget, will my hon. Friend ensure that we re-emphasise that Britain's contribution is grossly distorted and unfair? Will he inform his colleagues that, while the common agricultural policy wastes money by destroying, storing and dumping food on the world market, there is no possibility that

267
this Government will agree to new financing?
Mr. Judd: That has been made abundantly clear by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We shall continue to make plain that the British people are not prepared to become, in the near future, the largest net contributors to the budget when 76 per cent, of it is used to finance a ridiculously extravagant agriculture policy that penalises the consumer. There will be a further opportunity to bring the financing of the Community budget to a head when the present arrangements on the VAT ceiling of 1 per cent, expire in 1981. New arrangements will have to be made by a unanimous decision of the Council and will require the endorsement of this House.
Mr. Dykes: We have been saying the same thing about the CAP for many months, but does the Minister agree that the constant moaning and hostility towards the EEC that has developed for party reasons on the Government Benches below the Gangway prevents the Government using the Community positively to serve the interests of this country? Should not the Minister and his colleagues have been pressing for months for the location in this country of new Community organisations, such as the EEC trade mark office, the European export bank, if it is finally set up, and, if we join the European monetary system, the European monetary fund?
Mr. Judd: The hon. Gentleman may be a convert to the principle of fighting the injustices of the CAP, but he has been conspicuous by his silence in recent months. He follows these affairs pretty closely and will recognise that there is a growing awareness amongst Ministers and others in the Community of the justice of the British case on the iniquities of the common agricultural policy. The sheer logic of our case is registering. The reforms that we are advocating are not simply in the British interest; they are in the interest of consumers throughout the Community. We are putting forward a Community policy. On other matters of immediate advantage that the hon.
268
Gentleman suggests that we should be fighting for, we are arguing, for example, that a larger proportion of the budget should go towards tackling the problems of urban areas and the restructuring of industry. Those are highly constructive views that we are putting forward, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us.
Mr. Ioan Evans: In view of the reports of the South African slush fund being used to influence the attitude of parliamentarians in the EEC towards Rhodesia, Namibia and South Africa, will that matter be discussed at the meeting of the EEC Foreign Ministers?
Mr. Judd: That is not immediately an issue for Foreign Ministers, although it should be resolved within the European Assembly. Everyone who follows public affairs must be deeply distressed about it, and I hope that Members of the European Assembly and Members of this House will discuss it.
Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend clearly convey to the Finance Ministers, when discussing the long-term Community budget, that we are not prepared to allow in any circumstances, let alone with the CAP, further taxation revenue accruing to the Common Market? Will he, if necessary, use the veto to resist any extension by the EEC of the taxation base? The Conservative Party will allow it to be extended if it gets its hands on power.
Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it perfectly clear that when the revision of financing and budgetary arrangements occurs, which will necessitate unanimous decisions in the Council of Ministers and the agreement of this House, that agreement will not be reached until everyone is convinced that the changes are sensible and just.
Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware of the strong feelings in Brussels that the Conservative Party would acquiesce in all forms of price increases for food and services and would consider increasing taxation to aid the ailing EEC and its almost stupid Commissioners, who inflict terrible burdens on this country? Will he make it clear that this Government's policy over the past three or four years in combating inflation has produced realistic results? If that were

269
emulated by the EEC countries, we should all benefit and rid ourselves of the greatest threat to Western Europe, namely, inflation.
Mr. Judd: My hon. Friend has spoken clearly for the House. Over the past couple of years there have been significant achievements by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the price policy that he has managed to make the Community face. He has won positive support. It would be wonderful if Conservative Members were fully behind him rather than detracting from what he is doing on behalf of British consumers and those throughout the Community.
Mr. Hurd: Whose proposals on agricultural prices are now being discussed in Brussels?
Mr. Judd: I am glad to say that the Commission has put forward sensible price proposals, which have been supported to the hilt by this Government. Would that we could persuade other Governments to support them as fully.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS' MEETINGS)
  BILL PRESENTED
    PNEUMOCONIOSIS ETC. (WORKERS' COMPENSATION)
    Mr. Secretary Booth, supported by Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Secretary Morris, Mr. Joel Barnett, Mr. Stanley Orme, Mr. Harold Walker and Dr. John Cunningham, presented (under Standing Order No. 91 (Procedure upon Bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to make provision for lump sum payments to or in respect of certain persons who are, or were immediately before they died, disabled by pneumoconiosis, byssinosis or diffuse mesothelioma; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 123].

INLAND REVENUE (DISCRETION)
3.57 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to limit to individual cases the discretion of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise to reduce or forgo payments of tax; and to require that that discretion in favour of classes or groups of taxpayers shall be exercised only by an order subject to approval by the House of Commons.
At the outset I emphasise the importance of the discretion that tax authorities have exercised in favour of individuals for compassionate or other reasons. That is something that we have all experienced in our constituency work and that we all admire. To extend that discretion to a general amnesty up to 1977 for the casual workers in Fleet Street is a totally different interpretation of the powers of the Inland Revenue. It is highly political. Nothing has caused greater fury among certain classes of taxpayer than that amnesty.
The change in the attitude of the public is best witnessed by early-day motion No. 354, signed by 66 members of the Tribune group, who are basically in favour of the principle of the Bill. They are the same hon. Members who voted against my first Bill to outlaw the practice of ghost workers. That is a transformation indeed.
In evidencing why the Bill should receive leave, one must consider the inordinate delay in bringing to light the scandal of the fictitious names in Fleet Street. In answer to a question, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury told me:
"Evidence of the use of fictitious names among casual workers in Fleet Street has been accumulating for some years."—[Official Report, 21 March 1979; Vol. 964, c. 659.]
In response to another question, I was told by the Minister of State, Department of Health and Society Security:
"Employers of casual workers in the newspaper industry, like other employers of labour, are responsible for the payment of earnings-related national insurance contributions in respect of any of their employees whose earnings derived from the employment reach the the lower earnings limit for contribution liability."—[Official Report, 19 March 1979; Vol. 964, c. 478.]
There are powers under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 for the Inland Revenue to require employers to deduct tax from casual workers' earnings,

271
yet none of these things was done—or perhaps they were done and we do not know about it. In the case of national insurance contributions, it may well be that these have been paid. Perhaps somewhere in Sunset Boulevard there is a heap of brown envelopes containing the pensions for Mr. M. Mouse. But for many years there has been an extraordinary lack of responsibility, and an extraordinary failure to take this serious situation to heart.
The next disturbing feature of the tax amnesty is that it has literally been negotiated by the Inland Revenue with the trade unions concerned. We have found out from answers to questions that there was some consultation with Ministers, but Sir William Pile yesterday confirmed that the decision was his and his alone. He went to the unions and negotiated the amnesty.
I quote from the letter that the Society of Graphical and Allied Trades sent out to all its members. It said:
"The offer extends to errors made in returns completed, or in information provided before 4 March in respect of casual earnings for the years up to 5 April 1977, which will be similarly disregarded, subject to acceptance of the arrangements and full co-operation by the individual. This treatment will also be extended to errors in minor sources of income, such as savings interest."
Is that not rather extraordinary? Later on, the letter said:
"The above procedures and arrangements apply only to printing casuals who are members of SOGAT, NATSOPA and NGA "—
—I suppose that the NGA is the National Ghosts' Association—
"They will be applied uniformly to casuals throughout Fleet Street from 4 March. The arrangements for other casuals will be reviewed in due course."
The letter said, finally:
"We fully appreciate that a casual may find himself in something of a dilemma if he has not paid tax properly in the past and now wants to put matters in order. He may fear the consequences. What we are saying to him is that if there is general acceptance of the new procedures and if he co-operates fully with the Revenue, we will release him from most of the liabilities which the Revenue could demand."
I do not believe that that should be left to the discretion of the Revenue to negotiate. I believe that there are millions of citizens in this country who feel deeply aggrieved because they are being
272
harassed by Customs and the Revenue for tax for perhaps five, six or seven years back, and often very small amounts. The policy of the Revenue in relation to small businesses is to carry out investigations in depth. It takes 12 per cent, of cases, quickly discards 9 per cent, and then picks on the 3 per cent, to go into the last detail and crawl back over the past six years with the greatest care. The idea of this is so to frighten the taxpayer that the word gets around that it is not a good idea to misdeclare one's income.
However, the effects of this policy have been to cause nervous breakdowns, and in two cases of which I have heard to cause heart attacks. Also, serious distress and unhappiness are caused among the unfortunate 3 per cent.
Sir William Pile yesterday claimed that that policy represented an amnesty for the 97 per cent, who were not deeply investigated and therefore it was fair to grant an amnesty to Fleet Street casual workers. But the self-employed and the small business men will not share that feeling. They feel that as each and every one of them is liable to be subjected to this treatment they should at least have the same arrangement as the Fleet Street casual workers.
Finally, I contrast the attitude of the Government in agreeing to the amnesty with that that they have exhibited in tax affairs on Finance Bills and in the pursuit of tax evasion. Indeed, the Chief Secretary has become the most virulent pursuer of tax evaders in the history of the Treasury. I quote one sentence from a speech that he made in Committee during the last Finance Bill:
"If the Committee will accept that these are wholly artificial schemes, with no commerciality, which have the diliberate intent—and no other reason—of avoiding very large sums in tax at the expense of the mass of the taxpayers, it is incumbent upon us to see whether there are ways that we can stop it." —[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 6 June 1978; c. 730.]
Those very words could have been used about the Fleet Street tax evasion scandal. The Goverment went as far as to use retrospection in legislation to ram that provision through this House despite protests from the Opposition in those cases of tax evasion. Now, when we have £1 million lost due to evasion by members of trade unions and self-employed, after

273
three or four years of failing to pursue them a tax amnesty is granted. Is it any wonder that feeling is running high?
That is why I seek to leave to introduce a Bill to limit the discretion of the Revenue to individual cases, so that this House can take a political decision—which is what this decision about a Revenue amnesty is—and so that we can make sure that there is equality of treatment between all our citizens.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Mr. Terence Higgins, Mr. Ian Gow, Mr. J. W. Rooker, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Dennis Canavan, and Mr. Bruce Grocott.

INLAND REVENUE (DISCRETION)
  INLAND REVENUE (DISCRETION)
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley accordingly presented a Bill to limit to individual cases the discretion of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise to reduce or forgo payments of tax; and to require that that discretion in favour of classes or groups of taxpayers shall be exercised only by an order subject to approval by the House of Commons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 April and to be printed. [Bill 122.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  DEFENCE
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [26 March]:
  That this House endorses Her Majesty's Government's policy set out in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1979 (Command Paper No. 7474) of basing British security on collective effort to deter aggression, while seeking every opportunity to reduce tension through international agreements on arms control and disarmament.—[Mr. Mulley.]
  Which amendment was, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'declines to take note of the White Paper because it provides for a massive increase in military expenditure to £8,588 million in the year 1979–80, which will add to world tension, divert resources from urgent social needs and contravenes Her Majesty's Government's election pledge to give active support to policies designed to redeploy armaments industries to the manufacture of alternative socially useful products, as advocated by Lucas Aerospace and other workers; and reaffirms Labour's commitment not to proceed to a new generation of nuclear weapons'.—[Mr. Frank Allaun.]
  Mr. Speaker: Yesterday I was able to call only 15 Back Benchers. One speech lasted for 38 minutes, which certainly cut out at least two other hon. Members. There are at least 25 hon. Members who wish to speak today. I hope that no one will approach the Chair today, because it is much too difficult for me to deal with inquiries of that sort and to do justice by the House. It is also much more unpleasant for me.
  4.10 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. A. E. P. Duffy): In opening the second day's debate on the Defence Estimates 1979, I refer to the speech yesterday by the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck). His reappearance at the Dispatch Box last night must have brought pleasure to hon. Members on both sides of the House. He certainly addressed himself to his subject with all the composure and authority that the House would expect from a former Minister.
  I shall take up a couple of his points arising from yesterday's debate. He asked for a cost of living allowance to be paid

  275
  to sailors visiting expensive foreign countries. I regret that I can tell him only that the question of sea-going local overseas allowance for North-West Europe is still being considered.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman made a plea for a strong naval presence in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Royal Navy deploys world-wide, and our plans for this year have included, for some time, a group visit to Australasia and the Western Pacific, passing through the Mediterranean, where they will take part in a major NATO exercise.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) raised the question of the pay of upholsteresses in the Royal dockyards. I have discussed this matter with him many times. The work that these upholsteresses do is work which elsewhere in the MOD is not regarded as craft work. It is not a question of discrimination; it is purely a question of the nature of the work. The matter is still on the agenda for discussion by the shipbuilding trades joint council, which is responsible for the matter, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will not expect me to go further while it still remains a matter for negotiation. My hon. Friend also asked about the closure of air cadet gliding schools. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force is well aware of the problem and will be writing to my hon. Friend shortly.
  I shall now concentrate on some aspects of defence not covered in detail by my right hon. Friend yesterday—the operations and activities of the Armed Forces, including the contribution that they make to the community at large, which is often taken for granted. I should also like to say something about the equipment programme. If our Armed Forces are to play their part in time of tension or war, it is essential for them to test their preparedness for their role. To this end, all three Services attach great importance to taking part in exercises, either under national command or jointly with our allies.
  At sea, the largest exercise of the year was "Northern Wedding", one of the most powerful ever held by NATO. It was designed to demonstrate the readiness and effectiveness of the Alliance in
  276
  conducting maritime, amphibious and air operations and to test NATO's operational techniques.
  Later in the year HMS "Ark Royal", in her last appearance in a NATO role, led the United Kingdom contribution to "Display Determination", which took place in the Mediterranean. This exercise, involving land, sea and air forces, was aimed at demonstrating and improving NATO's capability to reinforce her southern flank.
  Both these exercises formed part of the autumn "Forge" series of exercises, which linked together NATO and national exercises held throughout Allied Command Europe in the autumn of 1978. Of exercises on land which formed part of the series and in which the United Kingdom participated, I would mention "Bold Guard". Troops of the United Kingdom Mobile Force, including units of the TAVR, took part in this exercise in North Germany which aimed to test external reinforcement of the Baltic Approaches.
  Apart from participating in these major NATO exercises, United Kingdom forces, in particular the Royal Marines, regularly exercise each winter in North Norway, together with the Royal Netherlands Marine Corps, in order to gain experience of Arctic and mountain warfare in preparation for their operational role in the defence of the northern flank of NATO.
  While our defence effort must be concentrated on NATO, we do not intend to neglect the rest of the world. The British record in the training of forces in many parts of the globe is a distinguished one.
  Outside the NATO area we have several specific defence commitments that entail the stationing of forces. In Hong Kong, for example, where we are responsible for the colony's defence and security, we have a garrison drawn from all three Services. Our defence commitment to Belize is also represented by all three Services.
  In Cyprus a force protects our sovereign base areas and mans the airfield at Akrotiri.
  Outside Europe we retain a Gurkha battalion in Brunei and shall continue to do so until 1983. In the Falkland Islands there is a continuing requirement for the

  277
  Royal Marines detachment to be stationed there and to deploy HMS "Endurance" to the area.
  Apart from the specific commitments to which I have just referred, we must be prepared to deploy forces outside the NATO area to meet other responsibilities—for example, for the external defence and internal security of our remaining dependent territories, for United Nations peacekeeping operations and, of course, for the safety of British citizens overseas, where the need arises.
  I am sure that at this point the House would wish me to pay a tribute to the efforts of the Services in the recent evacuation from Iran. Their calm efficiency was praised, I believe, by all those who were evacuated.
  I should like to mention in particular two areas of operations—Northern Ireland and fishery protection. Nowhere are the high standards of professionalism of the British solder more apparent than in Northern Ireland. The other two Services also provide essential help. The 40 Royal Marine Commando is just beginning a 12-month tour of Ballykelly, while the RAF provides vital mobility. We are now working on plans to introduce another resident battalion as and when suitable accommodation is available.
  When I last visited the Province I was impressed by the skill, the determination and the resourcefulness with which the Armed Forces, including the UDR, carry out their exacting and often dangerous task.
  Besides Northern Ireland, the other major non-NATO role of the forces is fishery protection. I believe that hon. Members now recognise how successful the arrangements we made to meet the expanded commitment have been in operation. The Island class vessels, with their endurance and seakeeping, have shown themselves capable of meeting the patrolling task in some of the roughest and most inhospitable waters in the world. Our satisfaction is such that we have ordered two more, which will enter service this year.
  Mr. James Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, speaking at an international conference in Hull last weekend, emphasised
  278
  that conservation is absolutely vital to our fishing stocks? Skippers at that conference told him that without enforcement conservation policy was a mockery. Would my hon. Friend enlarge on that and tell us what has happened in the last 12 months? Are our skippers justified in believing that they have been looked after?
  Mr. Duffy: I know that my hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on conservation policy, but I shall gladly inform the House of our success in enforcement. In the 12 months preceding the end of last month, we boarded 1,622 fishing vessels. Twenty-two convictions for fishery offences have followed. An indispensable part of our plan for fishery protection is the part played by RAF Nimrod aircraft and the information that they pass to the Fisheries Department. They have been of immense value in the deployment of the Island class ships and to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Scotland, civilian-manned ships which patrol the area to the west of Scotland.
  The Island class vessels are also equipped to provide assistance in emergency, having a fire fighting and an oil dispersant spraying capability and a range of communications equipment giving them a control and command facility.
  I am mindful of the remarks last night by my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). The Island class vessels and Nimrod patrol aircraft have another, equally important, task to perform, since they also undertake regular surveillance and deterrent patrols of the offshore oil and gas installations around our shores. They represent, therefore, in a very tangible form, the Government's commitment to protect these vital installations.
  As well as these continuous tasks, the Services undertake a number of activities on a more ad hoc basis. As the House will be aware, search and rescue operations are carried out by the Services all the year round, but the Services contribute personnel and equipment in other areas such as in snow and flood relief.
  Mr. Alec Woodall: My hon. Friend has mentioned the search and rescue services carried out by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force in perilous seas. Will he also bear in mind

  279
  the magnificent contribution made by all the Services in bitter weather conditions inland? Is he aware of the magnificent contribution made by RAF Wittering during the recent terrible Arctic conditions? They turned out in a terrible storm and took in 500 people who were trapped in their vehicles, including my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and me, and gave us food and shelter. We shall be for ever grateful to RAF Wittering.
  Mr. Duffy: I was going to confine myself to the contribution made by the Services in rescuing personnel and equipment from the snow and floods, but it is right, as my hon. Friend says, that I should remind the House that the work of the Services, especially this winter, on the ground and in the air and often in the most appalling conditions, has extended to providing generous hospitality.
  Can the House imagine that any other establishment would have responded so impressively and readily on the night that my hon. Friends the Members for Hems-worth (Mr. Woodall) and Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and 500 others were marooned? They were invited in and looked after for up to 16 hours. Only a Services establishment such as RAF Wittering could have responsed so magnificently.
  The Services also continue as a matter of routine to assist wherever possible in a variety of projects of social value to the community. Typical activities have included land clearance and the preparation of recreational facilities.
  I turn to the defence equipment programme. I trust that hon. Members will have seen that we have adopted a new approach to chapter 3 of this year's defence White Paper and I hope that they will find this useful. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), unlike his hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), obviously did not notice this, since he appeared to have read only two paragraphs. He overlooked the substantial improvements that we are making in the Services' equipment. A sizeable block of resources—some 40 per cent, of the defence budget, or nearly £3,500 million—will be devoted in the coming year to the development or procurement of equipment. Of this, about 90 per cent.
  280
  goes to United Kingdom industry or to collaborative programmes in which the United Kingdom is involved. Our aim this year has been to show more clearly why this equipment is needed, by relating it to the various roles and tasks of the defence forces, many of which involve more than one Service.
  To match the progress made by the Warsaw Pact in the quality and quantity of its weapons, and to keep abreast of advances in technology, we need to apply considerable resources in industry, and in defence research and development establishments, to development. As the hon. Member for Chichester observed, there is over £1,150 million in the Estimates for research and development in 1979–80.
  I take one major example from the defence research and development programme, the beginning of project definition of the Chieftain tank replacement, known as MBT 80. Like all major development ventures, the complete development programme will take a number of years to produce a completely new generation of tank.
  A special MBT 80 executive has been set up in the Ministry of Defence to carry this project forward with the highest priority in the Army equipment programme. Development is not confined to single-Service projects. For example, we have continually to improve our means of detecting, and acquiring as targets, opposing forces and weapons, whether these be, say, submarines, incoming missiles or armour. Much effort is being devoted, for example, to the development of new sonar devices mounted on ships or deployed from aircraft. I emphasise the extent to which our development programme aims to reap all possible benefit from the revolution in computing and microprocessing. Ever more sophisticated computers are under development for use in avionics systems and homing weapons.
  All three Services have development programmes which will harness automatic data processing in such a way as to achieve major advances in command and control in the next decade. The application of ADP to the land battle is foreseen. Developments are in hand at a tactical level to improve computerised shipborne action information and fire control systems and at a strategic level to update

  281
  the United Kingdom air defence ground facilities.
  Developments in these related fields of command, control and communications are increasingly important in the face of the numerical superiority of the Warsaw Pact.
  I turn to our production programmes and refer specifically to next year, as against looking 10 years' ahead. I shall indicate some of the main areas in which we shall be spending the Estimates between now and next March.
  In the coming year a greater proportion of the equipment programme will be devoted to production of aircraft and associated weapons, including about £750 million on fixed-wing aircraft alone. By far the largest contributor is the Tornado GR Mark 1, where production of the first 150 aircraft for the three partners is well advanced. The first RAF aircraft are due in service next year. Other significant fixed-wing production programmes—besides the large requirement for spares and repairs—include the Sea Harrier and additional RAF Harriers and the Hawk trainer, whilst a principal helicopter programme in collaboration with the French is the Lynx.
  About £250 million is to be spent this year in our shipyards on fighting ships. Work will be in progress on six classes of major ships including all three new antisubmarine warfare cruisers; nuclear-powered fleet submarines including the improved Trafalgar class; Type-42 destroyers and Type-22 frigates, of which the first, "Broadsword", was recently accepted, as well as the glass-reinforced plastic advanced mine countermeasures vessels of the Hunt class, of which the first, HMS "Brecon", the world's largest glass-reinforced plastic ship, will enter service this year.
  Mr. Alan Clark: Has not the cost of the "Broadsword"—the Type 22—only slightly exceeded in some cases the cost of refitting the Leanders? Would it not have been a better bargain to have sold the Leanders off and commissioned a larger construction programme for the Type 22?
  Mr. Duffy: I shall ask my hon. Friend to take up that matter, which is of importance and which is of interest to me. I
  282
  should like a considered reply to be given to that question.
  Nearly £500 million is earmarked for production this year of guided weapons and associated systems, missiles and torpedoes for the Services, including major programmes for the Skyflash air-to-air missile, the Milan- and Tow anti-tank guided weapons, the Rapier ground-based air defence missile, the Mark 24 heavyweight torpedo and shipborne Sea Dart and Sea Wolf missile systems.
  Also there is nearly £500 million to be spent on the production of Army systems and vehicles. If I may pick on just a few items here, the coming year sees the peak of expenditure on equipping the Army with the FH70 gun and the combat engineer tractor; re-equipment with the Clansman radio is in full swing; and there is continuing expenditure on supplying the Army's vehicle fleet.
  Those are just some of the major projects on which the Government are spending money this year. The defence equipment programme is specifically aimed at supplying the equipment for our Armed Forces, of course. Nevertheless, we should not lose sight of the important benefits that the defence programme brings to the economic life of the country, as the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) reminded the House last night.
  The reliance of our main contractors on their subcontractors, for example, and of these subcontractors on their own suppliers, and so on, the whole way down the chain, is an important feature of the defence equipment programme. It is therefore worth remembering that the size and complexity of the overall defence equipment programme, along with the industrial structure that supports it, make for a considerable degree of inflexibility in the programme, especially in the short term.
  The programme is not something that can simply be cut dramatically or substantially increased overnight. The essence of our equipment programme is that it is a long-term programme with very considerable industrial implications, and, because of this, immediate decreases— and increases—in defence spending on equipment are not sensible courses of action, leading as they must to a less efficient use of resources both by us and within industry. Therefore, I hope that

  283
  those hon. Gentlemen opposite who sometimes seem to have an addiction to immediate calls for more tanks, missiles, ships or whatever, without any reference to the industrial capabilities available to produce them, or, indeed, the funds, will bear that in mind. I hope they will also bear in mind the judgment of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson)—the Liberal Party spokesman on defence—who declared himself in his own contribution to our debate last night
  "convinced that the Government have got it about right on defence".—[Official Report, 26 March 1979, Vol. 965, c. 115.]
  So I conclude: we have a programme that continually improves the equipment of all three Services, and hence the balanced contribution that our forces make to NATO; and in achieving that there are incidental but substantial benefits to the wider economy.
  I commend to the House the motion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
  4.33 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: It is not unknown for speakers in these debates to compare the dearth of real information in our defence White Papers with the annual United States defence posture statement by the Secretary for Defence. In the very substantial American document, there is at least a recognition that problems and issues exist and that the public might just have a right to know about these matters, bearing in mind that they pay for the bills.
  What is particularly interesting in the American system is another, smaller document, described as an overview, by General David C. Jones, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If that feature were translated into our system, there would be quite a scramble to secure copies of the overview of British defence policy written by our own Chief of the Defence Staff. Then we might be allowed to know official views on the issues that confront British defence policy, instead of which we have this little document, the White Paper, which sidesteps every issue with the agility of a Welsh wing three-quarter and is nothing more than a glorified head count and stores check, with occasional chatty descriptions of adventure training, written in the style of the "RAF News".
  Mr. Alan Lee Williams: The hon. Gentleman has just enunciated a very interesting doctrine, that the Chief of the Defence Staff in this country should be able to issue his own assessment. That is a very interesting proposal. Does he have the consent of his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) for that proposal?
  Mr. Pattie: I said that if this American feature were imported into our particular system, it would be extremely interesting—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] In a new context, in the new situation in which we shall find ourselves when we come into office, obviously we shall want to consider that and any other suggestions. We are very glad to know that we shall have the hon. Gentleman's support.
  Noting the occasional chatty descriptions of adventure training to which I have referred, I almost expected to turn a page in the White Paper and find some pictures of the squadron mascots, or perhaps of the Secretary of State listening to the sound of distant jet engines, or of the Minister of State swinging from ship to ship by jackstay. But no; the White Paper is a form of annual report on our Armed Forces. If the nationalised industries are anything to go by, the degree of glossiness in their annual reports is in inverse ratio to the amount of information imparted, in which case this White Paper ought to be a lavish production, full of photographs and printed on high quality paper, because it tells us very little indeed.
  I have, however, to confess to some sneaking admiration for the authors, because of the considerable skill shown in the writing. It takes great skill to refer to the Polaris strategic system and completely to avoid any mention of the major debate that must commence this year on the replacement of that system—undoubtedly, the major defence decision facing a new Conservative Government. There is not one word about the finite hull life of the submarines or the options that exist for replacement, even though it is widely accepted that a decision has to be made in 1980, one that will have a crucial bearing on the defence policy of the country for the rest of the century and beyond.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: I think the Minister said yesterday quite clearly that there was no

  285
  necessity for a decision since the present system was good until 1990. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would like to comment on that.
  Mr. Pattie: That is correct. The present system is good until 1990, or perhaps a year or two after that, but the point is that the long lead time with modern systems means that we must have a decision in 1980. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of that point.
  There is no debate in the White Paper; there is no problem at all. Even the Prime Minister said quite recently in this House that a decision would have to be taken in the next two years—but, poor chap, he does not even get a mention. It takes considerable skill to write about the strategic arms limitation agreement without making any mention of the legitimate anxieties of the United Kingdom and other European NATO allies about the non-circumvention clause in the draft protocol. It is of absolutely fundamental importance to us to know whether we shall be able to receive key items of technology from the United States. As far as the White Paper is concerned, that potential problem does not exist.
  It takes considerable skill to write about the MBFR talks and other disarmament matters at length without once referring to the so-called "grey areas". True, the Backfire bomber and the SS20 have been mentioned elsewhere, but these systems are not considered in the context of arms control generally. As far as the White Paper is concerned, "grey areas" do not exist and our cities could remain targeted by the SS20.
  Considerable skill has also been used to write a White Paper which makes no mention of the cruise missile. So far as the authors are concerned, it might never have been invented. The implications of its use in either nuclear or conventional mode are considerable for this country, but there is not one word about it. No mention is made of the burgeoning foreign exchange costs of keeping our forces in Germany. This is widely recognised as a serious and growing problem which will not conveniently go away, but no attempt is made to address it.
  Any White Paper making a proper assessment would address itself to these major problems: Polaris replacement, arms control implications, BAOR costs
  286
  and, another major issue, the future structure of our Armed Forces. No attempt has been made to consider the fundamental question of relating our military tasks to our future economic capabilities. Are we to go on trying to carry out all tasks, or is there a case for concentrating on certain specified roles? For example, is the Navy to concentrate on antisubmarine warfare and maritime air power, the Army to concentrate on being a light air-portable force and the Royal Air Force to concentrate on air defence and ground support? There is nothing about any of these. There are no factual inaccuracies of which I am aware. It is what is left out that counts. This is, in short, a suppressio veri document. The only part that appears to be fully accurate is the section on Warsaw Pact capability. There may be some significance in that fact.
  The long-term development programme is mentioned. It is all very well to list the aims of the long-term development programme as agreed through NATO as though they had happened already, but how about a progress check? How about a situation report to tell the House and the great British public, who are paying for all this, about how it is going? It is listed here as though it can be taken for granted, as though it had already happened.
  There is brief mention in the early part of the White Paper of disaster relief. It is mentioned in passing. But a great opportunity has been missed to have a whole section on the peaceful use of military forces. We all know what the peaceful use of military forces means. There are basically three tasks: peacekeeping for the United Nations, disaster relief and military aid to civilian communities in the form of roads, bridges, afforestation and drainage operations, and vocational instruction. On disaster relief, there is urgent need to persuade NATO to set up a standing group which will co-ordinate the resources made available by member States. Everyone calls for this kind of assistance whenever there is a disaster, but it has to be done beforehand. Unfortunately, the White Paper could not even get this right by including it.
  One of the most important pieces of truth which has been suppressed is the amount of remedial action which the Government had to take once they realised

  287
  the consequences of their 1974 cuts. We are reminded that in August 1978 increased manpower was authorised for the Army to the tune of a further 1,900 men, in addition to the 4,000 men authorised previously, but anyone who collects the press release of the Ministry of Defence will have noticed that they were rather more candid than the White Paper has been with the House. The press release dated 15 August 1978 states:
  "The need for this further increase stems from a number of factors. First, it has become clear that the reductions in unit establishments that were implemented as part of the restructuring of the Army have had some adverse effects which were not originally expected. Experience of restructured establishments has shown that units have had some difficulty in meeting all the demands made of them in peacetime."
  Hon. Members who visited BAOR know that that certainly is the case.
  Last night the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army, in a rather curious speech, used some unusual long words, including "schizophrenia". I was interested that he should have used that word because it is fairly obvious that his speech was written by two people, one person writing the beginning and talking about long lead times, and someone else writing the last part and talking about the accelerated implementation of equipment programmes.
  The Under-Secretary of State referred to a speech I made in Chicago—I have a copy of it here—in which I said that the introduction of Milan and Tow antitank weapons had been delayed in the face of a rapidly increasing Soviet tank threat. I repeat that. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army said that that could not be true because the Government had accelerated the introduction of these weapons into the Army. He does not seem to be aware that Tow entered service with the United States forces in 1972, the MOU was signed in 1975, evaluation took two years and purchase was released in 1977. That is what I call delay. For Milan the MOU was signed in October 1976. Here we are in 1979. The Minister might well talk about accelerated production—I should hope he would—but that does not in any way refute what I said on that occasion.
  No mention is made of another reorganisation which was spoken about a
  288
  few years ago, the abolition of brigade level of command in Germany. That was a disaster in practice. Moreover, it created vast turbulence for nothing. We heard in earlier White Papers that "Bulwark" would be paid off. "Bulwark" is now back in. We heard some years ago that the 41 Commando battalion was to be disbanded. That is now back in. We heard that Gurkha battalions were to be withdrawn from Brunei; now they are staying. We are delighted by all these changes, but they are evidence of a realisation by the Government that the cuts they made four or five years ago went too far.
  We have been told that Sea Harriers are coming in. We are not told why they are continually being ordered in penny packets—one order for 24, an order for 10 and a further order for 10. Would it not be more sensible for industry to have an order for 50 straight off? It does not help industrial planning, to which the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy referred in his speech earlier today.
  We are not told whether the Navy is to get its airborne early warning cover now that the Gannets have gone ashore. The Backfire is a very serious threat; our Phantoms cannot get near it. It is no good saying that it has to come down and slow down to release its missiles. That would be relevant only if we were able to keep up with it in the meantime, and we cannot.
  We are not told that, although work continues on new systems, such as replacements for it, the Mark VIII torpedo is still used as the main anti-ship weapon by our nuclear hunter-killer submarines and it is more than 50 years old. No mention is made of the Type 24 concept, a first-class idea for developing a new class of ships for export which can be used, if necessary, by the Royal Navy.
  We are told about the need to improve productivity in the dockyards, but we are not told that refits are taking 20 per cent, longer and spares are not in overall good supply. Captains are taking their ships to sea with equipment not working rather than risk further delays.
  We are told that a new fleet support ship is included in the Estimates, as are two

  289
  fleet tankers. They are very welcome. We are not told that these were all cut out in the 1974 review and have had to be restored through sheer necessity.
  We are told that RFA "Tarbatness" is being converted for amphibious support for the Royal Marine Commando. We arc not told that this is because trials have shown that the 1974 defence review idea of getting Royal Marines ashore tactically from North Sea ferries was not on.
  We are told that the coverage of Bloodhound surface-to-air missiles is being extended, but it is not pointed out that the system is virtually obsolescent. We are told that we have only six air defence squadrons in the United Kingdom, although "only" is not employed. We are meant to be reassured by the fact that this tiny number is refuelled in the air and is supported by our ancient Shackleton airborne early warning aircraft.
  We are told something about the highly important future tactical combat aircraft. We should have welcomed confirmation that the RAF has decided on two modes—a ground support aircraft, and an air superiority fighter. Co-operation for one or other of these could come from the United States as well as from the Federal Republic of Germany.
  The Chinook medium-lift helicopter is listed without the batting of an eyelid. The project has been approved and it has been in the budget for several years without being ordered. Therefore, it is extremely overdue. In a written answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) on 22 March 1979, it is shown as having been cancelled by the Labour Government in 1967. But it is one of the projects now being vaunted as an improvement to our Armed Forces.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. James Wellbeloved): What happened between 1970 and 1974?
  Mr. Pattie: I am perfectly aware of what happened between 1970 and 1974. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the White Paper, he will notice that there is a list of cancellations totalling £285 million of which one, amounting to £5 million, was cancelled during the Conservative Administration.
  290
  In the vitally important area of electronic warfare, we are told that it is planned to equip Harrier and Jaguar with active and passive electronic counter-measures. There is no mention of when that will be. More critically, it is little short of criminal for those aircraft not to have that facility now, in view of the electronic environment that is the modern battlefield.
  There is a cosy section on the defence equipment programme in industry, which lists the sums that have been spent in Britain and the number of job opportunities being sustained both here and for the export programme. However, this is a perfect example of suppressio veri. No mention is made of the number of jobs that have been lost—200,000 on the Government's own figures—as a result of the 1974 review cuts.
  There is no mention of the costs to the defence budget in laying down the production of items such as the Tornado—"moving the expenditure to the right", as the jargon has it. There is no mention of the effect on spares support when manufacturers no longer regard the Ministry of Defence as their prime contractor. That makes nonsense of the 1974 claim that it was possible to cut the tail and not harm the teeth.
  Paragraph 126 states that the Government have agreed to improve Britain's protection against biological warfare. But they have decided to transfer the Microbiological Research Establishment at Porton, where so such important work has been done, to civilian control. There would appear to be an inconsistency there.
  It is a pity that, in the section on research policy, emphasis is not given to the fact that Professor Mason, the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser, has said that only ½ per cent, of our research and development money is spent on genuinely innovative programmes. That involves only 150 people of the total of 28,000. That point was rightly highlighted in yesterday's debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson).
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) dealt supremely well with the vexed question of premature voluntary release—PVR. If my right hon. Friend had required any further support, he would have

  291
  found it in the words of the First Sea Lord:
  "PVR is now at crisis proportions".
  We are told, for example, that a man leaving the Navy within the last five years can rejoin even though he may be 57 years of age.
  Mr. Churchill: Dad's Navy.
  Mr. Pattie: That is some indication of the scandalous loss of skilled personnel. PVR is the most serious condemnation of Government policy by those who have to carry it out. They are taken for granted, underpaid, ill-equipped and called upon at all hours to do any dirty job. The White Paper then has the gall to state that the turbulence was unavoidable following the review, as though the review was an act of God rather than a folly of man.
  The reserves are dismissed in 14 lines. They are not reserves in the generally accepted sense of the word but are such an integral part of the front line capability that the capability does not operate until they get there. That cannot be too strongly stressed.
  In the section on Euro-NATO training, we are not told that our costs have been put up to such an extent that Dutch fighter controllers, for example, can be trained at a third of the cost in the United States. Is that the way to help our NATO allies?
  In the section on the hydrographer, no mention is made of the desirability of part of his costs to be met by other Departments—a rather obvious point. In the section on flying training we are told of
  "an increased requirement for pilots".
  There is no mention of the serious shortfall and that by 1980 we shall be 200 pilots short.
  There is no mention anywhere in the White Paper of home defence. Obviously no attempt has been made to assess the importance and relevance of that extremely important activity. There is no mention anywhere about the present state of negotiations regarding co-located operating bases—the arrangements whereby United States aircraft are accommodated on British air bases in the United Kingdom. The House will recall the serious problems that arose last year in the constituency of my hon. Friend the
  292
  Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). There were arrangements whereby the United States tanker aircraft, KC135s, were stationed at Greenham Common. The aircraft were eventually allocated to Fairford. The requests for dispositions by the Americans will always create local problems, especially if a Government Department has authorised houses to be built close to airfields. As far as the White Paper is concerned, the problem of co-located operating bases does not exist.
  I have listed the omissions because they are indicative to my right hon. and hon. Friends of the inadequacies and omissions of the Government's defence policy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham speculated as to who is to blame. The Secretary of State can hardly lay claim to be called the Service man's friend. There is a myth, which harks back to the early days of 1974, about that doughty Yorkshire fighter, the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), supported by his intellectual friend—the one-man disaster area—the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers). They were said to be a powerful duo and it is said that we fell on hard times only when the Ministry of Defence passed into the somnolent care of the present recumbent.
  However guilty the Secretary of State may be, however unable he is to resist his Cabinet colleagues, and however ineffective he is in righting for the Services, the real damage to our defences was the ruthless cutting that was carried out by the defence review of 1974. That was carried out with the bogus smokescreen that the teeth arms would not suffer and that the cuts would fall only on the tail—as though there is a meaningful difference between the two.
  The guilty men moved on to pastures new, leaving the Secretary of State to try to cope. The White Paper is inadequate, reflecting the Government's inadequacy on defence—moreover, the Government's inability to honour their NATO commitments in full. On the eve of the thirtieth anniversary of NATO, it is worth recalling that this Government have the doubtful privilege of being the only British Government ever to be publicly rebuked by the Secretary General of NATO for falling down on Britain's commitments to the Alliance.

  293
  The Opposition prefer to be guided by the opinions of those best able to judge this Government's defence policy, namely, the Secretary General of NATO, the First Sea Lord and the men who are queueing up to get out of our forces. We shall vote against the White Paper.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley Newens: For the sixth year running, the Opposition are bitterly criticising the Government for not spending enough on arms and the Armed Forces. The hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) has followed a similar line.
  The Opposition have clamoured for more expenditure on developing a new generation of nuclear weapons and building up ground forces in Europe. They have called for more resources to match the growth of Soviet naval forces, to counter Soviet strength in the air, to develop new equipment and to increase recruitment by improving pay and conditions for the forces.
  However, when I challenged the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) yesterday to state what the Opposition would regard as a necessary increase in expenditure, his courage deserted him. After the most extravagant bluster, punctuated by sweeping condemnations and calls for resignations, he refused point blank to answer the question of cost by pleading the feeble excuse that the Opposition did not know because the Government had fiddled the books. If anything brings politics into disrepute, it is that sort of utterly irresponsible exaggeration, coupled with a refusal to be frank and, in this case, to tell the public what would be the cost of the Conservative alternative.
  The persistence of the Conservative Party in demanding more military expenditure is matched only by its persistence in the campaign for cuts in public expenditure as a whole. The military requirements that the Conservatives have postulated could easily cost, at a most conservative estimate, £2,000 million to £3,000 million on top of what is proposed in the Defence Estimates. In other words, the Opposition are proposing much more than the 3 per cent. increase asked for by NATO.
  294
  We therefore have a right to ask where they will get that sort of money. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) suggested last week savings in education expenditure as rolls fall, but without the most savage cuts in health, welfare, education, public transport and so on the funds that would be required to meet the Conservative criticism on defence could not be found without increasing taxation.
  If the Conservatives are genuine in their criticism and wish to avoid the charge of seeking to deceive and defraud the electorate, they must come clean about the huge increases in expenditure which their criticism would require and the cuts that would be imposed on the living standards of our people.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: The hon. Gentleman is always complaining about the lack of costing of the Conservatives' defence proposals and the plans of his own Government. Can he tell us what the Tribune group would spend on defence? Nothing?
  Mr. Newens: I shall come to part of that question later, and I hope that the hon. Member will follow me carefully, because my hon. Friends and I have talked in the past of cuts of £1,000 million. I do not wish to run away from his question. My colleagues and I who tabled the amendment have never sought to conceal our belief in the necessity for genuine cuts and we have never sought to conceal what would be the effect of such cuts.
  However, I have never argued that Britain does not need to spend anything on defence. We need an efficient conventional force in which personnel should have good conditions and be properly paid. I have also pressed on numerous occasions for provision to be made to rehouse our Service men when they leave the forces.
  I have also never sought to justify the policies pursued by the Soviet Union in increasing arms expenditure, intervening in Czechoslovakia or restricting the liberties of its citizens. On the contrary, I have continually denounced all those actions, and I continue to do so.
  The bases of our demand for cuts in public expenditure are quite different. Even if Conservative Members disagree

  295
  with them, they should at least try to face up to them. We question how Britain can possibly be defended in a war when we have allowed so many nuclear weapons to be stored here and aimed from our country that we have become a prime target for any potential enemy. We do not believe in starting work on a new generation of nuclear weapons or in remaining part of a nuclear-based Alliance.
  My most fundamental reason for opposing increased military expenditure, however, is that it helps not to diminish and defuse world tension but to increase and perpetuate it.
  The argument in favour of increased expenditure is that the Soviet Union is increasing its forces well beyond what can be considered necessary for purely defensive purposes and that that poses a growing threat to the West. The White Paper states that military capabilities cannot be measured simply in terms of figures, but even in terms of capabilities the facts cited in the White Paper and by many Conservative Members about Soviet military superiority are highly selective and fail to represent the overall position.
  The latest edition of the "Military Balance" published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates that NATO has 11,000 deliverable nuclear warheads. The Soviet Union has 4,500, although that number could rise to 7,500 in the early 1980s. It is clear that the Western side has a huge superiority in that respect.
  While the Warsaw Pact has in central Europe more troops, more tanks and more artillery, NATO has, in total, more men under arms. In terms of naval strength throughout the world—not just in the Eastern Atlantic area—the West still has much greater strength and the same is true of our military equipment.
  Less than two years ago, the then CIA director, Mr. George Bush, told the United States Congress:
  "The Soviet Union does not have a single weapon system that demonstrates technological superiority to the United States. On the other hand … the United States has many weapon systems that the Russians cannot duplicate."
  In addition, Western estimates of the balance of forces conveniently omit the Chinese, against whom the Soviets will certainly deploy part of their forces.
  296
  If increases in Western and British defence expenditure can be justified in the circumstances that I have outlined, we must realise that they can always be justified at any time in the future. However, mankind cannot support that process. It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham to grin, but I ask him to listen carefully because I am coining to the nub of some of the arguments to which the human race must turn its attention.
  World military expenditure in 1977 is estimated at $360,000 million, according to the Stockholm Peace Institute. The figure can be found on page 3 of the institute's 1978 yearbook. A total of 70 per cent. of that money was spent by NATO and Warsaw Pact countries. The nuclear weapons held by all the world's nuclear Powers were equivalent in explosive power to 1 million of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Expenditure on arms by underdeveloped countries, with which 75 per cent. of the world's arms trade takes place, is rising. While this huge military expenditure is undertaken, we, as a race, are neglecting the need to improve the living standards of people throughout the world. The number of undernourished people on this globe continues to rise yearly.
  It is expected that the world population will grow from 4,500 million today to 6,000 million by the end of the century. We need to increase by 60 per cent. world food production to sustain that sort of population at present levels. The hunger and misery that are growing in the Third world represent a much greater potential threat to the stability of the world than the Soviet tanks now stationed in Eastern Europe. Those hungry people represent a much greater threat. The arms that we are foolishly supplying to unstable regimes—
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: We?
  Mr. Newens: By that, I mean the Western Powers and the Soviet Union. Our policy of supplying arms to unstable regimes like that of the Shah may prove, in the long run, infinitely more destructive of world peace than anything else we are doing.
  Many of our calculations in the world today are based on the assumption of the availability of oil not only to generate

  297
  energy but also to provide fertilisers on which crop yields in the modern world depend. Recent events in Iran—obvious, in my view, for years before they occurred—have already produced unpleasant consequences. Similar events in other oil-rich countries which are inevitable in due course will produce new changes that could prove disastrous to Western economies. Such events could gravely threaten the stability of the whole world.
  We are not asking in our amendment that Britain should denude itself of arms completely. We are asking now for substantial cuts which may well be forced upon us in future years, in much more difficult circumstances, by our inability to meet the cost. The argument has been advanced that we need to manufacture and sell arms to provide jobs. That is a dangerous argument. Not only is it unlikely, if the account is compiled in full, that we avoided losses on arms sales to Iran, but the opportunity for profits in the future has also disappeared suddenly. This may occur again elsewhere if we concentrate on arms sales to the extent to which we as a country are at present committed.
  I should like to mention a situation in which the Soviet Union is not directly involved. The struggle between Argentina and Chile last year might have flared into war. It is wrong that we should be prepared to fuel circumstances in which poor people murder other poor people in other parts of the world. It is also wrong that we should believe that it is necessary to sell arms to provide jobs.
  It is essential to redeploy the arms industries and to seek to provide alternative work, as the Lucas Aerospace workers have been arguing, to their credit. I am sorry that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have not gone much further along the lines that have been suggested. It is comparatively easy for Conservatives and others to foster and increase fears in order to fuel an arms race. It is particularly easy in circumstances in which the threat of unemployment is always present. It is not easy to stand out and seek to expose the insanity of the arms race in such a climate. None the less, it is important to point out the immensity of the dangers not only to people in this country but
  298
  to the human race as a whole if the arms race continues.
  I yield to no one in my love for this country and the British people, but I believe passionately that our fate is bound up inextricably with that of humanity as a whole, whose very existence on this globe is threatened by the eventual outcome of this arms race. I do not believe that we should leave Britain defenceless. But, at some time, we have to call a halt. My hon. Friends and I who have tabled the amendment make no apology for putting it before the House at this time. Against the clamour from the Conservative Benches to which the Labour Government, I regret to say, have yielded to some extent for increasing expenditure on arms, we believe that the case has to be put for arms cuts and for sanity and for Britain to turn around and not to continue to devote an ever-increasing amount of its resources to military purposes.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Mr. Speaker earlier indicated to the House the large number of right hon. and hon. Gentleman anxious to speak on this final day of the debate. I repeat his appeal for brevity so that we can accommodate as many as possible of those hon. Members who wish to take part.
  5.18 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Before deciding, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) suggested, the nature and scale of the defence forces and their task, we need to be clearer than has so far been shown in this debate about what our defence policies are for, and from where the threat comes. I hope that the whole House can agree that the main object of our defence policies must be the security of the United Kingdom itself, the freedom and independence of Western Europe, the protection of our imports and free access to our trade routes. This implies that the Western Alliance generally should have the capacity to ensure the free movement of trade and free access to raw materials.
  Many speeches have reminded me all too horribly of similar speeches to which I listened as a boy in the 1930s when sitting in the Gallery suggesting that the threat comes from the arms race. I do

  299
  not agree. The main danger comes from the present imbalance between the Warsaw Pact and the West in general and the European defence forces in particular. Whatever we may say about numbers, I should have thought it clear to the meanest intelligence that the only Power with a really aggressive foreign policy is the Soviet Union. The only Powers building up their forces on land, sea and air, far beyond the needs of self-defence, are the Warsaw Pact countries. The only Powers that are increasing their essentially offensive as opposed to primarily defensive armoury are the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries. This is giving them an increasing capability to wage offensive warfare in Europe. It has already enabled them to have dominance of the sea routes. By using their own "advisers" and Cuban mercenaries, they have secured bases from which they could control our access to essential raw materials.
  Speakers on the Labour Benches have been insistent in asking what we on this side propose to do. As I have every expectation that it is my right hon. and hon. Friends that I am in effect advising and not those at present on the Government Front Bench, who are beyond advice, I make a few suggestions about how to counter both the aggressive foreign policy of the Soviet Union and our present imbalance with the Warsaw Pact forces. It is essential to do that mainly through the NATO Alliance. However, NATO was not able to help when the Cubans invaded Angola. It is therefore necessary to strengthen the European element in the Alliance. We have already seen how quite small forces may operate successfully as the Belgians and the French did in Zaire. We see the effect of the French presence in Djibouti compared with the situation in Somalia and Ethiopia.
  I suggest, first, that in the Alliance generally, and especially in the European element of the Alliance—that element is the most dependent on imported raw materials and access through sea routes to the oil—we should consider building a sort of aid force to help our friends in different parts of the world. I am not suggesting that this should be done on a massive scale; all it needs is a force sufficient to mean that to move it requires a degree of aggression from a
  300
  superior force, which the Soviet Union will be neither willing nor able to undertake so far from its home base. That in itself will be enough to prevent the terrorists and the Cubans from having the degree of success that we have seen, for example, in Africa.
  If we are short of personnel, I do not see why we should not increase rather than disband our Gurkha forces. What is wrong with that? If it is all right for the Soviet Union to use Cubans in Africa, why is it wrong for those who are opposing Soviet forces to use Gurkha troops?
  Secondly, we should work more widely with other countries. I agree with those who have suggested that Japan is as dependent on imported raw materials as Western Europe. There is a great deal to be said for bringing Japan into the ambit of the Western forces as an active partner. On the old principle that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, I hope that we shall continue to help China and do all that we can in its aid. I hope too, that a Conservative Government, when considering both aid policies and the question of whom to supply with arms, will bear in mind British interests in political as well as economic terms.
  Thirdly, we should contemplate what economic action we can take, or refrain from taking, in order to do something to force the Soviet Union to reduce its arms budget and to change the whole pattern of resource allocation within the Soviet Union. In 1920 Lenin wrote to his foreign commissar:
  "The capitalists of the whole world and their governments will shut their eyes to the kind of activities on our side that I have referred to, and will in this manner become not only deaf mutes but blind as well. They will supply us with the materials and technology which we lack and will restore our military industry, which we need for our future victorious attacks on our suppliers. In other words, they will work hard to prepare their own suicide."
  After nearly 60 years we are still doing just that. We continue to send grain from the West to support the inefficient Soviet agriculture system. Agriculture is essential to the Soviet economy in itself but it is also a necessary part of their policies to increase incentives and improve all-round productivity. We should seriously reconsider the whole pattern of our aid, especially our cheap loans, to the Soviet Union.

  301
  The measures that I have outlined, which are partly political, partly diplomatic and partly military, could not be undertaken by the United Kingdom alone, but they could be undertaken with our NATO allies. I think that they should be undertaken. They meet the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice) when he quoted General Haig on the effect of events outside NATO boundaries and the danger that those events could have for the security of the Alliance.
  These three sets of measures that I have advocated have also the advantage that they would not add very much to the cost of the United Kingdom defence programme compared with the benefits that they might bring to our security.
  There are one or two other things that we should do quickly on our own that would also not add much to the cost of our defence programme. There are two essential priorities for which the United Kingdom must have sole responsibility. First, there is the air defence of Great Britain against attack by Backfire bombers carrying conventional weapons or nuclear weapons. I know that suitable aircraft for this role are expensive, whether we manufacture them or buy them from abroad.
  There will, however, be a time lag before such aircraft are ready for action. They will not be able to go into action at all until we have rehabilitated and repaired our airfields. It is essential to start the reconstruction of our airfields as soon as possible. We should include in this the hardening of dispersal points and control centres against chemical warfare as well as against heavy conventional bombing.
  Surely we are able to undertake that work at once. We have many unskilled and semi-skilled men who are unemployed. Much of the resources of the construction industry is unused. Surely those men and those resources could be turned to that task, which is essential to our safety. As it is, even if the Americans were willing to come to our aid and send over their fighters to defend this island, there would be nowhere to put them and nowhere to control them. Therefore, the work must be done.
  302
  We are now spending about £25 million a year on civil defence. It does not seem that we are getting very much for that expenditure. If we are to improve the protection of our aircraft and those who control them against air attack, as I believe we must, we must start to improve the defences of our people. The Soviet Union is doing a great deal in civil defence. It has been carrying out civil defence exercises on its western border and in the Baltic provinces. We should embark on work to strengthen our protection against conventional attack as well as nuclear attack.
  The second immediate priority that we should carry out by ourselves is to start training instructors so that we may increase our manpower and build up a proper first-line reserve. This is part of our essential fighting force. If we are to build a second-line reserve on it and strengthen the air defence of Great Britain, we shall need skilled pilots and skilled men and women in every part of the Armed Forces. To expand those forces we shall need instructors. Training, especially the training of instructors, is one of our biggest needs.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends will have difficult decisions to make about the active side of our air defences. Their decisions will take time to implement. However, they will be totally ineffective unless work is started now in these two priority areas.
  Other difficult decisions must be taken very soon. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton said, we must decide on the strategic nuclear effort to succeed Polaris—whether it should operate on land, or on the surface or under the sea, and whether we should seek to do it on our own or in conjunction with the three-pronged French effort.
  We must take difficult decisions about tactical nuclear weapons. Do we believe that the tactical weapon in United States' hands will remain indefinitely credible without the fear that possible escalation will inhibit its use? I do not know. However, we must think and make decisions on that matter quickly. We must think, as an alternative, of the possibility of chemical warfare, using limited, short-term substances which are less likely to escalate into nuclear action and which are as effective in a purely defensive role as the neutron bomb.

  303
  We need, too, better defence against chemical warfare. The Soviet Union has in every command 80,000 men devoted not to chemical warfare defence but to the active use of chemical warfare. The Soviet artillery and ground-to-ground missiles have chemical warheads. The BM21 multiple rocket launcher can launch 720 chemical rounds in one volley. If those rounds are charged with hydrogen cyanide, the lethal effect is short-lived so that the Russian troops may follow through quickly. If we are to have an effective defence, is it not possible that we require a retaliatory capability? I am talking not about strategic biological warfare but about the use of short-term agents as a possible alternative to the tactical nuclear weapon.
  We have a great deal to do by way of collaboration and standardisation within Europe. There are massive difficulties. But a great deal is to be gained both in terms of effectiveness and reduced cost. I should like to see more work being done on upgrading the Independent European Programme Group—that is to say, all the European members of the Alliance plus France and Portugal—which was started in 1976. I should like to see a European defence institute empowered to discuss some of the common defence problems of the European countries in the Alliance and to make recommendations.
  We must accept that any realistic defence will cost more in the future. Reference was made to the beneficial economic and industrial effects of defence procurement. In 1952 France spent 8 per cent. of her gross domestic product on defence. That figure had dropped by 1977 to 4 per cent. Meanwhile, since 1966, the French gross domestic product doubled compared with that of the United Kingdom. Therefore, French spending, in real terms, had gone up, though taking a small proportion of available resources.
  I remind the House of the German experience immediately prior to the Second World War. Between 1935 and 1939 German military production rose by 200 per cent. In those years consumer goods production went up by 38 per cent. The expansion of both was derived from unused capacity and high unemployment. By 1935 to 1937 the stimulus of rearmament gave
  304
  a great expansion to employment, investment, output and income. Even after the excess capacity of the German economy had been used up, total income continued to grow because of the technical progress and improvement that defence expenditure had brought with it. It was only after a further considerable expansion that any degree of choice was required between the consumption and defence industries.
  Alas, our economy is working at a three-day-week level. We have a long way to catch up before we must face a choice between civil and military goods.
  The United States' experience was similar. Between 1939 and 1941 industrial production went up by 48 per cent. By 1945 it had gone up by another 45 per cent. After the war it was unemployment that went up, by 1949, to 8 per cent. Arms for Korea brought the figure down to 5 per cent., and by autumn 1953 it was 1·8 per cent. Incidentally, the defence programme gave an enormous stimulus to the Californian economy. If I had time to go into details, I could show from them that the defence industries could bring far greater regional benefit to the United Kingdom than the temporary employment subsidies, with all their displacement effects. It is no accident, comparing different economies in different periods, that the gross national product tended to rise parallel to a rise in defence spending. In the United Kingdom there was an increase of 63 per cent. per head between 1955 and 1964. In that period our defence spending rose by 24 per cent. per head. In France defence spending went up by 86 per cent. per head. The GNP went up by 130 per cent. per head. The correlation is there.
  So it is economically possible to carry through my few modest but practical suggestions. I hope that they are constructive. Some we can implement at once with an immediate effect. Some require immediate decisions but will not take effect for some time. I have tried to give some idea of their likely consequences for industry and for the economy. I hope that as a nation we shall be able to do more. I believe that we dare not do less.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Unless speeches last for a maximum of 10 minutes, only a fraction of those anxious to take part in and who have sat patiently

  305
  throughout the two-day debate will be accommodated. May I therefore make an earnest appeal for brevity?
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. Bruce George: I very much support the concept of the TAVR, and that is what I propose to speak on this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Not many speakers in the debate so far have addressed themselves to that subject, but the whole of our defence force is closely integrated, the role of the TAVR being integrated with that of our Regular forces. The Defence Estimates devote little attention to it, and the proceedings yesterday and today have devoted much less attention to it than its importance merits.
  I support the whole concept of the TAVR, and not just because there are two units in my constituency—the excellent Mercian Volunteers and 143 Plant Squadron RE(V)—but because historically the role of the citizen army has been very important, not only in breaking down the idea of a military caste but embodying the enthusiasm and commitment of a large number of people who for a variety of reasons do not want to join the Regular forces.
  One of the most important arguments that may be advanced is that the whole system of using volunteer forces is very cost-effective, but it is of relevance only if this cost-effective force is competent. I remember as a student making a special study of Machiavelli and his attitude to mercenary soldiers. Machiavelli, in Florence, hated the idea of mercenaries and wanted to employ exclusively volunteer forces. He diligently trained them, and at the first sight of battle the entire volunteer force disintegrated. There is no point in relying heavily on a volunteer force if it is unable to match the professionalism of the enemy or, indeed, the professionalism of our full-time forces. I am not saying that this is the case, but we need to address ourselves to this problem.
  Much greater thought must be given in the House to the employment and use of reserves, and specifically of the TAVR. In the 1976 Defence Estimates it was stated that
  "a feature of the Defence Review reorganisation plans will be the closer integration of the TAVR with the Regular Army, which should
  306
  enhance not only the effectiveness of the Army but also the morale of the Volunteer reservist".
  We hear a great deal of the concept of "One Army", and the Americans use the phraseology of "total force policy" to explain their similar approach, but the total force concept means the integration of planning, programming and budgeting, and this absolutely requires that the availability and readiness of the Reserve forces must be as certain as the availability of active forces. We must do more than simply sloganise about one army. Obviously, the reserve soldier is not identical to the full-time soldier. Nevertheless, we must ensure that the facilities and resources available to the volunteer soldier are as good as those available to the full-time soldier.
  In terms of the current importance of the TAVR, I should like to refer to some statistics. First, 25 per cent. of the total BAOR wartime strength will be TAVR. Second, 38 of the 88 infantry battalions during a war will be TAVR—that is, 43 per cent. But, despite this enormous dependence upon TAVR, we have to ask whether the resources devoted to it are adequate. The budget is around £70 million per year, which is 3 per cent. of the Army Vote and 1 per cent. of the overall defence bill. When we consider the dependence upon TAVR and the expenditure upon it, it would appear that either TAVR is extraordinarily good value for money or it is not getting the resources that it fully merits.
  How is the money spent on TAVR to be wisely spent? Should we, as I believe, devote more of our defence resources to the TAVR? The key areas to which I want to address myself are training, equipment, mobilisation and transportation. Of the 72,000 TAVR force in theory, we are up to about 60,000, but there is a shortage in medical units and sponsored units. The worrying thing—obviously, everyone is aware of it—is the high wastage rate or turnover, which is between one-third and one-quarter every year. This is not conducive to good training. Clearly, some turnover is desirable, but not of the order of one-quarter to one-third. If we could reduce the outflow by 10 per cent. annually, this would mean that the TAVR would be up to strength in seven to eight years. We must look to this very quickly.
  There must be a change in employer attitudes. Perhaps employers could be

  307
  encouraged financially, as well as otherwise, to allow their employees what could be called a regular paid training holiday, in addition to the normal vacation. The Government could give a lead in this respect by offering a model programme that private employers could follow. The Government should provide a variety of incentives to private businesses to release their employees for this absolutely vital role for the future of this country.
  It is no coincidence that a large number of members of the TAVR are either self-employed or unmarried. Obviously, the difficulties of the married man in full-time employment are very considerable and not conducive to his doing the requisite amount of training and playing the role that we demand. What is needed is a vigorous recruitment campaign, and it is necessary to dispel some of the myths of the TAVR.
  The Expenditure Committee report said that there is a
  "widespread belief that TAVR…was abolished … in 1967."
  We are all familiar with the image that is still, regrettably, prevailing, and sometimes perpetuated by the media, of the TAVR being a latter-day "Dad's Army". That is, of course, absolute nonsense. Although I enjoy the programme whenever the series is re-run, one perhaps feels that it does not always do the kind of service to the TAVR that we should like to see.
  High-level support from the Government towards this recruitment policy and towards encouraging employers would go a long way to meeting many of the difficulties and objections. There must be more joint training with Regular forces. The occasional trip abroad for two weeks is not quite adequate to professionalise our volunteer forces. We also need to educate a number of Regular soldiers concerning the usefulness of their volunteer compatriots.
  A further question is that of equipment. The Ministry of Defence, in evidence to the Expenditure Committee, said that it aims
  "to provide the most modern equipment available for TAVR units and, ideally, equipment identical to that in use by the Regular Army."
  I wonder whether we can be satisfied that this is the position today. I suspect not.
  308
  We must not be concerned exclusively with the quality of equipment but rather with the type of equipment. We have to remember that a volunteer soldier spends perhaps 40 days a year in training. I do not want to be disparaging—far be it from me to want to do that—but perhaps in the period available we should be careful as to the type of equipment that the man is asked to use. A full-time soldier, with more chance to become professional and to enhance his expertise and prowess, would be able to use highly complicated equipment perhaps far more readily. I am not arguing, by any stretch of the imagination, that all that the TAVR troops are worthy of using is rather simple and second-rate equipment. That is certainly not the case, but obviously we have to be very careful in regard to what is required of the TAVR soldier bearing in mind the difficulties he inevitably faces.
  Weapons improvements have given to soldiers in the TAVR the ability to do all sorts of things that hitherto they would have been unable to do, such as destroying tanks and aircraft at very long range. The question of type of equipment is therefore one to which we ought to give a great deal of thought.
  Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and also for speaking about the TAVR. I should like him to know that, in a number of TAVR units, those who are designated on mobilisation to go to Germany straight from their fields and factories, or to take their part against the enemy, are provided with equipment at least up to the standard of the Regulars. It is those who are second in the TAVR, and used for home defence, whose equipment is perhaps a bit less good.
  Mr. George: I certainly agree with that. Obviously, what is required of a TAVR soldier is not just technological competence. The old days of simple weapons, where a man was given a rifle or pike or bow and pointed in the direction of the enemy, are regrettably gone. Today, fighting is a highly complex process requiring technical skills as well as bravery. The bravery to face a Russian tank at 50 yards is perhaps something to which not every hon. Member would ultimately be able to aspire. However, the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) concerned

  309
  mobilisation. There is no point in having, if we are able, soldiers with wonderful equipment and courage if we are unable to get them to the battlefield quickly enough.
  Full-scale exercises are, I believe, highly disruptive but nevertheless desirable. Certainly, far more small-scale tests should be feasible to ensure the strict mobilisation and transportation of our forces. Here, once again, there is an obligation on employers to co-operate. Paragraph 207 of the statement on Defence Estimates reads:
  "The improvement of procedures for the recall of regular reservists is currently under study, with the aim of further reducing the time required for the mobilisation of our forces".
  I hope that we shall receive a report on that review very quickly, and that we can be reassured that our troops can be transported swiftly.
  Transportation obviously constitutes a complex set of arrangements and official documents are filled with asterisks, just like a President Nixon tape, so we are not fully able—quite rightly so—to know what all the problems are. However, the importance of getting troops mobilised quickly cannot be over-exaggerated, and I hope that the Shapland committee will, in subsequent Ministry of Defence discussions, consider this urgently and act.
  If the whole idea of a citizen army is based on a concept of swift mobilisation of people who are normally in productive work, and not hanging around doing important but non-productive jobs, in policing frontiers, some problems emerge. The threat of mobilisation can be seen by the enemy as either showing great resolve and providing a deterrent or as an act of aggression. The First World War is testimony to how the enemy can often see one's own mobilisation as an act of aggression which, indeed, can precipitate a conflict. However, I should like to say that the confidence-building measures as laid down by the Helsinki final act will certainly minimise those dangers.
  In conclusion, I believe that, although technology has increased very considerably over the last 20 or 30 years, and the quality of equipment has improved enormously, strategic thinking has not kept apace. An eminent thinker on this
  310
  subject, Edward N. Luttwak, said in a recent article:
  "NATO's doctrine is one which still presumes a net superiority in material, a style based on the methods of attrition rather than manoeuvre."
  I believe that Luttwak's argument is that the strategy of Douglas Haig and First World War tactics have still not died, and that what one needs is not just good equipment but new thinking—strategy, manoeuvring to outflank the enemy, not simply to wear him down. Certainly, highly mobile and qualified TAVR units can play a major part.
  What I want to see is a rejuvenated TAVR as an alternative to the dilemma facing the Government of choosing between a massively expensive, large conventional force and a suicidal reliance on nuclear deterrents. The TAVR can go a long way to providing Britain with a credible defence at an acceptable cost.
  5.54 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: I was delighted to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). After some of the speeches we heard from Labour Benches yesterday and today, it was a pleasure.
  Having been a member of the Royal Marine Forces Volunteer Reserve while I was a Member of the House, I fully sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's views about the TAVR and I know they will find sympathy on both sides of the House. However, I hope that he will forgive me if I cannot follow him on that line as I have a particular row of my own to hoe.
  The White Paper begins by pointing out that this year is the thirtieth anniversary of NATO. Paragraph 106 states:
  "The United Kingdom devotes … to Alliance purposes the overwhelming proportion of its defence efforts; … it has made a prompt and constructive response to the long-term defence programme."
  I wish to confine all my remarks to NATO. My qualifications for so doing are eight years' service on the North Atlantic Assembly and, more recently, as chairman of the military committee. My opposite number on that Committee is the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Williams), whose speech was enjoyed by the whole House yesterday. I do not always agree with him, but he always speaks with both knowledge and common

  311
  sense. I think that he and other hon. Members will agree with me when I say that I believe in the North Atlantic Assembly as the most important forum in the Alliance for parliamentary conversations on defence matters. As such, it serves a very good purpose.
  Turning to NATO itself, I believe that there are many issues facing NATO, but three are of vital importance and those are the ones I wish to discuss. The first problem is the nuclear problem—strategic and tactical. Secondly, there is the conventional problem, both on the central front and on the northern and southern flanks. Lastly, there is the maritime problem, or what I would call the battle for resources.
  Starting with the nuclear problem, the strategic nuclear problem is the responsibility of the super-Powers but it affects each one of us. We must realise that the United States lead on strategic missiles has vanished. She still has more accurate missiles than the Soviet Union but has lost her lead in both numbers and throw weight. In recent years the USSR has introduced three new ICBM systems—the SSI7, 18 and 19—and is producing these missiles at the rate of 125 per year. In the same period the United States has modernised its Minuteman 3 but has introduced no new ICBM system. Indeed, the United States has delayed development of its new MX system, which will not be operationally available for some years to come.
  At sea, the story is the same. The USSR will have at least 27 Delta class submarines at sea by the time the first American equivalent, the USS "Ohio"—which is of the Trident class—is operational in 1981. These Delta class submarines are armed with SSMX18 missiles with a range of about 5,000 miles. They can fire at the heartland of America from the Barents Sea, where it would be extremely difficult to get at them.
  There are also reports in the defence press that the Soviet Union is now building even bigger submarines than the "Ohio", which is 18,700 tons. Therefore, the Americans must certainly work very fast to keep up in the strategic missile field.
  What are we doing in Britain? As so many speakers have said, there is a need
  312
  to continue our strategic nuclear deterrent. I wonder whether the Tribune group would really like the Americans to be the only providers of our strategic nuclear deterrent, and the French the leaders of Europe because they have a nuclear deterrent and we have given it up.
  It was said yesterday and it has been said today—the Secretary of State said so himself—that Polaris will continue into the 1990s. However, Polaris will be a very short-range weapon. There is probably a case for taking on Poseidon with a larger range. That can be done with the same ships, by enlarging the tubes as the Americans have done. Or perhaps, as I think is in the mind of my hon. Friend, we ought to go for a new generation such as Trident—which would mean entirely new boats and is very expensive—or the cruise missile. The Government are at last having a Sub-Harpoon as the main weapon of our submarines. The cruise missile can be fired from torpedo tubes of submarines. However, it will have an entirely different function because the Harpoon is a tactical missile, whereas the cruise missile is strategic.
  I hope that the Government are giving this consideration. I will say no more than that. I merely repeat that I hope that the next Government will immediately give this matter their consideration, because it is a matter of great importance to this country and NATO.
  I turn now to the tactical nuclear missile. The problem here is that the Soviet SS20 is a mobile tactical missile with a strategic range. It has a range of 3,000 miles-plus. The Secretary of State said, on 19 March, in answer to a question, that over 100 were deployed and targeted on Europe. As it is a mobile missile with such a long range, it will be extraordinarily difficult to eliminate. It can be fired from the middle of Russia. We would have to send in our aeroplanes, and it would be very difficult to hit such a missile without considerable loss.
  What can we do? We can produce a new tactical missile which can deal with the SS20, and there is nothing in the NATO inventory as yet that can deal with that. Pershing is our longest-range nuclear missile and that has a range of some 750 miles, and even if stretched will not go much beyond 1,000. Therefore, here again it may well be that the cruise missile is the answer. I have put this point

  313
  to the Secretary of State several times and I hope very much that he will give it consideration, though he has not so far vouchsafed to take the House into his confidence.
  We then come to SALT II, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) in his excellent speech. The two problems about SALT II in relation to Europe are that the SS20 is excluded from that treaty because it is a tactical, nuclear missile but has a strategic range. That is very dangerous indeed. In addition, the non-circumvention clause will make it very difficult for the United States to give her European allies the know-how on the TERCOM maps and satellites that are required to make the cruise missile effective. This is a point that we must consider carefully.
  The deployment of the cruise missile by the Americans in Europe will also be difficult, because under the treaty they are limited in range to 2,500 kilometres for the airborne cruise missile and 600 kilometres for the ground or sea-based missile. This will make cruise unsatisfactory for dealing with the SS20. This is an important matter for this country and for the Alliance as a whole.
  I should also like to point out, particularly to the Left wing of the Labour Party, that all Soviet exercises carried out in recent years have ended with conventional war going nuclear. That is their automatic assumption, and all their exercises are carried out with full chemical and bacteriological preparation. I think that the writing is on the wall should the balloon ever go up in Europe.
  I turn to the conventional sector. The question has been asked whether the USSR will ever repeat Herr Hitler's successful blitzkrieg. The USSR is in a position to do so, but whether it will remains to be seen. However, anyone who disregards that, such as the Tribune group, is either very stupid or has been duped by Soviet propaganda. The evidence is perfectly clear. The important point about the Soviet forces in central Europe today is not only that underlined in the White Paper—namely, the disparity in numbers—but the fact that in the last three years Russia's forces have changed posture from one of defence to offence. That is significant.
  314
  If the House wants evidence, I would merely point out that the Russians have instituted a BPM-60, which is an armoured personnel carrier regiment to every division as a spearhead of the assault. They have increased their tank forces and expanded them with the T-72. Their artillery, tactical missiles and antitank missiles are all mobile, and most of them are mounted behind armour, which is not the case with the NATO forces. Their air defence, both gun and missile, is far better than NATO's, and that is also mobile, and their bridge-building capability is said to be able to cross a river the size of the Rhine in half an hour. In addition, their fighter bomber force, which is clearly an offensive as opposed to a defensive force, has increased by 200 per cent. in the last three years.
  If that is not sufficient evidence for the Tribune group or anyone else to show that the Soviet Union is in a position to emulate Herr Hitler's blitzkrieg, I do not know what they will believe. I suggest that a blitzkrieg is unlikely, but it is possible. We do not know what the new rulers at the Kremlin—who will take office very soon, because Mr. Brezhnev is now getting on in years—will decide to do. They could well initiate a war in the central front, and this might be started by attacking North Norway so as to give elbow room for the biggest military base in the world on the Kola peninsula. That is what the short-term and long-term defence programme of NATO, which is described in the White Paper, is designed to check.
  I want to mention certain issues in the short-term defence programme. The programme is geared to three issues—reinforcement, anti-armour and supplies. Reinforcement is a matter that is of great interest to NATO and to the North Atlantic Assembly at present. The position on the central front has been greatly improved. Two United States brigades have been assigned to NORTHAG. Two new American divisions have been allocated to the central front in times of war, with pre-position equipment in Europe. This underlines our duty as politicians to use the warning time before war starts to get these reinforcements in position before they are torpedoed or shot out of the air after the war starts.

  315
  I believe that we must have a better answer to the Soviet armour, because there is now about a three-to-one imbalance. Our anti-tank guided missiles and tanks are being increased, but too slowly. I very much hope that the Chieftain tanks coming from Iran will be allocated to BAOR.
  Mr. Julian Critchley: My hon. Friend said that elements of the United States army had been assigned to NORTHAG. Are they in position, or is this just an assignment?
  Mr. Wall: I understand that they are in position, but of course the two divisions to which I referred will come later in any emergency.
  There is one issue on the tank that I want to take up. I am rather horrified to hear that the British will try to build a main battle tank for the 1980s at a cost of £1 million each, when the Americans are producing the XM-1 and the Germans the Leopard II. If the three major allies in NATO cannot combine and have the same tank, I hesitate to think of the bills that we shall face in the future. Surely if we are fighting the same war we can do so with the same equipment.
  I turn briefly to the northern flank. The reinforcements there are mainly British. They are the Royal Marine Commando brigade, which I had the pleasure of meeting in Norway a few days ago when, incidentally, I slept in a tent in the Norwegian hills in a temperature of minus 12° centigrade, which I do not propose to repeat in the near future. The second reinforcements are the Canadians, and then possibly the United States Marine Corps. But most important of all are immediate air reinforcements.
  I believe that NATO allies and the Government have done a great deal to speed up these reinforcements, and this is vital. I have criticised the Government year after year about reinforcements in the northern flank. They did away with the commando carrier, they used the assault ships for other purposes and have cut the marine helicopter lift. That is the past. I agree with the able attack made on the Government by my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton, except that I think he got the wrong
  316
  target I believe that the real target is the right hon. Gentleman who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was the most disastrous Minister of Defence that we ever had.
  Be that as it may, one must give credit where credit is due. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has left, but I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy. HMS "Hermes" and HMS "Bulwark" are now available for reinforcements and amphibious training, RFA "Tarbatness" is being supplied for this work, 41 commando is being resuscitated, the 105 gun and the Sea King helicopter are coming in and oversnow vehicles are being provided as well as skis for the commandos. All this is a great advance. I congratulate the Under-Secretary on these matters because I know he has them very much at heart.
  I come briefly to my last point, which relates to maritime. I have said that the Kola base is the largest military establishment in the world. The Russians keep their main fleet at that base as well as most of their nuclear submarines. In any war, the Russian front line will be the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom gap. That is where they will fight the next battle of the Atlantic. Admiral Sir Terence Lewin, in a recent speech to the Royal Society of Arts, pointed out that the Russians have 355 submarines, of which 155 are nuclear propelled. According to him, they also have 400 to 500 Backfire and Badger aircraft in the navy alone. Therefore, that battle of the Atlantic, if it ever happens, will be a terrible one. In parenthesis, may I say that I believe that in Sir Terence Lewin we shall have the finest leader we have had since the days of Earl Mountbatten.
  What should we do in the maritime sector? I believe there are two immediate priorities. First, there is the defence of the United Kingdom base. We have heard a lot about the air defence of the base. I do not have time to go into that, but I remind the House that the Russians are the world's experts in mine laying. They lay mines from submarines and from the air. We do not have enough mine hunters or minesweepers to keep more than two ports in this kingdom open. That could be disastrous.
  I am glad that the Minister has already made the point about the new Brecon

  317
  class coming in, and I am glad to see that he is taking up fishery trawlers. There are a lot more that he can have in Hull as auxiliary minesweepers.
  The other issue as a first priority must be ASW. Here the Government's cuts over the years have lost us nine frigates or destroyers. We need more ships. A lot of improvements are coming in, as referred to in the White Paper, such as Seawolf, Icara, improved sonar and Sea Skua. But nothing has been said about the use of container ship and tankers, which is one of the most important issues of all. Without spending much money, the Government can have auxiliary aircraft carriers and anti-submarine vessels, provided they make the preparation and have the reserves now, and Sea Harrier could be operated from these ships.
  The AV8B, the American successor to the Harrier, has 100 per cent. more lift and 200 per cent. more range than Harrier. I am told that the United States Marine Corps wants to order 345, and that may be followed by a naval order. That order would be more likely if the Royal Air Force ordered, for instance, 25 of these AV8Bs, many of which could be made in this country. I hope that the Minister of State will say something about that. I should also like to know what we are doing about the United States vertical launcher system developed by Martin Marietta. Rockets are discharged vertically from the ship's hull, 68 in a bank, and can be used against submarines or aircraft, and would enormously increase the firepower of our ships.
  I shall not weary the House with the battle for resources, but that is the most important consideration of all. It has been referred to by SACLANT and SACEUR. The area outside NATO is where we may all be defeated without a war being fought. With Middle East oil and the minerals in Southern Africa, everything depends on the Cape route, the integrity of the Middle East and above all the integrity of Southern Africa, particularly South Africa. The Government's present policy is doing everything possible to destroy our relations with those vital parts of the world.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition understands only too well the processes of Russian thought. That is
  318
  why she has been christened the "Iron Maiden". For 30 years NATO has kept the peace, supported by everybody in this House except the extreme Left, but NATO's resolve may well be tested between 1982 and 1985. The next Conservative Government are pledged to give defence its proper priority, and I hope that that Government will match up to my right hon. Friend's resolve and give her their full backing on these vital issues.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. James Lamond: I hate listening to defence debates. It is most disagreeable to hear speeches from Tory Members trying to curdle my blood or rattle sabres about Britain's position in the world. Yesterday's Hansard shows that Tory Members spent six hours sabre-rattling, claiming they were speaking for Britain and her defence. After 10 o'clock we had an hour and a half when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy was legitimately defending the proper interests of Great Britain. He expressed his determination not to see the control of our natural assets of fuel pass to the Commissioners of Europe, and he was accused of jingoism by Tory Members. From yesterday's proceedings we can see who cares about the genuine interests of the British people.
  I have great admiration for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, but, as I sit listening to the Front Bench with my eyes closed, I find it depressing to consider that, if there were a change of Government and a Conservative spokesman opened the debate, there would not be much difference. When one has a Department, one identifies with it. The Minister is involved in its day-to-day running and is proud of its achievements. At the Dispatch Box he speaks with great pride of these achievements, which is what my hon. Friend was doing. He is also perhaps trying to deflect criticism by explaining the wonderful work that the Navy and the Armed Forces generally do in emergencies, such as sudden severe weather conditions. However, we are not spending £8,558 million a year just to produce a body of men who can help in sudden emergencies. I admire that work, but it should not blind us to the grossly extravagant use of our resources in over-providing for defence.

  319
  Stories from the Conservative Benches vary. Some say that we are still a little ahead of the Soviet Union, which is apparently now our central enemy. Our great friend is the Chinese People's Republic, although that change has required some spectacular cartwheels before hon. Gentlemen could believe it. The Soviet Union is clearly branded by Conservative Members and high-ranking generals as the enemy. In defence capability it is just behind us or, if we believe the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), well ahead in many regards. It is apparently able to reduce us to helplessness in a short time because of, for instance, its ability in mine laying and all other aspects of warfare. If it is so far ahead in its ability to attack, why does it not strike immediately? It is supposed to have large forces, unlimited money and huge numbers of tanks and fighter aircraft. There is no other explanation but that it does not want to or intend to. There is no indication of aggression on the part of the Soviet Union.
  Hon. Members opposite have sought to justify the latest Chinese aggression against Vietnam. If the Soviet Union desired to start a war, that was a perfect excuse. It had just signed a friendship agreement with Vietnam which said that it would engage in immediate discussions if there was aggression against Vietnam. The situation there was grave, although we were unfortunately too busy to bother about the greatest threat to peace in the past five or ten years. The Soviet Union behaved responsibly and did not send troops to Vietnam to assist against the Chinese aggressors. In not doing so, it managed to defuse the situation.
  Mr. Churchill: Where did the hon. Gentleman get that brief from?
  Mr. Lamond: I have no brief from anyone. I do not even have notes. My knowledge of arms expenditure may not be quite as extensive as that of hon. Members who spend much time dealing with it.
  The strategy that I support is the one outlined for my Government by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the special session of the United Nations on disarmament. The Prime Minister made an excellent speech at that meeting and
  320
  received the greatest ovation of any speaker among the 100 or more who addressed the special session. That was because of the constructive nature of his contribution. On that occasion he said that we must support and try to encourage in every way talks on disarmament and development. He made the very good point that one cannot change defence policy overnight. One can only gradually increase or reduce defence expenditure. Even if the Tories come into office in three months' time, they will not be able greatly to increase our defence expenditure immediately. However, I expect that they will set a trend which will be the opposite of that which I desire. I want to see a gradual reduction in the proportion of our GNP which is spent on defence. I believe that that is the only way forward.
  Either we move towards a peaceful understanding with other countries or we arm ourselves to the teeth until a war breaks out. Unfortunately, when the next war breaks out it will mean the end of nations like ours. We are very densely populated with an arsenal bristling on our shores, and this makes us a prime target for our enemies. I do not know a great deal about defence. I do not have the benefits of all the advisers who have been engaged by many Conservative Members once they have been elevated to their Front Bench, but I have a modicum of common sense—
  Mr. Raymond Whitney: Reverting to the hon. Member's point about the examples and lessons of Vietnam, I invite him to consider another possible explanation of Russia's intentions. Where the target is "soft" and tricks can be won easily, the Russians go for it, just as they did in Ethiopia, the Middle East and Africa using the proxy of the Cubans. Where the target is more difficult and tends to bite back, the Russians stand off.
  Mr. Lamond: That is an interpretation, but I do not accept it. There are many points in the hon. Member's interjection that I challenge—for example, the point about proxies and the position of Ethiopia. But many hon. Members want to speak, so I shall be brief.
  We have heard a lot today about protecting the sea routes to our raw material supplies. Many people regard Southern Africa as important, not because of the

  321
  struggle there for self-determination but because it is a treasure trove of raw materials and we must protect our interests.
  I believe that the best way to protect our interests and our future supply of raw materials from the underdeveloped nations, where many of these resources lie, is to extend to those nations the help and assistance that they need to bring them a tolerable standard of living.
  At present, as Kurt Waldheim said at the Helsinki conference in 1975, the world spends 1,000 million dollars a day on arms. Of this, 80 per cent. is spent by the nations which were there at Helsinki, including the 35 nations of Europe and North America. We should take that money and use it to help the 1,000 million people in the world who go to bed hungry every day and the 800 million people who have no proper medical facilities and no education to speak of. It is no good Conservative Members shaking their heads. This is the biggest problem that faces the industrialised nations of the world. They must see that the people of the developing countries are helped with the money that we spend on arms. In that way we can much more readily secure our resources of raw materials.
  6.26 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: If only the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) would realise that if the Soviet Union spent less on arms we would all be able to get together and help humanity more. It is discouraging that he should still be so unaware of the dangers facing us at present.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie), in an effective and powerful speech, said all that needs to be said about the errors and omissions of the White Paper and the Government's defence policy. The Government have consistently neglected to do their duty to defend the nation, and on that point alone the sooner they go the better.
  I shall refer mainly to the need to coordinate the defence procurement policy of the NATO Alliance wherever possible. I reinforce what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) in that regard. That does not conflict with our need to strengthen our own capability by ensuring the future of our own strategic nuclear deterrent.
  322
  Nor does it conflict with the Government's carrying out of the suggestions put forward by my right hon. Friend in dealing with matters within our control which are not necessarily very expensive.
  Looking at defence as a whole, I do not believe that we can have an adequate deterrent or defence capability on the cheap. The most that we can hope for is better value for money, which we could have if we had an adequate policy for arms co-operation. Even that is not a cheap option.
  It was misleading for the Secretary of State to say complacently yesterday that the Defence Estimates for 1979–80 represented an increase of 3 per cent. in real terms over 1978–79. To say that against a background of the savage cuts introduced before the chosen base year was sheer complacency. It may be doubted in any event whether a 3 per cent. real increase can be regarded as adequate in the face of current expenditure by the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact Powers. General Haig has said that be thinks 5 per cent. is more realistic and I think that he is right. All that 3 per cent. amounts to for the European members of NATO is an additional expenditure of about £500 million on the European defence improvement programme. That is minuscule when one considers that the Soviet Union spent 40 per cent. more than the United States on arms in 1977 and that the gap is growing.
  In the United States, the House of Representatives Armed Services Sub-Committee on NATO Standardisation, Interoperability and Readiness made its long-awaited report in February of this year. The report criticised the state of allied readiness and found that a 3 per cent. real annual growth in defence expenditure was inadequate. It concluded that the NATO long-term defence plan was of questionable value. Regrettably, that report is essentially negative in character, both on arms co-operation and everything else. It offers no solution beyond a pious hope for the strengthening and improving of the Alliance. That is the sort of pious hope upon which our own Government rely.
  A great deal has been said about the balance of forces, but it is no longer true to say that the quality of NATO forces couner-balances the immense quantity

  323
  and superiority of the forces of the Warsaw Pact Powers. An "uneasy balance" was the term used recently by the United States Secretary for Defence to describe how Soviet and United States military strengths match up. That, if anything, is optimistic in the face of the increasing power, number and accuracy of Soviet strategic weapons.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, East may not want to listen to the facts about Soviet strength and power, but he should be advised to give this matter more of his attention and to have regard particularly to the matters to which my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) referred—for instance, the development of the SS20 missile and the Backfire bomber. As my hon. Friend said, the SS20 may be a tactical nuclear weapon but it has a strategic range. We in Europe certainly need cruise missiles and the neutron bomb if we are to maintain a proper balance of forces.
  Against that background, as the Secretary of State himself admitted yesterday,
  "there is no escaping the need for the Alliance to devote more resources to defence if deterrence is to be maintained"—[Official Report, 26 March 1979; Vol. 965, c. 46.]
  He went on to say that the only way in which we could avoid that is if there were significant multilateral disarmament measures. Let us hope that there will be such measures, but also let us hope that they are genuine as well as significant on paper.
  Europe is still dependent on the United States for its defence and will remain so for many years. However, I think that we must be prepared to contribute more to the common defence if only because it is becoming increasingly evident that the United States cannot afford to go it alone any longer, even if it wished to do so. We need to make a reality of what has been called the "two-way street" between the United States and Europe.
  Mr. Thomas A. Callaghan junior, the director of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown university, speaking to the United States Congress on 21 July 1977, said:
  "The United States itself can no longer fund its own arms development programme adequately, with the result that many United States arms projects crawl along or become obsolete before they can be completed. The
  324
  United States needs Europe to undertake many such projects so that these, wherever undertaken, can be fully funded and move to completion. In other words what is required for the proper arming and equipping of Alliance forces, including those of the United States, is the spreading of the technology base to Europe."
  We cannot exaggerate the dangers to the Alliance of the erosion of the European technological base that has already taken place. Of the European Community's military aircraft and helicopters, 40 per cent. are of United States manufacture, not to mention the American components which are contained in the 60 per cent. of Community-manufactured military aircraft and helicopters. No less than 70 per cent. of the helicopters are of United States manufacture. Because we cannot divorce the military and the civil technology, another disturbing fact is that the share of the European market won by Community civil aircraft manufacturers fell from 95 per cent. in 1970 to a mere 7·8 per cent. in 1976 and it is still falling. That is quite out of balance.
  This aspect of defence policy has lately gained—the House will be pleased to know—the attention of the European Parliament, which recently approved the Klepsch report on European procurement co-operation together with an annexed opinion by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) on the industrial dimension. It is, of course, the industrial and technological dimension which affords an opportunity for the European Parliament to discuss something which is not primarily its responsibility—namely, defence organisation.
  There are sound industrial and technological, as well as military, reasons why we in Europe must reduce our dependence on the United States for defence equipment. The trouble is that the Americans themselves are now very dubious about both the prospects for European co-operation and our motives. Thus the House of Representatives report to which I have already referred states that, as applied by some European spokesmen and some Pentagon officials, the term "two-way street" is too often presented as a device to equalise economic benefits for European defence industries without sufficiently considering the contribution to military effectiveness.
  There is, unfortunately, some force in that argument. In Europe we have done

  325
  far too little to standardise our own European defence procurement projects although we have been talking about it for years. We now talk about interoperability instead of rationalisation or standardisation, and still nothing happens. It is rather depressing to look at the White Paper and see just two short paragraphs—Nos. 128 and 129—which briefly refer to the Independent European Programme Group by saying that we will support its work and refer to the identification of a number of potential programmes which could be of benefit. I do not believe that that is any use at all.
  As the United States report observes, the words "standardisation" and "interoperability" can often be given ambiguous definitions. They lead to conflicting policy guidance, and the word rationalisation as it is used in NATO has become a meaningless term.
  We face dangers which, whatever the hon. Member for Oldham, East might think, we on the Conservative Benches believe to be real and immediate. While we have been cutting down on our defence expenditure, the Soviet Union has been spending nearly 15 per cent. of its gross national product on armaments. So it has achieved a superiority of three to one in tanks and four to one in artillery, against NATO forces. I say to the hon. Gentleman, who wonders why it is that Russia has not already attacked, that Soviet Russia is deterred by the nuclear deterrent and will not move as long as it feels that there is even a minimal possibility that we would rather be dead than red.
  Yesterday the Secretary of State referred to the decision taken last September to proceed with the project definition of the new main battle tank to replace the Chieftain in the late 1980s. If necessary we must proceed on our own, though I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice that we ought to be seeking a much wider solution. The United States has its project, and the Germans have their project. How, for example, can the economics of French production of AMX30 battle tanks at possibly 150 annually and our own production of Chieftain tanks at, say, 200 annually be compared with the estimated production by the Soviet Union of over 2,000 main battle tanks a year?
  326
  We have a gross national product in the NATO Powers of about three times that of the Warsaw Pact Powers. Yet we are unable to match the Soviet Union, not only quantitatively but now, increasingly, in the quality of our arms procurement programme. We in the West have the means to defend ourselves, but I think we must continually ask whether we any longer have the will.
  We must produce practical policies and actions if we are to hold the forces of the Soviet Union—which are political and subversive as well as military—at bay. There is nothing in the White Paper, and nothing in the Government's defence policy, which displays a willingness to take the hard, and perhaps unpalatable, decisions that have to be taken today either unilaterally or collectively.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) yesterday drew some revealing comparisons between the 1930s and today. Many others can be drawn. There are similarities in the language of detente and that of appeasement. There are similarities between the speeches of the 1930s and the speeches of today, except that, on the whole, the speeches of the 1930s were rather firmer in tone and the actions taken then were rather more positive. Today I think that there are significant differences from the 1930s. The threat to the survival of our civilisation is probably greater than it was in 1939. We are less well prepared to defend ourselves than we were then.
  I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice said about the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was a dreadful, disastrous and damaging Secretary of State for Defence. I cannot think of anybody in modern times who has done more harm to his country than that man. The best that I can say in defence of the present Secretary of State is that he is not the worst. Nevertheless the House may think that Sir Thomas Inskip was a ball of fire compared with the present Secretary of State, Chamberlain was an iron man compared to the present Prime Minister. Brezhnev never thought of calling the present Prime Minister an iron man. The Prime Minister has not considered defence, although defence is the primary responsibility of the Prime Minister. He has never thought of anything but his own survival.

  327
  I hope that after tomorrow he will be able to go back to the farm.
  6.40 p.m.
  Mr. John Watkinson: The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with his gloomy and doom-laden speech. I tremble to think what he would spend on defence if he were on the Government Front Bench. No doubt the right hon. and learned Member will go to Hexham to explain to his electorate how the Conservatives will cut taxation and the borrowing requirement at the same time as they increase defence expenditure to the proportions suggested by him. I do not believe that that is possible.
  The righ hon. and learned Gentleman is ill informed. He referred to the imbalance in the central region. But he must know that NATO spends more money globally on defence than the Warsaw Pact. He must also know that globally NATO has more men in the armed forces than the Warsaw Pact. The authority for that is not the Tribune group but the International Institute of Strategic Studies.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham also mentioned the neutron bomb. He cited General Haig with approval. Not long ago General Haig said that the lack of the availability of the neutron bomb was not a significant factor. I do not want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to rush us into a decision on the neutron bomb.
  The White Paper is a somewhat modest document. I agree with certain of the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie). The White Paper contains only one page on SALT and MBFR. These issues are enormously important. If somebody wished to be informed about those issues, he would not glean much information from the White Paper.
  I believe that the Government have shown considerable initiative in trying to lift the MBFR talks out of the morass in which they are sunk. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has suggested that the talks should be lifted to Foreign Secretary level. That is a sensible suggestion. We should try to inject some
  328
  momentum into the talks because, as all hon. Members will agree, positive benefits could flow from the talks.
  I shall concentrate my remarks on Soviet expenditure and the build-up of arms. I shall deal with that matter in a wider context than have hon. Members so far today. I start from the premise that because we can never be sure of the intentions and purposes of the Soviet Union we must be ready to defend ourselves. I emphasise that because I shall use arguments of which Opposition Members will not approve.
  The build-up in Soviet arms expenditure in the last decade does not indicate a positive intention by the Soviet Union to launch an attack, particularly in the central region. We must try to strike a balance when we consider why the Soviet Union is spending so much of its resources on arms.
  The first reason is that the expenditure on arms is an expression of nationhood and the determination of a nation to defend itself. That is true of every nation. The expression of nationhood in the Soviet Union goes deeper than in Western countries. The totalitarian nature of Russia is such that it has always responded to expressions of might. That is one reason why the Russians found Khrushchev such a frivolous and useless leader and why there is still a considerable degree of reverence for such an appalling man as Stalin. Stalin was strong and firm. He spent much money on arms and he was a successful general. But I do not defend Stalin for one minute.
  Extensive expenditure on arms enables a nation, which in all other contexts cannot compete with the West, to compete effectively. In terms of GNP and performance in industry and agriculture, the Soviet Union is behind the West. But its heavy defence expenditure is a means of demonstrating to the people of Russia that it is a powerful nation. The second reason is that the Soviet Union has always adopted a deeply defensive attitude to the rest of the world. Historically it has good reason for that. It has been invaded on a number of occasions. But that defensive attitude permeates Soviet thinking.
  The Soviet Union's position has been greatly worsened because it faces on its western and eastern flanks what it considers to be enemies—NATO on the West

  329
  and China on the East. The emergence of China on the world scene has transformed international politics in a way that we have not yet come to appreciate.
  The third reason why the Soviet Union spends such a large amount on arms is that it is an intensely conservative nation. Opposition Members are revolutionary in comparison to some of the politicians who control the hierarchy of the Soviet Union. There is no reason to doubt that the military industrial complex in the Soviet Union is as powerful and as potent, if not more so, than it is in the West.
  Mr. Churchill: In the United States and in all the Western democracies the so-called military industrial complex is kept in bounds of reason by a free press and by regular consultations with the electorate, but in the Soviet Union it is the Government.
  Mr. Watkinson: I would not go so far as to say that it is the Government, but certainly I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the two—the military industrial complex and the Government—are very closely interlinked.
  The fourth point is that the Soviet Union, being a totalitarian State, is in a position to expend vast resources on arms. It does so knowing that it is in a position, if I may use the slang expression, to put the screws on the West. It is very much more difficult for us to increase expenditure on arms because, for perfectly legitimate reasons that have been so excellently put before the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), we in the democracies find that, on the whole, there is a great reluctance to spend money on arms, quite legitimately so. In the Soviet Union, they have no such problems, they can simply ago ahead with it. It is a means whereby the Soviet Union is in a position to put great pressure on the West.
  The fifth reason, which I think is important so far as arms expenditure in the Soviet Union is concerned, is what is called the whole process of "Finlandisation". It is an important point that enormous expenditure on arms by a nation, particularly in the context of the weaker nations on its border, enables that nation—that super-Power—to lean on its neighbour in a very significant way. Finland is a case in point. I know that there is a certain degree of anxiety at
  330
  present about the position of Norway and the fact that the Soviet Union is leaning on that country. It is for that reason, particularly in the central region, that it is necessary for us to have a firm and consistent defence posture.
  I think that the reasons I have given are possible explanations why the Soviet Union expends as much of its gross national product on arms build-up as it does. I emphasise again, because we do not know ultimately what the intentions of that regime are or what could happen under a new Government, that it is necessary for us to provide for adequate defence in the West.
  I said earlier that I considered that the whole world balance had changed. I really believe that it has done so. We have not taken it on board yet. Hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches are making speeches as if the arrival of China on the world scene had not really happened. In my view, the impact here is enormous.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Old-ham, East (Mr. Lamond) raised the question of the invasion of Vietnam by China and the fact that Russia did not do anything about it. I welcome the restraint of the Russians in that context. I doubt, however, whether the Russians felt able to do anything about it. It is not only a question of what China has done in terms of arms. There is another factor in the East which receives absolutely no coverage in the West, and that is the development of the trade treaty between Japan and China. The Soviet Union can see emerging on its border this vast and powerful nation, which clearly will have massive repercussions for the Russians themselves. Also, the great ballistic missile build-up in the USSR effectively dates from Nixon's visit to China in 1972. Quite clearly, the Russians are paranoid about the situation there.
  I have said that there are reasons why the arms build-up has taken place in the USSR. I merely wish to emphasise again, lest my remarks are misconstrued, that the Soviet Union is a world Power. It expends a proportion of its GNP on arms which must be a matter of concern to the West. I believe that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), who intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East, had a good point in terms of Soviet foreign

  331
  policy about the soft target and the hard target, and going for the soft target. For that reason, I think reluctantly it is necessary to come to the conclusion that we must sustain defence expenditure, although not at the ridiculous levels which the Opposition have put before the House. However, we have to maintain a reasonable defence posture.
  6.53 p.m.
  Mr. R. Bonner Pink: I found the appreciation of the situation by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) of great interest. He highlighted many of the problems and dangers that confront us. I agree with him that progress in talks on disarmament is most desirable, and certainly we on this side shall work towards it.
  I listened most attentively to yesterday's debate. It followed very closely that of last year, of the year before and of the year before that, as does the White Paper. But it is becoming more obvious that there is an increasing divergency of views. We on this side have made our position perfectly clear. We are determined to preserve peace and we are convinced that the best way to do that is to be sufficiently strong, so that nobody will think that it is worth while to attack us. That is why defence is our first priority.
  On the opposite side, the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) favours wholesale unilateral disarmament, and it seems that the Government hover uncertainly between the two. The White Paper speaks with more than one voice. Paragraph 103 talks about reliance on America; paragraph 104 about reliance on international arms control and disarmament agreements; paragraph 105 about reliance on SALT II. That is all very optimistic, complacent and soothing. Paragraph 120 says:
  "… the growth in quantity of the Soviet forces…together with continued qualitative improvements, has extended their capability well beyond what can be considered necessary for purely defensive purposes."
  That is down-to-earth and pessimistic.
  According to the Foreign Affairs Research Unit, General David C. Jones, chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, states:
  "For years the Soviet Union has out-produced the United States in tanks, artillery,
  332
  ships, missiles and aircraft and it continues to do so. The traditional United States advantage in aircraft construction has all but disappeared and the Soviet construction rates for other types of major naval combatants is at equal or higher rates."
  So much for the contention of the hon. Member for Salford, East that it is America which has made the military running or has predominance in aircraft carriers.
  We on this side are concerned about the rundown in forces, not just in numbers, but in quality. We are concerned over the wastage of highly trained officers and men who leave early or do not re-engage.
  The Minister says that the Army is to be increased by 6,000 persons. Even if he gets them, they will have to be trained, but he has told us that, in spite of good recruiting, the total strength of the Services dropped by 6,000 last year. The reasons have been spelt out—pay and conditions. Apart from manpower, there is the shortage of spares, due entirely to successive defence cuts. The Minister told us that arms exports represent 70,000 to 75,000 job opportunities in industry, so why do not the Government increase defence spending to reduce unemployment and to give this country a positive result, instead of spending it on unemployment pay and wasteful employment schemes?
  Pay has been emphasised, but there are many smaller examples too. Just one is the anomaly of the pre-1950 widows. Why will not the Government have sympathy and act now? We on this side advocate not unlimited spending but enough to ensure our security and to honour our commitments.
  Figure 5 in the White Paper shows that the United Kingdom is second in the league in expenditure taken as a percentage of the gross domestic product. Some Government Members seem to take pride in that. But it also shows that the total spending is well below that of both France and Germany, and expenditure per capita is just over half that of the United States and two-thirds that of France and Germany. Statistics can prove anything, but these figures clearly show, first, that we are spending too little on defence and not pulling our weight and, secondly, that our gross national product is woefully low. The blame for both rests

  333
  squarely on the Government. We shall raise the gross national product to provide for increased spending, and that is the answer to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens). Press reports continually highlight the inadequacies of our defence in men, equipment and spare parts, but the Government continue to bury their heads in the sand and allow our defences to fall to dangerous levels. For this they stand condemned.
  7 p.m.
  Mr. Alec Woodall: I wish to talk not about missiles, equipment and pacts, or about Backfire, Swingfire and hellfire. This technical jargon is all very well, but there is one basic element in the defence of the nation that we must have right, and that is the calibre of the men and women within the forces and the way we treat them.
  During Question Time this afternoon, on the subject of pay demands, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked the Opposition, as he has done on many occasions, "What would you do? Would you give in? Would you give them what they are demanding?" Strangely enough, there was very little response. That is remarkable because last year during the debate on the police award and the firemen's award, which the Government proposed to make in two stages, we were told from the Opposition Benches "Give them the lot now; we would give it to them". Similar noises have been made recently about the nurses. The Opposition would meet the nurses' demands now—not the road sweepers or the refuse collectors, but the nurses, yes. That is not my experience of the Conservative Party.
  I joined the Army in 1939 when the Conservatives were in power, and my pay was 2s. a day. We were very well looked after. I left at home a widowed mother who received 50p per week. I was the breadwinner, and I had to come out of the pit and leave her to live on 50p per week. As soon as I was in the Army, I asked what would happen to my mother and was told that she would be looked after. I was asked to fill in a form and sign it, which I did. I was assured that my mother would receive an Army allowance of 15s. per week. Fair, she did. Within a matter of weeks she received a book to take to the post office which entitled her to 15s. a week.
  334
  On the Friday of the week I joined, after we had been licked into shape by the sergeant, we had to go on pay parade. We were shown how to salute with the right hand, go up to the pay desk when one's name was called, hold out the right hand, take the money, put it into the left hand, salute again with the right hand, turn round and go away. This we did and we had our pay. There was no warning about examining the change because no mistake could be rectified later. All I received was 25p. I said "There is a mistake here, I am 2s. short." The company quartermaster sergeant said "Hold that man ".
  What a dressing down I got from the military. I was told that I would get 5s. only, because I had signed an application for an allowance for my mother and to go towards that allowance half of my pay, 1s. a day, was deducted, so I was left with 35p a week. They were crafty in the Army in those days. At some time we might break a barrack room window. We were paid 5s. and the other 2s. was kept in case we broke a window. That is how we were treated in 1939.
  I joined a famous light infantry regiment which did everything to the call of the bugle. The first thing we had to learn was the bugle call. We went to bed by bugle, we got up in the morning by bugle, and we went for meals by bugle. There was one bugle call at a certain hour in the afternoon, the "ration call". It informed the ladies in married quarters that it was time to go to the quartermaster's store to draw their rations. We often learned bugle calls by jingles. "Come to the cookhouse door, boys" "Lights out" and "Reveille" were easy. The ration call went something like this:"There's peas and pies for officer's wives; for private's wives there's skilly." Those jingles were not dreamed up by someone who had been out on the beer the night before, because we did not have enough money to go out on the beer. They were not jocular. Skilly was skilly, and if hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches do not know what skilly is my wish is that they never get to know.
  This was the Army in 1939. That is the way we were treated by the Conservative Government. I remember one day a lieutenant coming into the office. He said to the sergeant-major "The girl who

  335
  comes to help my wife with the cleaning is pregnant and my wife will not have her in the house. Please get me another girl to help my wife with the cleaning." That was the usual practice, the company sergeant-major was demoted to acting unpaid domestic agency. His job was to go round the married quarters to find the wife of a soldier and offer her a few shillings a week to skivvy for the officer's wife. In that part of the country, not far from York, hundreds of wives had enough common sense to go down to Rowntree's and make chocolate, and thus they were able to make more money than they could have done by being a skivvy for the officer's wife.
  When it comes to pay for the members of the Armed Forces, the Conservatives would immediately say "Give them the moon ". My warning to members of the forces and to those who are thinking of joining the forces is to take what the Conservatives say with a large pinch of salt, because my experience is that which I have just related.
  7.8 p.m.
  Mr. Churchill: We are all indebted to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) for giving us the benefit of his experience as a soldier in the Second World War. He will forgive me if I do not follow him. I am unable to speak from experience except as one who was issued with a Mickey Mouse gas mask.
  We are here today to discuss the adequacy of Britain's defence in a dangerous and rapidly changing world. Upon the accuracy of our assessment of the potential threats that confront us, and upon our judgment of what is necessary to neutralise those threats, will depend the future of our nation and of our people, on whose behalf terrible sacrifices have been made so that we and future generations may live in peace and freedom. If our judgment is sound, we may look with confidence towards an ever brighter future of rising prosperity and technological advance in which all mankind may share. If we fail in our judgment, as a previous House of Commons in its collective unwisdom failed in its judgment, the consequences for all our people will be unfathomable.
  Forty years ago it meant war, as the hon. Member for Hemsworth illustrated. It meant six years of sacrifice, suffering
  336
  and bereavement until finally victory was won. Then there was a further generation of reconstruction. Another time—heaven forbid that there should be another time—there would be no 12 months' respite to repair our run-down defences. Nor would there be any victory at the end of the road. Our people, so often reassured by their leaders that they were living in an age when the prospects for peace have never been brighter, would awaken from their torpor to find their lives, their hopes and their future all shattered as they are confronted by the brutal reality of nuclear holocaust or invasion and enslavement by a totalitarian Power, which has been the lot of our brothers in Eastern and Central Europe for the last 40 years.
  Nothing is more important to our people than that they and their children should continue to live out their lives in peace and in freedom. Further, I believe that to achieve that goal they would be willing to make sacrifices, provided one thing: that they are told the truth. No individual is in a position to be better informed on these matters than the Prime Minister, who has central responsibility for matters of defence. It is he who has charge of our intelligence service and who receives regular detailed briefings, including the latest satellite photography supplied by our American allies. It appears to be his considered judgment that we are living in an era of detente. But he is at pains regularly to reassure our people on that point. The British people should know that the full truth is being deliberately kept from them. Indeed, they are being told the reverse of the truth. We find ourselves confronted—however unpalatable that fact may be, however many different interpretations may be put on the facts by Labour Members—by a totalitarian State whose leaders hold the openly avowed aim of conquering the world. To achieve that aim they have built the biggest war machine that the world has ever seen.
  The Soviet Union's 50,000 tanks represent an armoured strength 20 times greater than Hitler's Nazi Germany deployed six months after the outbreak of war. Yet the Russians are adding to that armoured strength 4,000 tanks each year. Can that be called detente?
  Figure 2 of the White Paper might easily mislead people into thinking that the Soviets have no more than 9,800 main battle tanks. Of course, that takes into

  337
  account a narrow area only on the central front of only Europe. What does the Secretary of State imagine that the other 40,200 tanks will do when the balloon goes up? Will they stay at home base in the Soviet Union? Of course not. That is why these figures are grossly incomplete and misleading, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) has already pointed out.
  Since 1971, the Soviet union has been sitting down with the Western countries in Vienna to try to come to some arrangement in regard to arms reduction in central Europe. The whole purpose of these mutual and balanced force reduction talks has been to reduce tension and the danger of war in Europe by reducing the size of the opposing forces. Paragraph 113 in the White Paper states that negotiations are proceeding "slowly but steadily". That is a categorically misleading statement. In 1968, the group of Soviet forces in Germany—East Germany, that is—had 1,600 pieces of artillery and 2,500 armoured personnel carriers. Since then, those figures have doubled. Figure 2 shows that Soviet tanks in central Europe during that period have increased by no fewer than 2,555—the equivalent of two and a half tank armies, each with double the armoured strength of Britain's Army of the Rhine.
  The whole objective of the MBFR talks has thereby been vitiated and the USSR has already achieved the capability of making an unreinforced surprise attack from its deployed positions. That can only heighten tension and increase the danger of war. At the strategic level, the Soviet Union has overtaken the West in every parameter of strategic nucler power, except only in the numbers of warheads. Even in that field, it is likely that by 1983 the Soviet Union will have the advantage.
  How incredible it is to reflect that, in the space of a single generation, the United States should have passed from a position of total monopoly to a position approaching inferiority. Britain should know that the SALT agreements, far from being a brake—as Labour Members have suggested—on the deployment of weapons of mass destruction, have proved a licence, nay an incentive, to the production of those weapons.
  338
  In a parliamentary reply to my question on 23 June last year, the Secretary of State said that in the past 10 years
  "the United States strategic missile force has remained constant over the period—at 1,710—whereas the Soviet Union's ICBM and SLBM force has increased from around 600 to 2,400 systems".—[Official Report, 23 June 1978; Vol. 952, c. 323.]
  Although the Soviet Union has overtaken the United States, it continues to deploy new intercontinental ballistic missiles at a rate of no less than 200 per year—four each week. Is that what the Prime Minister has in mind when he says that we live in a state of detente? Of course, the weapons are being deployed not solely with the people of the United States in mind. Mr. Brezhnev has ordained a specific category for our benefit, the so-called Euro strategic weapons. In addition to the 500 SS4 medium range ballistic missiles and the 90 SS5 intermediate range ballistic missiles which are aimed at Western Europe, in the past 18 months the Soviet Union has deployed more than 100 Backfire supersonic nuclear strike bombers armed with nuclear-warhead cruise missiles.
  In a parliamentary reply on 19 March, the Secretary of State said:
  "We believe about 100 SS-20 intermediate range ballistic missiles are now deployed with the Soviet strategic rocket forces."
  He added rather significantly:
  "Most of these missiles are deployed against Western Europe".—[Official Report, 19 March 1979, Vol. 964, c. 457.]
  The SS20 is emphatically not a theatre nuclear weapon, as appears to be suggested by paragraph 124 of the White Paper. In fact, it has a greater range and its warheads are more powerful than our own Polaris missiles. There can be no question of equating it with the so-called neutron bomb about which Labour Members kicked up such a fuss so recently and with such effect that it was not deployed. Why is it that Labour Members are now so deafeningly silent about the new missiles being aimed and targeted against our cities and our families? What has been deployed in the last 18 months, in terms of SS20 missiles alone, represents no less than 10,000 Hiroshima bombs in destructive capability.
  It must be a matter of concern that, while those systems are excluded from the SALT talks, there appears to be a

  339
  danger that the United States will agree to unilateral protocols restricting the deployment and range of the cruise missile, which is the only weapon readily available to counter the massive increase in the threat to Western Europe. I hope that the Minister who is to reply will assure us that the Government have made representations to Washington about the extreme concern felt throughout Western Europe that the interests of the European allies of the United States may not be fully taken into account, particularly as regards the transfer of technology.
  The reality is that we are confronted with a massive build-up which is increasing relentlessly and remorselessly every week and every month. It is difficult to see how anyone, but particularly someone in the Prime Minister's position of responsibility, can honestly describe a situation that has never been more dangerous in the history of the world as one of detente. It is certainly not the sort of "detente" that I seek for myself and my family and I venture to believe that it is not what our people seek for themselves and their families.
  The Prime Minister and his colleagues will have to answer for themselves at the bar of history. Regrettably, it could be the whole nation which pays the price of their reckless and irresponsible deception of the British people as to the truth and gravity of our situation.
  Against the background of the greatest military build-up that the world has seen, the White Paper appears a sad and miserable little document. At best, it is irrelevant. At worst, it is a stepping-stone to catastrophe. It is perhaps indicative of the spirit of Munich that pervades its pages that six times as much space is devoted to "Detente and Disarmament" as is provided for "Defence and Deterrence".
  Once again, the central feature of the White Paper is further cuts in defence expenditure. The Government have now made five successive cuts. Estimates for the current year represent a £1,472 million cut from the pre-defence review programme. Even compared to the post-review programme—after the review that was supposed to end all defence reviews—the reply of the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth
  340
  (Mr. Trotter) on 5 March indicates that the current budget represents an £83 million reduction. Yet the Government have the nerve to describe that as a 3 per cent. increase. Whom do they think they are fooling?
  Mr. Woodall: Can the hon. Gentleman explain what he meant when he talked about the spirit of Munich?
  Mr. Churchill: I had in mind the deliberate failure to tell the British people the truth about the gravity of our situation and the placing of false interpretations on the situation by suggestions that everything in the garden is rosy when nothing could be farther from the truth.
  The most grievous damage done by the Government has been to the men and women of the Armed Forces, to whose spirit and expertise I pay tribute. They carry out the thankless task of protecting the civilian population of Northern Ireland with exemplary courage and dedication. But they have been shamefully ill treated by this Government, who have trepassed on their loyalty by using them as a body of strike-breakers while paying them less than one-third of their due.
  The Armed Forces have fallen 37 per cent. behind the rest of the community in pay. That is likely to be the figure revealed by the next report of the Review Body. I see that the Minister of State is wrinkling his brow. He will be aware that last year's pay award of 10 per cent. reduced the short-fall to 22 per cent., but the most recent figures available in the Library indicate that there has been a 15 per cent. increase in average earnings since then.
  The Government have announced that the Army is to be increased by 6,000, but who brought about the cuts in the first place? Who slashed the Army by 16,000? If we are overstretched in peacetime, heavens knows what would happen if we had to move to a war footing.
  The decisions facing the next Conservative Government will have to be taken with rapidity because they have been put off for so long. The first decision must be to restore the full comparability of forces' pay this year, and I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) has repeated our commitment to that. We cannot afford the drain of

  341
  human skills and experience which is bleeding the forces white.
  Of all the decisions that require our attention, none is more urgent and pressing than the modernisation and improvement of our nuclear deterrent. Once the V-bombers are stood down, as they will be, on the present Government's plans, by 1982, we will be left with a single Polaris vessel at sea at any one time. That is a dangerous situation and an urgent improvement is needed to our capability. Serious consideration should be given to the cruise missile as a short-term measure.
  If there is any reason why there have been wars in Africa, Asia and the Middle East in the past 30 years, but not in Europe, it is that the Russians have known that Mother Russia would pay the price if they embarked on any adventures against Western Europe. I agree with the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) that, as long as the Russians have that conviction, there is no danger of a war in Europe.
  There is a critical lack of air defence, and it is urgent that we increase the air defence capability of the United Kingdom. We have only 70 aircraft and we cannot wait until the late 1980s for the Tornado ADV. We must find an alternative before then, possibly in the form of the F15 from the United States. The United States Government might be prepared to provide an offset for that by purchasing Tornados. I should be interested to hear how far our Government have pursued that possibility.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: There have been significant improvements in air defence and it may put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest as regards the possibility of extra fighters if I tell him that it is recognised that the Soviet threat has grown tremendously through its capability to reach and destroy targets within the United Kingdom. The Air Force Department has therefore given careful consideration to the possibility of increasing the number of air defence fighters available to the United Kingdom. A decision has been taken on the general principle and detailed studies are under way. I hope that it will not be long before the gap can be filled.
  Mr. Churchill: That is the first time we have had any such indication from the Government. We are certainly glad that they are thinking about it. But what
  342
  is required is action. I believe that the next Conservative Government will take action. The forces of Soviet aggression are advancing unchallenged across vast areas of the globe—Africa, the Middle East and South-East Asia. Europe must start bearing a fairer share of the burden of allied defence. Britain must play its full part in that. It is urgent that the necessary decisions are taken to remedy the grave defects in our defences. Those decisions will not be taken by this Government. There is no more pressing reason than that of defence for the House to give this Government their marching orders tomorrow night so that a Conservative Government, committed to taking the necessary action to save the peace, while time remains, may get on with the job. May that Government have the courage of their leader's convictions. I believe that they will.
  7.31 p.m.
  Mr. Ernest G. Perry: I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) had to say. I suppose that it is a pleasure to follow someone with such a name. I had the privilege of following his grandfather in 1940 when he came into the Government, became Prime Minister and led this country in co-operation with other parties to victory in the 1939–45 war.
  Some of the derogatory remarks made by the Opposition Front Bench about some of my hon. Friends leave a lot to be desired. The hon. Member for Stretford said that the Prime Minister was dedicated to detente. What is wrong with that? The hon. Gentleman drew the picture of the terrible consequences if we allowed naked aggression, the pile-up of nuclear weapons and the growth of air forces that can destroy cities from a hundred miles away. If that is allowed to happen on both sides of the front—among the Western nations and those of the Warsaw Pact—no respectable Prime Minister would be worth his salt if he did not try to come to some detente with the people on the other side.
  The Prime Minister is to be congratulated on his speeches at the United Nations, at Guadeloupe and elsewhere in trying to bring home this message of detente to the people of the world. I am sure that President Carter, Chancellor Schmidt and all those people who bear

  343
  responsibility for the well-being of the world will ensure that safeguards exist to protect the human race.
  I received some papers and pamphlets today from the American embassy telling me how well the SALT talks are progressing. The documents referred to SALT I and SALT II and the fact that it is hoped to start SALT III talks in the near future. It is to the credit of the United States that it realises that unless it comes to some form of detente with the USSR the human race will be destroyed. I am sure that the hon. Member for Stretford, like all hon. Members, is interested in the success of detente.
  We have heard much in the debate about 1938 and 1939, about Munich and the consequences of it. For over 100 years, Russia has been the bogyman of this country. This feeling stems from the Crimean war and the Russian advance into the Pacific via Siberia. Most dangerous to this country was the Russian advance towards the Indian Ocean when they started to take over the Khan States north of India. At that time, India was the brightest jewel in the British crown. Our fear was that Russia would acquire a warm water port and occupy India.
  This was the political thinking in Britain for over 100 years. The treaty of 1878 signed by Disraeli was a measure to try to stop the Russians going further south. To some extent, it succeeded. With the advent of the Great War, this country had to seek allies to combat Germany. It had France in the Entente Cordiale. France had an agreement with Russia which meant, in the end, that we had an agreement with Russia. Ever since the Russian revolution, we have had the spectre or bogy of Communism in this country.
  The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) put his finger on what happened in 1938 and 1939 when he said in yesterday's debate:
  "Do not let us forget that Chamberlain's brush-off of Litvinov in 1938 made us incapable of resisting Hitler at Munich and led directly to the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement."—[Official Report, 26 March 1979; Vol. 965, c. 83.]
  No truer word has been said in this House. The Soviet Union has been blamed all along the line for coming to an agreement with Nazi Germany.
  344
  In the 1930s it was the policy, not under Mr. Baldwin but under Mr. Chamberlain, to drive, if possible, the Nazi war machine to the East. That policy failed. In the words of the hon. Member for Stretford, our defences were in a deplorable state in 1938 and 1939. This is borne out by many of my hon. Friends and many hon. Gentlemen opposite who had to bear the brunt of going to war against the biggest war machine this world had ever known with Lewis guns and Maxim guns, produced before the First World War. We had to look around for weapons to defend ourselves. We came up with two fine guns. One, called the Bren gun, came from Czechoslovakia and was a light machine gun. The other, a Swedish gun, was called the Bofors gun. They were two of the finest guns in the Second World War. We had to buy them. We had to buy the plans and produce them ourselves or they were produced in other parts of the world.
  We had been so inefficient from 1933 onwards that we had not recognised the menace of Hitler. If any party is responsible, it is the Conservative Party. The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), who is laughing, should look back at the records and find out what happened. The fault at that time lay in the Tory Party, which had a majority of three to one in this House. In 1935, it was returned with 450 seats against 150 on the Labour Benches. The Tories were responsible in the years leading up to the 1939 War.
  Mr. Churchill: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I hold no brief for Mr. Chamberlain, but, to give him his due, even the measures of rearmament that he sought to put through were consistently voted against by the Labour Party throughout the 1930s.
  Mr. Perry: That may be so. But the point is that the Tory Party had a three-to-one majority in the House of Commons. They could have passed any measure they wished. When some of my hon. Friends and friends on the other side—I call them my friends because between 1939 and 1945 we served in different spheres of the Armed Forces but called ourselves friends—were serving together, we called ourselves comrades.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) is leaving the House

  345
  at the end of this Parliament, as I am. He served in Burma. He was taken prisoner by the Japanese and remained a prisoner for three and a half years. I extend to him my felicitations and I wish him a good retirement. He has rendered greater service to the country than many others. I wish him good health and happiness in his retirement.
  There are other right hon. and hon. Members who served in the last war. The right hon. Member for Pavilion did a memorable job in Yugoslavia. Sometimes sneering remarks are made by those on the Opposition Front Bench about Ministers fiddling the books. They should remember that most of those who sit on the Government Front Bench took part in the last war if they were old enough to do so. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Secretary of State for Defence and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force all took part. Mr. Anthony Crosland also served. Sneering and jeering remarks are made about Labour Ministers fiddling the books, but such remarks are being directed to those who rendered a contribution from 1939 to 1945. That should not be forgotten.
  We have reminisced about the Second World War. One of the greatest moments in my life was to hear the result of the battle of El Alamein. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) may grin, but the results of the battles of El Alamein and Stalingrad were morale-boosters for the British Army, especially for those serving overseas. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Eye, who was imprisoned in Singapore, must have been sent almost into the sky with those imprisoned with him when he heard the news of El Alamein and Stalingrad. Those pieces of news must have been great fillips to them. Let us not jeer and grin like the hon. Member for Woking. These were pieces of news that kept the forces going during the last war in times of adversity.
  I read a small article in the Daily Mirror yesterday about Bofors being fired for the last time by the British Army. The Bofors gun went out of use yesterday and six rounds were fired as a memorial. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army could have invited a few Members of Parliament
  346
  who used Bofors during the last war to take part, for example, in halt action and to fire the Bofors.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Robert C. Brown): It was organised by the RAF.
  Mr. Perry: In Opposition, Conservatives are always spendthrifts, but when in power they are parsimonious. That has been evident on many occasions.
  During September 1978, with six other hon. Members, I had the privilege to visit the British Army of the Rhine. We spent nearly a week with the Rhine Army. We questioned soldiers, senior NCOs, officers, those responsible for supplies and the Commander-in-Chief. I was struck by the high morale of British troops in BAOR. That feeling was shared by my six colleagues.
  Naturally, there were complaints. I shall read out a list of complaints. I gave an undertaking to do so to the Commander-in-Chief. These are complaints that those in BAOR wish to be remedied. The men have great pride in their equipment.
  The bombardiers with Chieftain tanks complained to me bitterly. They asked why first-class Chieftains had been sent to Iran when they had Chieftains with low-powered engines that often had to undertake roles for which they were not designed. However, my general impression was that the soldiers were proud of their equipment and proud of their regiments. Of course, they wanted to see their equipment improved, but very often the first subject that they spoke about was their equipment, and it was clear that they had pride in it.
  We hear Opposition Members talking about Service men leaving the British forces. I do not doubt that some leave. Anyone who has had experience of the forces knows that there are always misfits who are only too glad to get out. My experience was that the morale of the British forces, both in the RAF and the Army, was first-class. I am sure that my six colleagues will support me in at least that respect.
  We talked to the top people, but we also talked to squaddies and senior NCOs. The quality of our senior NCOs is first-class. I make that comment as an ex-senior NCO. I do not think that they

  347
  could be bettered anywhere in the world. I talked to senior NCOs serving in BAOR, and I was proud to be associated with them.
  I direct my remarks to the complaints that I was asked to bring to the notice of the House in the next defence debate. I said that I would do so. I bring these matters to the attention of the House on behalf of my six colleagues.
  The first complaint hinges on comparability of pay. We have heard a great deal about that. I am in favour of soldiers, sailors and airmen having comparability with everyone else. I believe that we should be paid according to the service that we render.
  Secondly, the men want proper compensation for the expenses and difficulties of living in Germany. That complaint is directed to the local overseas allowance. Many of the wives of ordinary soldiers and senior NCOs go to work in Germany to supplement the family income. I have nothing against that. If they want to go to work, let them do so. Some of the wives work in BAOR and some in the NAAFI. They do a first-class job.
  The third complaint is that baggage scales have remained constant for several years. The average Service man in BAOR wants his baggage payment considerably increased when he moves from one place to another on the instructions of the Army.
  Fourthly, they want more nursing sisters and social workers.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: Come on.
  Mr. Perry: I sat in the Chamber throughout the debate yesterday and for a good part of today's proceedings.
  Mr. Onslow: So have I.
  Mr. Perry: I am sure that the House wants to hear what serving men in the British Army of the Rhine are thinking.
  The wives of men serving in the RAF, the Army and the Royal Navy have social problems. There is no reason why the allocation of social workers should not be increased. Not all Service wives want to go to the captain's wife to discuss the
  348
  personal problems that they have with their husbands.
  Mr. Woodall: During my hon. Friend's visit to BAOR, did he come across the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association? I understand that there are several officers in BAOR who are attached to the association who are doing a magnificent job.
  Mr. Perry: I am glad that my hon. Friend reminded me of this. The Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association does a first-class job. I pay tribute to it for the work it does for soldiers' families. However, I see no reason why social workers should not give the benefit of their experience to our people serving abroad. Service men and their families are isolated. They have problems. They need expert advice. Sometimes they do not want to go to the captain's wife to get it. They would like to see someone independent, as do people in this country.
  I come to the question of payment of DHSS benefits to British forces and their families in Germany. This may be a controversial point. However, it is worthy of recognition. I hope that the Minister will take it up.
  The next important point is the implementation of an assisted house purchase scheme. This applies to all ranks. Many a serving soldier, of whatever rank—private, captain or general—is worried about where to live when he leaves his military accommodation after his time is up. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) has discussed this problem often. Recognising the problem, we must try to help. There is no reason why an advantageous scheme should not be designed to ascertain the needs of a serving man on retirement so that he may at least have a house in which to live, whether a council house or a house acquired on mortgage. The Government must help. I ask them to give serious consideration to retiring Service men, who sometimes, with their wives and children, must live with relatives as they have nowhere to go. The least they deserve is a place in which to live when they have finished their time in the Services.
  Last, I come to the freezing of accommodation charges. When Service men receive an increase in pay, the house rents go up. This happens in this country as

  349
  well. Living charges and prices go up. I ask the Minister to consider this matter. There is no point in increasing the pay of Service men if their outgoings are increased by 25 per cent., 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. We must realise that Service men and their families live in conditions that are strange to us. It is not paradise to live in an isolated community in Germany.
  I am glad to have made that appeal on behalf of the Armed Forces in Germany. When I saw them last September I gave an undertaking that I would bring these points forward. I was struck by the high morale of all the Service men whom I visited. I am confident that their leaders are first-class and have the welfare of their soldiers at heart. I was glad to have the opportunity of seeing our forces at work in Germany.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Before I call another hon. Member to address the House, I have to say that there are nine hon. Members in the Chamber who have sat here for most of the debate yesterday and today. There are many more on the list who are not sitting here now. There have been only two speeches in the past 45 minutes. If we are to make progress, I must appeal for brevity.
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Critchley: I shall be careful to follow your instructions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and spend no more than five or 10 minutes in making my contribution.
  The saddest thing about the debate is that it is the first time for many years that we shall not be able to enjoy the wit and wisdom of Mr. David Walder.
  I have sat throughout the debate and listened with great interest to the mover of the amendment, the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun). What can one say about the hon. Gentleman's speech? It was long, repetitive and ill-argued. It was proof of the assertion that the easiest way in which to inhibit thought is to make a speech, especially in this place. It was made without any support from his colleagues below the Gangway, save conceivably for a roar or two from the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr)—about whom it might be said that his socks are the least offensive part of him.
  350
  I do not wish to discuss what this Government have done on defence, as everybody has done for the past five years ad nauseam. We should be much more interested in what might, or will, happen in the future. The sad and shabby story of the past five years can safely be left to some earnest, if masochistic, mid-Western academic in search of a second degree.
  What are the qualities we shall look for in a Conservative Secretary of State for Defence? There are two—first, that he should prefer Mars to Morpheus and, secondly, that he should be prepared, willing and able to argue his corner in the Cabinet for a greater share of the available resources for defence. I may say perhaps without risk of hubris to my four Front Bench colleagues that it will not be long before they are in receipt of large black Rover motor cars and small WRAC drivers.
  What are the problems that will face a Conservative Secretary of State? The first problem is a steady erosion in the belief in the United States' nuclear guarantee. That steady erosion highlights Europe's anxiety—or dilemma—that, while we recognise the erosion of the guarantee, we certainly have no relish for having to plan more seriously for a theatre nuclear war in Europe and that we are reluctant to devote more money to our conventional defence. In the past we skated over this dilemma and ignored it, but we shall not be able to continue to do so.
  How, then, should we react? On the one hand we could urge the United States to adopt the nuclear rearmament of Europe itself, perhaps by stationing a new IRBM in Europe and thus, for a time at least, restore the status quo on deterrence. Alternatively, do we believe that there should be a shift in the balance between Europe and the United States, with a larger voice in policy making for Europe within the Atlantic community? If we believe that, Britain and Europe must begin to allocate more of our joint resources to our common defence.
  Let me not be misunderstood. I am not arguing against the Americans—far from it. There is a strong belief on the other side of the Atlantic that a more ballanced Alliance, in terms of sharing the intellectual and military burdens, as well as spending more money, would be a

  351
  stronger Alliance. But whatever we choose to do, as the next Conservative Government, other problems remain. They are, first, the future of the Polaris force. We have to decide, first, whether we should stay a nuclear Power, and, if so, with what and with whom. Secondly, we must decide what role, if any, there should be for Europe in SALT III negotiations.
  I believe that we should stay nuclear. There are many non-nuclear Powers but no ex-nuclear Powers. Were we to leave the Polaris force to wither on the vine, it would be interpreted by our friends and enemies as a weakening in our commitment to the common defence. What sense would it make for us at a time of nuclear rearmanent in Europe, especially Soviet nuclear rearmament, for Britain to disarm her own nuclear striking force? But with whom should we co-operate? We could go it alone. We could look again at the United States for help, as we did in the past, or we could co-operate with the French. All I will say is that we shall need to scrutinise with very great care each of these three choices.
  What will be the attitude of a Conservative Government towards SALT III? Do we believe that a third round of strategic arms limitation talks should be bilateral—that is, between the United States of America and the USSR only—or multilateral; that is, with Europe within it? If we believe that it should be between the USA and USSR only, we should give thought to the way in which European interests might be involved in the planning and consultations of SALT III, but, if they are multilateral talks, what sort of European organisation should join the negotiations? A multilateral negotiation would stimulate the interest of Europeans in their own defence. We might suggest to NATO that three "wise men" might be asked to consider the position of Europe within the context of a SALT III negotiation.
  There is, of course, a lot else that we shall have to do. We must stop the loss of Service men which is due to low pay. We need to do better at the conventional level, so that we can fight longer. We need to place more emphasis upon reserves, auxiliaries and civil defence. We might adopt the recommendations of the Shapland report, which were that the
  352
  TAVR units in peacetime should recruit above war establishment. An additional £15 million a year would stimulate recruiting for the TAVR and by so doing strengthen our reserve forces. It is more economic to recruit more part-time soldiers than it is to raise more men for the Regular Army.
  We shall need to intervene in the search for a replacement for the Harrier and Jaguar, and to harden and protect RAF and United States airfields in this country. We need more air defence, more missiles against armour, and more money spent upon anti-submarine warfare.
  The aim of the next Conservative Government is the restoration of national morale. This will not be achieved unless we allocate more resources to defence and face up to the problems I have listed There is no visible end to the process of Soviet rearmament, and the 1980s will, I am afraid, be a period of danger. Whoever will be the Secretary of State for Defence in a Thatcher Government will have a responsibility far greater than that of any of his colleagues.
  8.3 p.m.
  Mr. Bernard Conlan: When the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir. I. Gilmour) opened for the Opposition yesterday, he remarked on the sameness of these annual debates on the defence White Paper. He was certainly correct in that, because it is perfectly clear that many of the speeches made during these two days are the very same speeches as were made last year and, in fact, the year before. I am not excluding either side of the House from that broad generalisation.
  From the Conservative Benches, those to whom I sometimes refer as the cold war warriors still wish to devote more and more resources to defence than the country can afford. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) repeated this assertion at least twice during the course of his speech, insisting that a Conservative Administration would devote more and more to defence, but he failed to say which services would suffer as a result of diverting additional resources to this one element. We should ask Conservative Members from where they will get these additional resources. I think there would be difficulty in getting the answers.

  353
  Another item that is annually trotted out—I am quite sure that this is for political purposes—is that the morale of the forces is at a very low ebb as a result of low pay. It is quite easy for an Opposition to make fancy promises and to say what they will do immediately they are returned to office, but when Oppositions have the opportunity of fulfilling their promises they very often fail.
  It is within the recollection of most hon. Members who take an interest in defence matters that, under Conservative Administrations in the past, the pay of the Services has declined and declined. My case is that if, tragically, there were another Conservative Administration in this country, the very same thing would apply. Never mind the fancy noises which are being made at the moment from the Opposition Front Bench. Never mind the flowery promises which are being made by Conservative Members, both inside this House and when they are visiting the forces overseas. I do not deny that when hon. Members go overseas and meet members of the British forces, the forces complain about a host of things. They complain about pay. Who does not? The nurses do, and so do the street cleaners. The workers in the National Union of Public Employees are complaining. A whole host of people complain about pay, and the forces would be very exceptional if they did not. A colonel said to me very recently that when the forces stop beefing they will stop eating.
  I do not want to get involved in this general area of defence matters. Although I recognise that the most important theatre is within NATO, I want to devote a few minutes to a theatre in which a fairly large number of British forces are engaged, but with very little publicity. In Belize there are 2,000 British troops. They are doing an excellent job in very difficult circumstances in what is mainly jungle country. The British forces are there in the jungle day in, day out, week in, week out, month in, month out, protecting that territory. I pay to those men the highest compliment for the work they are doing in Belize, but I question why they are there. Supposedly they are there to defend the territory against foreign aggression. Two years ago there was a state of emergency and the Government
  354
  —correctly, in my view, at that time—decided to send in reserves to support the forces who were there already on the ground. Perhaps the Government will do the same again in similar circumstances.
  I do not believe that the threat from Guatemala is as real as has been supposed. Belize is a vast jungle, with no natural resources to speak of. Attempts are being made to find oil in the south of the country, but so far without success. There is nothing else there. Of what value, then, would that territory be to the Guatemalans? The Guatemalans have claimed that they want an adequate corridor for access to the Atlantic. That has been offered to them by the British Government. I believe that the Guatemalans from time to time—the cycle will change a little, but it will be every three, four or perhaps five years—will start sabre rattling and threatening Belize again. Presumably the British Government will send in a few more Harriers to show the flag and show what they would do to the Guatemalans if they were to trespass on Belize territory.
  That is all phoney. The Guatemalans have no territorial demands on Belize but are afraid that someone else in that area has. They believe that the threat comes from the north—mainly from Mexico. Therefore, if they rattle their sabres every two or three years, and the British Government send in Harriers and more troops, it will keep the British commitment there.
  I believe that that is the Guatemalans' sole purpose and is the only reason for their policy. They do not have the facilities to mount any substantial attack on Belize. I recognise that my hon. Friends do not have full responsibility here but have joint responsibility with the Foreign Office.
  The Government should decide on a policy of withdrawal from Belize over a period of time and equip the people of Belize to maintain their own frontiers to the north and west. We should enter into a defence treaty. But unless steps are taken British forces will be committed to South America for ever and a day.
  It is an unpleasant area. In my view the troops do not like being there. Fortunately they are there for only six months at a time. The only policy for the

  355
  Government to adopt is, I believe, to get the troops out as quickly as they can.
  8.13 p.m.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: I shall be brief, just to show that it is possible. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) on the admirable way in which he opened the debate. I should also like to thank other hon. Members on both sides of the House for their generosity in leaving a little time for those of us who actually wish to make short speeches.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton said that the White Paper was remarkable and, at the same time, revealing in its omissions. I agree very much with that. My comment on this, as on previous White Papers, is that the less adequate our defences become under this Government, the more perfunctory the White Paper. Certainly this White Paper is a classic example of that point.
  What is particularly revealing in this White Paper is its omissions and its perfunctory approach to the human side of our defences. For example, apart from references to the unhappy casualties in Northern Ireland, which we must all join in regretting so deeply, there is no reference to losses in terms of accidental death or invaliding out which the Services as a whole have sustained over the past year.
  I know that the Secretary of State has now decided, with some reluctance, to include in the Annual Abstract of Statistics—which is published in some obscure corner—details of the invaliding out of Service men and women over a 12-month period. But that is something which, surely to goodness, should be incorporated in the White Paper, if one has any care for the human element in our defence forces. The Secretary of State for Defence should ensure that those statistics are published in the White Paper. There are trends there which we would do well to examine.
  The number of personnel invalided out was higher last year—1978—than in any year since 1975. The number of personnel invalided out because of injury was higher than in any year since 1974. These statistics may well reflect some deficiencies in the Services which we ought to be able to examine. They may reflect
  356
  deficiencies in morale, or in training or the lowering of standards of recruitment. Certainly those matters are material and we should have full figures on them, just as we should have full figures on all the casualties—particularly the fatalities—which the Services suffer. All those figures should be in the defence White Paper.
  Material losses should also be included in the defence White Paper—for example, the figures of aircraft accidents. They should be published as a matter of routine. Again, last year's total is disturbingly higher than that in 1977. Whether firm conclusions can be drawn from that, I cannot tell, but there is a very interesting article in this week's Flight magazine which contrasts the figures of aircraft accidents in 1978 with those for 1977—which I also extracted from the Government. But I should not have to extract these figures from the Government. The Government should volunteer them. They should be in the White Paper.
  I am talking not to the recumbents on the Government Front Bench but to my right hon. and hon. Friends who will produce the next defence White Paper. I want my right hon. and hon. Friends to take notice of these points because the human side, the investment in men and women and the service they give to us—not the service their predecessors gave in 1939, but the service they are giving to us in 1979—must be the focus of this debate. I do not want to know what happened when the hon. Members for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) and Battersea, South (Mr. Perry) were called up for the Boer War. I do not want to know their theories on the corporals' mess in 1927. I want to talk about the defences of this country in 1979 and onwards. That is why I am talking to my own Front Bench and not to the Government Front Bench.
  In this defence White Paper there is just one spark of honesty. There is an admission—let me put it in these words—that morale in the Services is at an all-time low. Service men are simply voting with their feet. The saying used to be "Look after your men's feet." But it is too late; they are gone. The decline in national morale is reflected all too clearly in the decline of Service morale.
  People are not coming forward to join the Services because they are no longer

  357
  willing to serve. They have no faith in their Service future and no belief in this Government. Our people are not ready to stake their future on defending their country against its enemies. There is only one remedy for that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) said, part of the business of restoring national morale must be to spend more on defence. An essential part of the business of restoring Service morale must be to have a Conservative Government.
  8.17 p.m.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall be brief in my contribution, but I want to raise a number of questions on the White Paper. From the Opposition Benches—and to some degree from Labour Front and Back Benches—we have a continual cry about the urgent threat and its magnitude. What startles me is why the Russians do not come over now, because the information we get from Conservatives is that we are so weak that we would be a pushover. Of course, it could be that the Russians do not actually want to come, in which case all the theories which are so assiduously built up by the Opposition tumble to the ground.
  One item that concerns me very much, however, is the Opposition's obsession with defence expenditure. The amendment in the names of several Labour Members—principally my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun)—postulates that we are already spending too much on defence and that a very significant proportion of that expenditure goes on nuclear weapons. That is the only thing we can provide plenty of for the people of the world. We can destroy people many times over. We cannot feed or clothe them all properly, but we can kill them very efficiently and effectively.
  The fact is that we are not living in a world where little batches of soldiers are moved around, as from 1939 to 1945, in headquarters with green billiard tables, pushing sticks and notifying that a platoon is being moved here or a battalion is being moved there. We are talking about weapons that exterminate people far more effectively than mankind has ever known. The more we develop these weapons, the more we rely on them and the greater is the degree of certainty that
  358
  one of them, some of them or all of them will be used. It may start by accident. But the fact is that we simply do not know how we would react to a nuclear explosion which is many times bigger than the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. We do not know whether we would be sane or sensible enough to detect some sort of error that had been made, or the fact that one nuclear explosion was not the act of a vengeful enemy. Therefore, the sword of Damocles hangs over all our heads.
  When Conservative Members talk about this increase in defence expenditure and play with these words, they actually contemplate a future which for mankind could be a radioactive cinder-heap. When they diminish detente, they diminish themselves; and in so doing they diminish the rest of us. When decisions about war, rearmament or disarmament are made today, it is not an isolated group of people which opts into that situation, because it cannot opt out. Nuclear war is the most undemocratic process known to mankind. The scars cannot be eradicated. The shadows on the floor after the explosion have been made not by choice but because a tiny number of people have made decisions that can engulf the rest of us. Therefore, we must be wary when we talk about defence expenditure.
  It is no good the Conservative Opposition talking in sneering terms about people who have a genuine point of view to put forward, because it is a point of view which is real and which many millions of people outside understand. The fact is that on the whole the world is arming itself to the teeth with weapons that are of such enormity that we must stand back, develop detente and reach an understanding. The SALT III talks must be successful so that we can reduce this expenditure and concentrate on the things that people actually need, such as the two-thirds of the world that does not get enough to eat and does not have adequate clothing. It is a scandal and disgrace that hon. Members can stand here so smug and complacent and talk about more expenditure when women, men and children are not getting enough to eat. That is where our efforts should be directed. We should be helping people rather than threatening them.

  359
  I therefore believe that the reference in the amendment to Lucas Aerospace is extraordinarily relevant to today. I understand the position about jobs and defence expenditure. I notice that in the defence White Paper the Government have been shrewd enough to try to counter the arguments about defence expenditure by including a list of contractors and firms that have succulent and lucrative defence contracts. However, I do not take the view that it is beyond the bounds of our ability to translate some of that war-based expenditure into peacetime expenditure. I am not advocating that people should go on the dole queue because of my conscience. What I am saying is that the commitment of a Labour Government must be to plan so that we do not ask people to join the dole queue, but rather to say to them "Yes, we shall develop alternative projects."
  The reality is that several years ago the Lucas Aerospace shop stewards combine committee said to the company "We want to convert from defence expenditure", and Lucas said "Defence is where our future lies. We have several contracts and they shall go on". But the reality is that Lucas Aerospace is closing factories. Therefore, defence expenditure has not saved all the jobs in Lucas Aerospace. It may sustain some, but it is not enough to sustain all the jobs, skills or expertise that were in Lucas Aerospace five years ago.
  The is also the question of Vickers Scotswood works. Incidentally, I notice that Vickers is the recipient of lucrative contracts. According to the White Paper, Vickers Scotswood work is a symbol of engineering achievement on Tyneside. Yet that is slated for closure. Of course, Lord Robens, who represents all that is bad in British management, said that engineering as a trade is finished in this country. That is his contempt for ordinary working men, on whose backs he has ridden to his present position. The workers of Scotswood are saying "The works will not be closed, because it is a symbol of pride and achievement in our skill and ability." The defence expenditure that Vickers gets has not saved the Scotswood works and, therefore, we must look at alternative facilities.
  I pay tribute, as I have before, to the Lucas Aerospace and the Vickers combine
  360
  shop stewards. Over many years, without payment they have put their hands in their pockets to examine alternative products. In this House we tend to be cynical about the potential of people outside, but it is a matter of wonder that when academics were asked for ideas for new products they produced only half a dozen. When the men on the shop floor, the people in the drawing office and those operating machines were asked, nearly 200 practical ideas were produced. That is why the Lucas shop stewards' plan is so important.
  It is worth emphasising that, if that gallant attempt is ignored, cynicism will spread from this place outside. People will feel that there is no point in spending time compiling a plan. The Department of Industry and the Ministry of Defence must ensure that such plans are implemented. The Secretary of State and his assistants should use the marvellous and costly facilities of the MOD to do that. All Departments are busy and have people in them who are not attuned to that approach, and that is why we get figures of only 79 combat aircraft available.
  That surprised me, as I thought it was a secret, and after tonight presumably the Russians will know that too. It is part of the leakage by the Chiefs of Staff in the propaganda campaign to prove that we do not have many weapons. However, according to the White Paper we are spending £8·5 billion, which is an enormous sum of money. That is right and proper, because those Departments are acting on behalf of the taxpayer, but some of that ability should be used to recognise the ambitions and aims of the men on the shop floor and encourage them.
  We should expect more from a Labour Government than a faint mirror image of the Conservatives. My right hon. and hon. Friends are men of good will, but when they justify massive defence expenditure at the Dispatch Box the cheers come from the Tories. We are here for a different purpose. We should not wipe out defence expenditure, but we should reduce it to the average percentage GNP of our allies, and we should move towards giving more support to such people as the Lucas Aerospace shop stewards.
  Mr. Pattie: The hon. Gentleman has rightly laid stress on Lucas Aerospace. Two weeks ago I went to Burnley, visited the Lucas factories and met various members of the Lucas combine. Is he satisfied, and is the Lucas combine satisfied, with the reception that its plan has received from the official trade union structure?
  Mr. Cryer: The Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions did not provide a ready enough response to the new situation, but it is now giving encouragement. We live in a world of important changes. If the institutions do not match up to the ambitions, hopes and aspirations of such people as the Lucas combine shop stewards, they should be altered, whether it is the CSEU, the Ministry of Defence or the Department of Industry.
  We spend a certain proportion of our GNP on defence. I think that it is too much and that is warps our effort. We need to produce the things that people need. They do not appear to need too many Chieftain tanks because of the Iranian order going up the spout, as many of us warned that it would.
  Japan spends ½ per cent. of its GNP on defence. That means that much of its considerable economic growth is concentrated on research and development in the products that people need. We see that all around us. The Japanese are winning a different war, they are winning the commercial battle. We see the results of that in the diminution of the British manufacturing base.
  We must diminish our defence expenditure without leaving ourselves completely naked. I believe that the Russian threat has been grossly overestimated and that the cold war warriors on the Conservative Benches make too much of the running. We could put these resources into research and development in the goods and services that people throughout the world need these days.
  This is also a great moral standpoint. It is preferable and morally superior to trade in clothes, food and agricultural implements for the developing nations than to sell tanks to reactionary regimes such as the Shah of Iran's.
  We should prune some of our peripheral expenditure. For example, we maintain a garrison in Hong Kong to aid
  362
  the civil power there. But that garrison could not stop China from taking over Hong Kong if it wanted to. Why, then, should we sustain Hong Kong with a hidden subsidy when that colony is one of our greatest commercial competitors, particularly in textiles? It also exploits workers far more than we do in this country. By maintaining our garrison there we are giving a subsidy to aid the civil police.
  We must prune our expenditure according to Labour Party policy. We still maintain massive sums of defence expenditure and we are getting into the realms of fantasy in so doing. That money should be spent on providing goods and services for people who actually need them.
  8.33 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Few things are certain in politics, but there is one thing that never changes—the feet of radicals are always planted firmly in mid-air.
  This is my last defence debate in the House of Commons. Looking back over the past 15 years that I have been in the House, I find it horrifying to see the way in which Britain's power and influence for good in the world have been diminished.
  In this week, when HMS "Ark Royal" finally goes out of commission, it is not inappropriate for me to pay tribute to the ships and the men of the aircraft carrier era. Today, in an age already bored by moon shots and space fiction, there is not much wonder left for the passing of old glories. But these carriers were mighty ships. Their history is a tribute to the men who designed and built them and to the engineers, officers and ratings who kept them steaming, always at high speed, year in and year out until they were nothing more than clapped-out bags of rivets.
  Their story is also a tribute to the men who flew from their decks in peace and in war, in sweltering tropical heat or in the black fury of Arctic gales. These were men with bright silk scarves around their necks and a joke on their lips. But in their hearts was the knowledge of what would happen if they missed the arrester wires. These men and the names of their ships—the "Eagle", the "Illustrious ", the "Formidable" and the "Ark Royal"—will be woven like a golden

  363
  thread into the tapestry of the seafaring history of the British people.
  This is not just nostalgia on my part. The fact is that the lesson of maritime power has now been learnt by the Kremlin. The Soviet rulers have been busy building a huge modern navy and their task forces roam the oceans of the world. This week we hear that two Russian aircraft carriers are at sea, one near the Shetlands and the other in the South Atlantic. Why? I asked the Under-Secretary last week what was his assessment of Soviet intentions. He sent me a nice little letter but the information which he give me about the "Kiev" and the "Minsk" was rather less detailed than that in the latest volume of "Jane's Fighting Ships". I am not blaming the present Service Ministers. They cannot do anything about that. They mean well but they are only the little fish flapping around in the shallow water after the tide has gone out.
  I speak principally this evening, as one of my hon. Friends did, on what an incoming Conservative Government will need to do to clear up the mess, though unfortunately I shall not be here to keep an eye on them.
  First, we must deal with the problem of manpower. My bamboo wireless tells me that the problem is a great deal more serious than is generally realised. The key point is that far from keeping up, Service men are further behind in pay now than they were at the time of their pay award in April last year. Less than a year after that award, they are further behind than they were 12 months ago.
  Recently, and topically, I heard that dustmen in Winchester—who I am glad to say have now settled their dispute with the council—are to be paid at least £85 a week, and usually more. That is over £2 an hour. I do not argue about that. A rifleman in the Greenjackets from the same city is paid 50p an hour while on duty, for instance, in Northern Ireland. What a comparison that is. The hourly rate for a dustman is more than four times that paid to a rifleman who risks his life in Northern Ireland. Even the White Paper cannot conceal the seriousness of the outflow, and I was glad to hear the robust remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) yesterday.
  364
  I agree, in terms of overall strategy, with our commitment to NATO, but it is possible that the analysis of the threat to NATO needs to be reassessed and brought up to date. At least we should consider whether the Soviet arms build-up opposite NATO in central Europe is no more than a gigantic cover plan. Perhaps Soviet intentions are focused elsewhere. Given that the Soviet leaders are not madmen, I think that the chances of the Red Army marching into the plains of Western Europe is the most unlikely of scenarios. General Sir John Hackett's readable book was a timely warning for NATO. However, I feel that a stranglehold on trade routes at sea, particularly on the oil routes, is a far more likely Soviet strategy, and one to which too little attention has been given.
  In a debate last year on Soviet adventurism in Africa I asked the Secretary of State to consider what I call the blue water school of thought. I have heard not one word from the Secretary of State, or from any Minister, about it. Historically, the standing army in Europe has not always proved to be the best strategy for Britain. I now believe that we should consult our allies and discuss whether Britain's contribution to BAOR could be gradually reduced. I do not advocate a complete withdrawal but a reduction. Instead we should make a much larger maritime effort in support of NATO. I am sure that the House will acquit me of speaking with a one-Service voice.
  We should discuss urgently with the South African Government the facilities previously afforded to us under the Simonstown agreement. A glance at any schoolboy's atlas will show the importance of Simonstown. It is cynically absurd to pretend that the presence of frigates or submarines, or the sale of maritime equipment to South Africa, can have an effect on internal policies, whatever one may think about them.
  The White Paper is silent about several other matters on which we have insufficient information. Many hon. Members talked about crisis control and the importance of avoiding war. We must know more about crisis control. General Haig told me recently that he was dissatisfied with the communications involved in crisis control.
  We are told nothing in the White Paper about intelligence. Intelligence is

  365
  the basis of all sensible planning. It is the basis of the justification for defence expenditure. The White Paper is also silent about the activities of the Soviet merchant fleet, which is undercutting our commercial conference rates. Centrally controlled merchantmen are being used for espionage and intelligence gathering. That is not mentioned in the White Paper.
  The present Government can do nothing about these matters now, so I suggest to my Front Bench that British Shipbuilders should build warships and frigates on spec for export to friendly foreign Governments. That would provide much-needed employment to the shipyards which are desperate for work, and would enable us to compete internationally by offering almost immediate delivery.
  At the end of my swan song, I feel that there is so much to do but that there is so little time. However, I take heart from the robust attitude of many of my colleagues, particularly that of my right hon. Friend the "Iron Lady". She has said, especially about defence, that the time has come for a change.
  8.42 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I seldom find myself in agreement in any way with what the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) says, but I always appreciate his sincerity. That is true of what he called his swan song. He may be assured that he is still in form. I disagree with him as profoundly tonight as I did when I first heard him.
  I will say a word for the White Paper. Opposition Members have said that it contains only two and a half pages on detente and disarmament and less than half a page on defence and deterrence. That is a typical piece of Tory misrepresentation. There are a brief two and a half pages on detente, but the rest of the document is devoted to defence.
  The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said that we should include the losses sustained during a period in a defence White Paper. That is a novel proposal. I can imagine in time of war what would have happened if we had listed the details of our losses. Since wars are completely untenable for the future, I do not see why my right hon. Friend should not pick up that idea.
  366
  I support the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) said in support of his amendment:
  "The USSR is trying to militarily catch up with the West, for the same reasons that our war hawks say that we must spend more on arms. We should consider who first developed the atom bomb. America was first and Russia caught up."
  So he went on:
  "Next, America produced the hydrogen bomb and Russia followed suit."—[Official Report, 26 March 1979; Vol. 965, c. 70.]
  What he has said about that is quite true, but the point that my hon. Friend did not make is that America did not merely develop the atom bomb; America used the atom bomb. That fact may be brushed aside in this House, but all over the rest of the world, and particularly in Asia, the fact that the atom bomb was developed by the West and used upon the East will never be forgotten.
  Therefore, the notion that is put forward on the Opposition Benches, that we are in rather a pathetic situation, trying busily to catch up with the might of the Warsaw Pact, carries no conviction whatsoever anywhere else. The arguments of the hon. Gentleman may carry some conviction inside this country and possibly even in the United States of America, but it carries precious little conviction anywhere else.
  On the policy of arms sales, it is a pretty ludicrous policy when one comes to think of it. My hon. Friend suggested that the Lucas Aerospace proposals were alternatives, where these skills could be deployed to more useful purpose. Armament expenditure entails trying to sell to people who will take those arms. First, one must exclude the whole of the Eastern European and the Communist-controlled areas, because that is out strategically. So far as the United States of America is concerned, it is an extremely difficult market to get into. So far as France is concerned, it tends on the whole to want to be self-sufficient. So far as Germany is concerned, that country is out, and so is Japan.
  Therefore, we are reduced, by the policy of arms sales, to supporting and arming reactionary and tottering regimes that eventually default on their agreements. What initially seems to be a very attractive line of trade ends by

  367
  our supporting some very undesirable dictatorships. From a purely business point of view, the notion that the arms trade is one that this country should develop to the point to which it has developed is questionable. Let us not forget that Iran was our largest customer. Who will be the next defaulter?
  The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester said that the next customer should be South Africa. God forbid. If that is suggested, then, indeed, I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) will set his face—in fact I am sure he will—against that. One thing that rather worries me about my right hon. Friend is that he seems to be back-tracking upon the Labour Party's undertaking not to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons. That has been not only the policy of the Labour Party but the policy of the Labour Government. I hope that an assurance will be given to us that the Government are as firm as ever upon that policy and that there is no possibility of this country taking the fatal step of going once again into a redevelopment of the nuclear arms race.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: In replying to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) and others of his hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), there are two points I should like to make. First, I ask them to believe that we on the Opposition Benches whom they assail as warmongers are just as sincere in our search for peace as they are, but we have a different method by which we think we can ensure it. Will Labour Members please not claim to have a monopoly of morality in this matter? Secondly, I am fascinated that they always claim not to be pacifists, but they want us drastically to reduce our Armed Forces. I have never been able to find out what degree of incompetence and inefficiency they think would be disirable in our Armed Forces. I should be interested to know.
  For some time it has been fashionable to speak of detente with Russia. The spirit of Helsinki and Belgrade has been invoked to bury the image of the cold war which formerly used to bedevil the relations between East and West. Various disarmament negotiations which take
  368
  place around the world such as the strategic arms limitations talks or the standing conference on mutual and balanced force reductions are also prayed in aid of the view that the cold war is over and that precious opportunities are there for the grasping in not only politics, diplomacy and culture but in defence and armaments. The Government clearly attach great importance to these efforts to defuse the dangerous military situation.
  In the White Paper the Government look forward to the early ratification of SALT II. MBFR, they say, is proceeding steadily and is an important part of the East-West dialogue. The Government are slightly restrained about the progress of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe—the CSCE—but, scraping the barrel, they allow themselves a certain measure of satisfaction over exchange visits between Sandhurst Royal Military Academy and the Nicolai Balescu Infantry School of Romania.
  Answering questions recently, the Secretary of State allowed himself to say over his right shoulder to the Left wing that his aim was total and complete disarmament, but what is true? The truth is that the cold war is not over and that the various disarmament negotiations are completely useless, achieving nothing, except to some extent giving rise to unjustifiable hopes and undoubtedly to a weakening of the resolve of the West to defend itself.
  Since all these negotiations started, we have seen not a reduction in the cold war but an intensification. We have seen Vietnam fuelled and inspired by the Soviet Union. We have seen the continual supply of arms and the fomenting of war in the Middle East by the Soviet Union. We have seen Russia supplying Aden and intervening everywhere in Africa where she can safely land Cuban or East German troops. We have seen Russia set up a puppet regime in Afghanistan and being active in Iran.
  Beyond all argument, in this period of disarmament during the past 15 years Russian arms have increased both in quantity and quality at a rate never before seen in peacetime and perhaps never in wartime either. A steady increase of 5 per cent. or 8 per cent. compound every year in real terms has resulted in expenditure half as much again as the

  369
  expenditure of the United States. The White Paper emphasises once again that these armaments are enormously in excess of anything required for self-defence.
  From the United Kingdom point of view, we notice particularly the increase in offensive weapons at sea and in the air, and the huge build-up of mobile forces on the central front. These matters are not new, but up to now the Government have chosen to believe that disarmament is just round the corner and savagely to cut our forces year by year. Now at last we see a marginal increase in expenditure in the White Paper. We are grateful for that, just as a starving man is grateful for the smallest crumb. But, in the face of the size of the problem, the extra is bitterly small.
  Those who grudge money on our defences are wont to argue that the Russians, however strong, will still be deterred by the destruction which would fall upon them if they used this mighty armada. I leave out the fine tuning about what would happen if the Russians took out Hamburg, or some similar scenario. I say that when one side has an overwhelming preponderance of arms, both nuclear and conventional, the political will to stand up to an attack or even the threat of an attack evaporates. We saw this in the Berlin airlift, when the Russians did not dare to fire upon our planes. We saw this in Cuba when the Russians knew that in the last resort they would have to back down.
  Now the boot is on the other foot. With nuclear parity, the conventional Russian forces—or forces of Russian satellites—have felt free to rampage around the world without fear of retaliation. With nuclear superiority—which is within the Russian grasp—the likelihood, indeed the certainty, of diplomatic and political gains must be accepted.
  The United Kingdom must replace and improve its nuclear weapons and increase its conventional forces. It is no use relying upon detente. We shall achieve detente with the Russians only by adopting a stance which they fear to challenge. I am glad that my right hon. and hon. Friends will have the possibility of putting these measures into action.
  I have had the opportunity, like other members of the Expenditure Committee, to meet our troops around the world.
  370
  Without going into details—which would be invidious—I am seriously alarmed, as are other hon. Members, by the decline in the spirits of our forces. I do not say "morale" because I am certain that they are ready to do their duty, and are doing their duty, in the best possible way.
  To some extent, the Government share that alarm. In paragraph 403 of the White Paper they state that the turbulence, which is one of the causes of dissatisfaction,
  "should be reduced as the process of reorganisation and redeployment nears completion and measures to relieve the current overstretch of all three Services are taken."
  The phrase
  "the process of reorganisation and redeployment "
  seems to imply that there is a plan. That is wrong. The Services were told that they would have to get on with less money and fewer men and that they would have to lump it. They have done the best that they can. Anybody who suggests that there has been a proper plan deceives himself, even if he deceives no one else.
  I had intended to mention the air defence of Great Britain. However, in view of the time I shall not do so. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force, in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), made an important statement about the re-equipping of our air defences. Therefore, I shall leave the matter, except to say that I am glad to see in the White Paper that my suggestion of last year that reserve forces should be raised to reinforce the RAF Regiment has been taken up by the Government. Whether they read my speech or the idea occurred to them independently I do not know.
  I asked the Secretary of Staate to consider a constituency matter—the United States airplanes at Fairford. None of my constituents who objected to that did so because they were against defence or the United States. Perhaps there were a few, but they knew that it was no good coming to me if they did. My constituents objected because they believe that the desecration of an area of outstanding natural beauty is not necessary. We cannot believe that an airfield close to the sea—there are some available—would not be more suitable. Admittedly, the initial cost would be higher than at Fairford but it

  371
  would soon be lost in relation to running costs.
  The pollution will be grave. It will consist of noise, smell, traffic and the building of housing, schools and a hospital. There will be all the facilities of a small town in an extremely rural area. I ask the Secretary of State not to shut out from his mind the possibility that the stationing of the planes—whether United States planes or any others—in Fairford might be regarded as a temporary matter to be re-examined if an opportunity arises.
  8.59 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Crawshaw: It was my intention to speak solely about reserve forces, but, having heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), I shall deal with that shortly.
  First, may I apologise to the House for not being here earlier in the debate. Today, I attended the annual general meeting of my Territorial association. I saw five people leaving the association who between them had more than 200 years of service in the reserve forces. It occurred to me during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley that he was probably able to make his speech tonight because of such people. When I hear some of my colleagues speaking against defence expenditure, I often wonder at the little regard that they pay to the fact that they are able to stand up in the House and attack the Government, defence expenditure or anything they wish. People such as Dubcek wish that they had only half the opportunities that we are given.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Crawshaw: No. What I have said applies equally to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins). The danger is that my hon. Friends put over such good arguments. No one wants to pay for defence. No one wants to pay for insurance on a house, and it is not until the house is burned down and the wife asks why it was not insured that the householder knows that he is in a jam. But he never knows when or whether it will burn down. He may get away with it for year after year, but one day the disaster may happen.
  372
  I listen to defence debates every year, but I do not believe that it is in the House that the debates ought to be heard. What we are saying ought to be heard in the country. Unless we educate our people on the need for proper defence forces, no Government will have the power to spend the money required to equip our defence forces adequately.
  The Opposition complain about the Government cutting our forces. I have criticised the Government often enough, but I wish to pay tribute to them. The Defence Ministers have had a difficult time because of the restrictions on the money available for the Armed Forces. They have done a good job within those restrictions, but they have not had the money that is required.
  Those like my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley and Putney do not understand why Europe has been free from war for 35 years. Anyone who has seen a period of more than 35 years without war in Europe will be over 100 years old. The absence of war in the past 35 years is not a matter of chance. The reason is that we have made our contribution to NATO.
  When some of my hon. Friends talk about cutting the reserve forces and defence expenditure, they do not say to what level spending should be cut. Once it is cut below a certain level, we might as well do away with the lot. I am appalled at how some of my colleagues who decry armaments are the first—ahead of me—to try to get contracts for the armaments centres in their constituencies. I understand the pacifist point of view. It is an honourable view, but I cannot understand my colleagues who speak against armaments yet want them manufactured in their constituencies. I see that all too often. It is dishonest and there is no excuse for it.
  I turn to the subject of our reserve forces, which is the topic that I had intended to speak on originally. I do not believe that the Russians intend to start a direct assault in Europe. The Minister will know that when I was fighting 15 years ago for our reserve forces to be maintained, I argued that the next war will not be a 10-day war with atomic weapons being used after that time. I have always tried to insist that, given the opportunity, we should have the means to build up forces in this country, as we

  373
  did in the two world wars. If there is a war, I believe that it will be on the periphery of Europe. It may be in Yugoslavia. We may be able to see something building up for 6 or 12 months.
  What shall we be able to do? Most of our forces will have been committed to fill the gaps in BAOR. There are some reserves, but should we not be paying attention to another reserve force to augment the Territorial forces so that if the Territorials are sent to fill in the gaps in BAOR we shall have at least a nucleus on which we can build a decent defence force in this country?
  At present, we have nothing on which we can build. This country's stand in NATO over the past 35 years has saved us from war. No one will win a future war. All that will happen is that one side will lose a little less harshly than the other. Our defence forces exist to stop that war starting.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Putney may remember that those on the Opposition side in the 1930s were shouting for stopping Hitler but denying the Government the means to do so. They were putting forward the same argument then. They were saying that if we did away with our arms, other people would do the same. That is a load of cock and bull. My hon. Friend knows it.
  I finish with two questions. Would the last war have started if Hitler had known that the day it started we could have blitzed Berlin as we did in 1944 and 1945? Would the Russians have invaded Czechoslovakia if the Czechs had possessed only a dozen atomic bombs that they could have dropped on Russian cities? I say that they would not. Anyone who wants to cut away the defences of this country thinks little of this country.
  9.6 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) that one of the main problems we face is that our reserve forces have already been committed in advance. He has made a constructive contribution to the debate. From the Labour Benches there have also been constructive speeches by the hon. Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Williams) and for Walsall, South (Mr. George). But, by and large, this has been an unbalanced debate. Hon. Members on the Labour
  374
  Benches have drifted in and out from time to time and ridden their favourite hobby-horses while on this side of the House we have had a full rank of hon. Members anxious to take part in the debate. Many of them have been crowded out. My hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glynn) and Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) have sat through the debate and have not been able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.
  Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have been a little churlish about the quality of this year's defence White Paper and the ministerial speeches that have accompanied it. In the powerful speech with which he opened the debate from this side yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) said that there were only two paragraphs of any importance in the whole White Paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie), who made such an admirable start to today's debate, listed about 20 important issues not mentioned in the White Paper. Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) contrasted the thinness of this Government's defence statement with the thick and closely argued annual report of the American Secretary for Defence. For those who are willing to persevere, this defence White Paper is not entirely without interest.
  For example, paragraph 531 tells us that additional Service conservation groups, of which there are now 106, were formed during the year. It is good to know that, while our defences deteriorate, the Armed Forces training grounds are being made safe for the white-throated warbler and the robin redbreast. I, too, am a member of conservation groups. I am glad that we are looking after the birds and bees. However, some observers at home and abroad will be surprised that the defence White Paper contains a more detailed reference to the conservation of flora and fauna than the development of the cruise missile or the replacement of our independent nuclear deterrent.
  Observers who think that that shows a bizarre sense of priorities have misunderstood the nature of the game that Ministers are trying to play. By avoiding any reference to the future of the nuclear

  375
  deterrent or the cruise missile in the White Paper and in their speeches, Ministers hope to avoid direct confrontation with the chairman of the Labour Party or the rest of the Salford set. Once again Ministers have failed. Yesterday afternoon we had the bizarre clash about the next generation of our nuclear weapons between the chairman of the Labour Party, that arch apostle of unilateral disarmament, and the Secretary of State for Defence, that arch apostle of delay.
  It was appropriate that my right hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice) was soon able to remind us that within the upper echelons of the Labour Party the party chairman and the rest of the Salford set can outvote and out-argue the Secretary of State for Defence, and that some concessions will have to be made to the Left before the inevitable pre-election compromise is reached.
  Yesterday's row within the Labour Party was not an edifying sight. However, I have been relieved in recent weeks to learn from American friends in Washington that Ministers, or at least their professional advisers, have done more work behind the scenes on nuclear weapons and in the acquisition of cruise missile technology than they are prepared to let their Left wing know. It is plain that the split in the Labour Party is deep and damaging, and it will be fought out in the Division Lobbies this evening. I can reassure Ministers that the Opposition do not intend to vote with the rebels.
  I found much interest in paragraph 538 of the White Paper, which tells us among other things of the installation of automatic flue dampers in RAF chimneys. We are told that RAF Carlisle is expected to produce a saving in heating fuel consumption of no less than 6 per cent, this year. After a harsh winter, all of us must be interested in the conservation of heating oil, and in his reply we hope that the Minister will be able to tell us whether the experiment at Carlisle has been a success. However, in a defence White Paper it is rather surprising that even this Government should devote more space to the conservation of heating oil than to the protection of oil.
  Since the disastrous decision to withdraw British forces from the Persian Gulf
  376
  was taken by the Labour Government in 1969, responsibility for protecting the West's essential supplies of oil has been thrust upon Iran. Successive British Governments pushed arms contracts upon the Shah that in the end were worth about £2,000 million. We backed to the hilt the Shah's ambitions to police the richest oil-producing area in the world. The White Paper was published on 22 February, some weeks before it was made plain that the whole strategic balance in the Gulf area had shifted alarmingly. Yet there is not a single reference to Iran in the whole document. Many of my right hon. Friends have rightly tried to press the Government for a discussion on Western plans to provide a defensive screen for our friends and interests in that area. The Americans are talking of extending the substantial facilities at Diego Garcia and of the possible reaction of Gan and Masirah. There is no reference in the White Paper to Diego Garcia, Gan or Masirah. Nor, indeed, have Ministers been forthcoming in admitting the existence of any plan to defend Western interests in that area. However, we must not complain too much.
  I am also interested in paragraph 339 of the White Paper. This solemnly informs us:
  "The United States, France and the Federal Republic of Germany, like the United Kingdom, are capable of designing and manufacturing a very wide range of weapon systems; other countries have smaller industrial capabilities."
  When the Ministry of Defence is willing to share information such as that with those of us who are not even bound by the Official Secrets Act, it is clear that the era of open government cannot be far away. But at a time when the cancellation of Iranian contracts seriously threatens our industrial defence base—and will clearly increase the competitive thrust from arms manufacturers in other countries—the Government have characteristically little to say about the future of collaboration in defence production.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) so forthrightly asked, do the Government think that an Independent European Programme Group can still become an effective forum for European collaboration? It is hard to tell. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) so sensibly asked, what are the Government's

  377
  plans for research? Do the Government have any plans for the effective rationalisation within the Alliance of our national research programmes?
  Dr. Perry, the far-sighted head of the United States defence research programme, pointed out that if we add the $14 billion that the Americans will be spending this year on defence, research and development to the $4 billion that the European allies will spend, we do not obtain $18 billion-worth of research and development. We get about $15½ billion-worth of research and development, because of the unnecessary duplication. Dr. Perry suggested that to minimise unnecessary duplication the family-of-weapons approach should be adopted. This means, for example, that the Americans would concentrate on funding the research programme for medium-range anti-tank missiles while the European members of the Alliance would concentrate on funding projects for short-range anti-tank missiles. Have the Government considered Dr. Perry's proposals? Do they support them? Do they intend to implement them? We do not know.
  Important as good research and equipment may be, we shall not be able to defend ourselves, or help to defend our allies, if we cannot persuade skilled and capable men to make a career in our defence forces. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham said in opening for the Opposition, and as so many speakers have pointed out since then, the key section in this year's defence White Paper is paragraph 403, which says:
  "The total numbers of men and women leaving the Services for all reasons during 1978–79 continued to include an unusually high outflow among the more experienced and highly skilled categories following requests for premature voluntary release. If current rates of outflow from this source continue, the consequences in the loss of trained Officers and men will be serious for the Armed Forces."
  It is true, of course, that turbulence and family separation have played a substantial part in accelerating the departure from the Armed Forces of many highly skilled men. A few weeks ago I was talking to the commanding officer of the first battalion of the Royal Regiment of Wales. For the last 20 months it has, for a variety of reasons, spent 14½ months away from home. Recently, the regiment spent six months in Belize. On its return, 70 men—more than 10 per cent, of the battalion
  378
  strength—applied for premature voluntary release. The colonel interviewed all those who asked for their release, and 40 of the 70 said that they enjoyed Army life and wished to continue but that their wives insisted that they could not stand this degree of separation.
  This exodus has inevitably had some impact on the battalion's efficiency. I will give one small but revealing example. In six months in Belize, with the appalling roads and the low standard of driving in that part of the world, the battalion had four road accidents. After leaving Belize, most of the experienced members of the transport section left and were replaced by younger recruits. In two and a half months in Northern Ireland the battalion has had 18 traffic accidents with less-experienced men.
  Nor should we under estimate the importance of turbulence caused by our vital commitment to the preservation of law and order in Northern Ireland. If we leave aside the Irish regiments and the Gurkha battalions, which are barred from service in Northern Ireland, but include the Royal Marine commandos, there are almost exactly 100 major units eligible for service in Northern Ireland. Last year, 41 of those units served there. When we take special training and leave into account, we can see that a four-month emergency tour can remove a unit for eight months from the annual training cycle.
  I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), with their particular expertise, joined other hon. Members in paying special tribute to the work of our forces in Northern Ireland. Nor should we forget that it is customary for soldiers on a four-month emergency tour in Northern Ireland to work 12 hours a day for seven days a week. With that high work rate can go a substantial rate of frustration.
  Less than three weeks ago, in a battalion headquarters on the outskirts of an important town in Northern Ireland, the commanding officer showed me on the operational map the photographs of members of the local active service unit of the Provisional IRA. Pointing to the photographs, the commanding officer said "Today they have been having an unusual

  379
  burst of activity. They have been talking to colleagues that they normally do not talk to and something is clearly going to happen very soon."
  The next day a 250 lb. car bomb exploded in that town's shopping centre. Hon. Members can imagine the frustration involved. The Army knew that there would soon be an explosion, they knew exactly who was going to set it off, but all they could do was to wait and pick up the bits and hope that the forensic investigation would provide some evidence that would enable them to arrest the terrorists who they knew were responsible.
  But, although turbulence and frustration are important factors, there can be no doubt that a deep resentment about the Government's handling of the pay problem has been the real cause of the recent stampede out of the Services. Only too often in recent months we have seen Service men standing by to maintain essential services to the public when the strikers they were replacing were earning much higher wages. This has helped to make everyone, from top to bottom in the Services, very conscious of comparability.
  A few days ago I was talking to a senior officer involved with the Army's Outward Bound training scheme. He loves his work, but he is very conscious of the fact that his car allowance is less than half that paid to junior civil servants at the school headquarters. I also recently talked to the officer commanding one of the most successful junior service companies in the Army. He also loves his work but was well aware that his pay as a senior captain, after some 25 years in the ranks, was rather less than that of a Metropolitan policeman afer seven years' service.
  It is this feeling that they are being done down which is creating the stampede of skilled men away from the Services. Paragraph 403 of the White Paper is bland. It reads:
  "If current rates of outflow … continue, the consequences … will be serious for the Armed Forces".
  That is a massive understatement. The consequences are already disastrous.
  In the financial year 1977–78, the Armed Forces recruited, from all sources, 1,957 male officers; but during 1978 no
  380
  less than 2,080 officers applied for premature voluntary release. In other words, leaving aside normal retirement, more officers were trying to get out of the Services than were trying to get in. In 1977–78, the Army recruited 1,020 male officers and the number seeking premature voluntary release was exactly 1,000.
  Yesterday the Secretary of State suggested that the number of applications for premature voluntary release had fallen in recent weeks. If he does not know why this happened, I can tell him. It is because senior officers from the Army personnel branch have been criss-crossing the country, pleading with officers and men to wait a few more weeks to see how the Government treat this year's report from the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. If the Government are still in a position to mishandle this last chance, the stampede will be irresistible.
  I must tell the Secretary of State that there is substantial anxiety that this year's pay increase will produce yet another "Irishman's rise", and that an increase in pay which looks substantial will be clawed back through sharply increased charges for food and accommodation.
  So we draw towards the end of the last defence debate to be held before the general election, and the electors of the country will be confronted with the Government's defence record. When I first took part in these debates, our defence expenditure per head of population was broadly comparable with that of France and Germany. We were long ago relegated from that league. We are even losing touch with Belgium and Holland. Last year the Belgians and the Dutch spent just over £150 per head on the defence of their country. Last year in this country we spent £125 per head, a figure that puts us fractionally ahead of Denmark but a respectable distance behind Norway.
  In the last five years, the strength of our Navy has been reduced by 10 major ships and the loss of three squadrons of fixed-wing aircraft. In the same period, the Army has lost seven major units and the strength of the Royal Air Force has been reduced by nine squadrons. Meanwhile, the withdrawal from the flanks of our Alliance continues.
  We shall all miss the presence of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for

  381
  Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) at these debates. He reminded us that this week sees the final departure from the Service of the "Ark Royal". On Saturday, the Leader of the House goes to Malta to celebrate the withdrawal of the last British Service men from that island. What a symbol of national decline!
  We also say farewell to the Secretary of State for Defence, for I do not know of any political commentator who believes that the Secretary of State can survive in his present post in any circumstances. In a few days or weeks he will be gently towed to some distant dockyard where he will undergo an extensive political refit. We wish him well. In previous posts, he has often shown courage and common sense. We recognise that it is a tragedy for him that he will be largely remembered in his present post for falling asleep during the Jubilee fly-past.
  After all, everyone in public life runs the risk of having silly photographs taken. But these particular photographs stuck in the mind of the public, because there was a subconscious realisation that he had actually been sent to the Ministry of Defence to go to sleep. He was meant to lull the Left wing. He was meant not to bother the Treasury. He was meant to preside over a period of silent decline. Over the past five years, this Government have proved that they lack the policies, the resources and the will to provide for the adequate defence of this country. Tomorrow they must go.
  9.31 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Dr. John Gilbert): I have no intention of following the latter remarks of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart).
  Mr. Duffy: Let them roll in their own gutter.
  Dr. Gilbert: This is a sad occasion, if only for the fact that this is the last defence debate in which the hon. and gallant Members for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) and Eye (Sir H. Harrison) will take part. I think I speak for every Labour Member when I say that we have all enjoyed their contributions over the years. I count myself privileged to have served under the hon. and gallant Member for Eye on the
  382
  Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee for about half the time during which he has been a distinguished Chairman of that body.
  Possibly the most enjoyable speech during the debate came from my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall). It was not only enjoyable but it showed us all insights into the life of the ordinary Service man and his family, about which we need reminding from time to time. It was an extremely healthy and helpful contribution.
  This evening we face an Opposition in a quite extraordinary posture. They have no motion of their own on the Order Paper, so it is difficult to debate precisely what their views are. It could well be that the reason why they have no motion of their own is that they have no policy of their own, or, if they do, they wish to keep it concealed. They are reduced to opposing my right hon. Friend's motion, which bases British security on the collective effort to deter aggression while seeking every opportunity to reduce tension through international agreement on arms control and disarmament. I find it difficult to understand how any hon. Member could oppose sentiments of that sort. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army said yesterday, their policy is more interesting than ours because theirs is a complete mystery.
  The attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), and that of my other hon. Friends who signed the amendment, is much more comprehensible and candid than that of the official Opposition. At least my hon. Friend has tabled an alternative proposition which we can debate, and I propose to start by doing so. His amendment contained three basic propositions—that British defence expenditure was destabilising, that more should be done on converting defence industries to civil production, and some comments on nuclear policy. As my hon. Friend would expect, I propose to concentrate on the first two, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt yesterday with the question of nuclear policy.
  My hon. Friend's amendment refers to
  "a massive increase in military expenditure to £8,588 million in the year 1979–80".

  383
  Yesterday my hon. Friend said:
  "The defence estimates show an increase from £7·1 billion last year to £8·6 billion this. That is an increase in cash terms of 24 per cent."—
  I make that 20 per cent.
  "We all know roughly the figure of inflation. It is nothing like 24 per cent. Despite explanations that I have secured from statisticians, I am not satisfied that the real increase is only 3 per cent."—[Official Report, 26 March 1979; Vol. 965, c. 72.]
  That may well be a genuine misunderstanding, and there is a clear explanation on page 62 of the White Paper of what is apparently a considerable increase in defence expenditure.
  In the previous White Paper the Vote was set out in terms of volume. This year we are taking the Estimates on cash limit terms, and inflation is built into this year's prices but was not last year. The 1979–80 Supply Estimates are being published for the first time on a forecast outturn basis, and are being based on prices prevailing in 1979–80. The difference between the two figures effectively represents two years' inflation and not one, as a result of the different conventions. I hope that that is clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East, who in a former more wicked existence was a chartered accountant. I am sure that he is quite at home with such matters.
  My hon. Friend and I will never agree on whether our expenditure leads to instability. I respect his sincerity but agree far more with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Williams). He pointed out that the 30 years of NATO's existence and the continuing peace of the Continent of Europe are not coincidences but cause and effect. My colleagues on the Front Bench and I share those sentiments.
  The second point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East also exercises my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), namely, the need to convert defence industries to peaceful production. That involves British Shipbuilders and also the Royal Ordnance Factory, Leeds. At present British shipyards will welcome any orders, including warship export orders. It is a proper function of the Ministry of Defence to give assistance in obtaining those orders and alleviate the serious problems of unemployment on the Clyde, Merseyside and the North-East that would result
  384
  from the total drying up of civilian orders.
  The Royal Ordnance Factory, Leeds, is more directly my responsibility. I am chairman of the board of the Royal ordnance factories. It has been suggested, for instance, that we turn the productive facilities there to making agricultural tractors, and such suggestions are wholly impracticable. We need the capacity to provide the British Army with its new main battle tank for the 1980s. If that capability is not preserved in the United Kingdom, we shall have to buy our tanks abroad. That is not in this country's interests or those of any constituent.
  I have said many times at the Dispatch Box, and I resile from not a word, that I would much rather live in a world where defence sales were not so important to the economies of this country, the United States, Germany and France. Other countries, however, wish to buy the means of their self-defence. Manufacturers of civilian goods in this country are already selling all that they can abroad, and they have capacity to spare. They do not want more competition from British firms but more markets abroad.
  The answer must come from the policies that were advocated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the United Nations special session on disarmament. My right hon. Friend's contribution to that session was applauded by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond), who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, spoke movingly about the need to combat hunger, poverty and disease in less-developed countries. I agree with everything that they said. It must be our objective to achieve detente between NATO and the Warsaw Pact Powers and between all areas of friction throughout the world.
  I regret that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) is not in his seat. He made an extremely thoughtful and constructive contribution. He asked some pertinent questions about the defence budget being allocated between individual Services. I regard the allocation between different functions as more significant. The hon. Member suggested that the balance had remained static over the years. He was misinformed on that

  385
  point. There has been an appreciable redistribution in recent years. In the 1974–75 defence budget the RAF received an allocation that was 24 per cent, higher than that of the Royal Navy, but this year the two are about equal. However, it would be impractical to run the Services, or any other large organisations, on the basis of frequent and radical changes.
  One must consider that the life of equipment from the project definition stage to the final phasing out of service existence can often be more than 30 years. Therefore, the changes must be gradual. We are constantly trying to improve the way in which we arrive at our major resource allocation decisions. We have made progress in recent years, but I am far from satisfied that we have the methodology right. We may well be making the right decisions, but occasionally we may make wrong decisions. That is true of any Government, faced with the complexity of decisions in defence procurement.
  In my view, it is important that the decisions should be taken on the basis of explicit assumptions rather than implicit, imprecise ones. Any development of that sort will in no way absolve senior advisers from producing assessments based in the last resort on informed judgment. The important thing is that the assumptions are required to be explicit. Under my chairmanship we are studying at the highest level in the Ministry the way in which decisions are made and how this process can be improved.
  One of the most difficult areas of resource allocation relates to our anti-surface ship capability. A lot has been said today about anti-submarine and anti-mine capability. If one takes the view that we are devoting too great a proportion of our resources to this capability or to any other, there is no simple means of dramatically changing the policy in a short period. All the weapons platforms that may operate against surface vessels need to be provided with effective weapons. Therefore, we need air-to-surface weapons to be fired from fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, we need surface-to-surface weapons, and we also need submarine-launched weapons.
  The difficulty is that weapons systems have become so specialised and so optimised
  386
  for a particular role that many different weapons are required, unfortunately in very small quantities. This worsens the ratio of development to production costs and makes decisions about changing the allocation of resources at the margin very much more difficult.
  There are a couple of other areas in which we are trying to improve the decision-making machinery on resource allocation in the Ministry of Defence. We are looking at the spread of work on operation analysis which at present is distributed throughout the Services and the procurement executive. We are trying to eliminate any redundancy between these various activities and we hope that we shall be able to derive further benefits from some form of organisational change.
  Another reform that we are trying to institute is a cutting down of the extremely long time scale for the completion of major works projects. At present a major project can take as long as seven years to complete and often construction time accounts for no more than half of that. Therefore, when short-term changes must be made in the defence programme, because of technological change or industrial difficulties, it takes a considerable time before the loss can be made good in other elements of the programme, and we lack a degree of flexibility which we would very much hope to acquire.
  I shall deal with some of the specific questions asked today and with those which were raised in the debate yesterday. The hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) asked about the dockyards. I am happy to tell him that there is a full work load for all four home yards. We are seeking to improve productivity through the development of a new productivity scheme. Progress towards an agreed scheme is well advanced. We are continuing our programme of capital investment in buildings and facilities in every yard.
  The defence White Paper foreshadowed further orders this year for Type 42 destroyers. I am pleased to tell the House that today we have placed an order for the twelfth of these ships from Vosper Thornycroft Ltd. of Southampton. Subject to satisfactory contractual negotiations, we intend to place two further orders for Type 42s in the next three or four weeks. The tendering process for

  387
  these orders was initiated many months ago.
  Hon. Members will wish to know of the importance we place on the nuclear fleet submarine programme. In line with our current policy of multiple tendering and ordering of equipment, to achieve better performance and prices from our contractors, we are accelerating the fleet submarine ordering programme to reduce the interval between orders. Thus, we hope to be able to assist shipyards to maintain their sources of supply with sub-contractors who, until now, have suffered from time to time from insufficient work loads.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Eye asked whether there would be a 3 per cent, increase in the budget next year. I take it he means 1980–81. My answer to that is an unambiguous "Yes".
  The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), among many questions, asked about tankers and container ships. He said that it would not be necessary to spend much money in order to acquire many more platforms for Sea Harriers, thus enabling us to increase our anti-submarine warfare capability. This has been examined, particularly in the context of ordering some new RFA tankers. I have had discussions with senior naval officers more than once and I took the same view as he did, but I regret to tell him that I am now persuaded that we cannot achieve increased capability without spending a great deal more money. It might be possible eventually, but certainly not in the near future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) spoke at length about the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve. My hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State for Defence for the Army has a total commitment to the TAVR, since he has spent a number of weekends at work with them. He is grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful and thoughtful speech. The recommendations of the Shapland report have been put in hand urgently and we expect to be able to announce decisions shortly.
  Several hon. Members spoke about our capability in mine warfare and mine counter-warfare. The House will be interested to know that we propose to use the hovercraft in this role. It was always believed to have a potential as an MCM vessel because of its inherently
  388
  low magnetic, acoustic and pressure influence signatures. We have investigated possible weapon equipment for any future MCM hovercraft but have not yet found any which is satisfactory. We have bought a medium-sized hovercraft and we propose to evaluate one operationally in the MCM logistic support role. The hovercraft will go out from the main port so that the MCM vessels can spend much longer on their task. We are optimistic about such developments.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Haltemprice and the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) that we must look closely at our capability for defensive and offensive mining operations. We are doing that.
  The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) asked whether it was more costly to refit Leanders instead of building the new Type 22. It would probably be cheaper, but the question is whether it would be more cost-effective. The modernisation programme for Leanders is well in hand. We can see an end to it. The Type 22 is a more modern ship with a capability in anti-submarine warfare which is indispensable. There is scope in the fleet for both the Type 22 and the Leander class since each can perform its own role.
  I agree that we should examine seriously the question of building ships with a shorter life. So far that proposition has not been thought to be economical. The idea is that we can move eventually to a greater cellularity in ships so that we can speed up refits-refit ships more frequently and more easily convert them from one role to another.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester suggested that we should build ships on spec. The Royal Navy is co-operating with British Shipbuilders in the Type 24 experiment. It is too early to say whether that ship will be suitable for Royal Navy work. We hope that it will be.
  The hon. Member for Haltemprice asked me about AV8B. It is improbable that the RAF will want to order 25 AV8Bs and end up with a mixed fleet of British Harriers and United States Harriers to operate at the same time. There would be all types of operational difficulties and the logistic problems would be considerable.

  389
  I reaffirm that the RAF places great importance on the unique take-off and landing capabilities of the Harrier. Our experience with that plane has confirmed the high potential value of such aircraft when they can operate out of forward positions in close support of the Army. That is particularly important when conventional airfields are under attack. Our firm view is that an aircraft such as this will remain a major component of the Royal Air Force front line. Plans are in hand to modify the Harrier to improve its performance and to extend its useful life for many years.
  I have dealt with as many contributions as I can from Back-Bench Members. I shall devote a few minutes to the speeches from the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Beckenham talked about comparability for the Armed Forces. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) now talks of full comparability for the Armed Forces this year. That is an interesting change from the Opposition's official position this time last year.
  Sir Ian Gilmour: Our position is the same.
  Dr. Gilbert: Last year the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) said that the Opposition were asking for a return to full comparability in a time scale which was no less favourable than that accorded by the Government for the firemen. He asked for an undertaking to that effect. I gave that undertaking. We remain committed to that undertaking.
  Sir Ian Gilmour: I am sorry to interrupt an interesting speech. I made it clear last year. I said that we would restore comparability next year—that is, this year. There has been no change in our policy.
  Dr. Gilbert: If that is so, the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and his hon. Friend the Member for Stretford were speaking out of different sides of their mouths last year. The evidence is clear. Of course the song now is "the lot, this year", which I am sure has nothing whatever to do with an election arriving; it is just a happy coincidence.
  The hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) made a speech today which was not nearly so interesting as the
  390
  speech he made in Chicago recently, which was the subject of quotation earlier today. The hon. Gentleman used some very strange language. He tried to justify what he said about Milan and Tow—I assume he was quoted correctly in the report in the "Defence and Foreign Affairs Daily"—in which he said they had been delayed, as though by act of this Government they had been delayed. He nods his head. That is what he thinks. I repudiate that totally. The House has been told repeatedly that the introduction of Milan into service has been accelerated, and the decision to buy Tow has been brought forward.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about the delay in the introduction of the Chinook, which was a piece of impudence coming from a spokesman for a party three years in office which did nothing whatsoever to introduce the Chinook.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about the Bloodhound being "virtually obsolescent". When he was in Chicago he talked about it being "obsolescent" without any "virtually" in front of the word. There are a series of other complaints of which the hon. Member saw fit to deliver himself in Chicago. I regard the hon. Gentleman with considerable respect and affection, and I am very sorry that he chose to make so inaccurate and distorted an attack on his country's defences while he was abroad. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I trust he will see fit not to repeat such activities again.
  Mr. Pattie: The Minister of State must realise that I was invited to take part in a seminar that was involved with the Soviet challenge to Western Europe, and that inevitably had to do with the capability of this country's defence policies. I wished only to give what I considered to be an honest assessment of that position.
  Dr. Gilbert: What I complain about is a series of distortions and inaccuracies in the hon. Gentleman's speech to a foreign audience.
  I turn now with some relish to the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, who yesterday stated that this Government have reduced defence expenditure by nearly £12 billion, and he went on to speak with all the authority of a former Secretary of State with 56 days in office, 21 days of which

  391
  he spent electioneering. I do not know what he did with the other 35 days because history does not recall that. His last 21 days, of course, were not very successful in keeping himself in office. I know that he went to Devonport, where he said the Labour Government would close the dockyard. I shall go there on Friday to remind them how much reliance they can place on his statements inside and outside this House. He said that there was no conceivable justification for these defence cuts amounting to £12 billion. I assume, therefore, that he would restore them—I do not know whether he is going to restore them over 10 years. I may say that he is a little more ambitious than he was last year, when he was only talking about implementing expenditure by 1 per cent, in the defence budget; that was about £80 million a year. Now he is talking of £12 billion. I assume that he would restore them over 10 years. That would amount to £1,200 million a year. I could tell him how he could find that figure of £1,200 million a year. He
  could get £400 million by doing away with 10,000 hospital beds. He could get another £300 million by doing away with 150,000 industrial training places. He could save another £300 million by cutting out 500,000 nursery school places; or he could get £100 million by reducing grants for 30,000 private dwellings. For another £100 million—which would give him his £1,200 million—he could reduce social security benefits, old-age pensions and long-term social security benefits by 1 per cent. I do not know whether that is the right hon. Gentleman's policy. I do not know where else he will get the money from. In addition, he intends to cut taxation and reduce public sector borrowing at large.
  The prospects of this country for the social spending which our people need will be grim indeed under policies of that sort.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 52, Noes 228.

  Division No. 107]

  AYES

  [10.00 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

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

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Kelley, Richard

  Silverman, Julius

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Kerr, Russell

  Skinner, Dennis

  Buchan, Norman

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Stewart, Rt Hen Donald

  Canavan, Dennis

  Kinnock, Neil

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Lambie, David

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Crawford, Douglas

  Lamond, James

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Cryer, Bob

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Tilley, John

  Edge, Geoff

  Lee, John

  Torney, Tom

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Litterick, Tom

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Madden, Max

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Flannery, Martin

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mikardo, Ian

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Mr. Ivor Clemitson and

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Parry, Robert

  Mr. Stan Newens.

  Hooley, Frank

  Pavitt, Laurie

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Anderson, Donald

  Bradley, Tom

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington)

  Ashley, Jack

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joe) (Heywood)

  Campbell, Ian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

  Bates, Alf

  Cant, R. B.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Bean, R. E.

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Beith, A. J.

  Cartwright, John

  Deakins, Eric

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cohen, Stanley

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Boardman, H.

  Coleman, Donald

  Dempsey, James

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Conlan, Bernard

  Dewar, Donald

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Cowans, Harry

  Doig, Peter

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  393

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Dunlop, John

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Dunn, James A.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Luard, Evan

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Sandelson, Neville

  English, Michael

  McCusker, H.

  Sever, John

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  McElhone, Frank

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  McKay Allen (Penistone)

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Faulds, Andrew

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Ford, Ben

  Maclennan, Robert

  Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

  Forrester, John

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Spriggs, Leslie

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

  Magee, Bryan

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Mahon Simon

  Stoddart, David

  George, Bruce

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Stott, Roger

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Marks, Kenneth

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Ginsburg, David

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Golding, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Graham, Ted

  Meacher, Michael

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Tinn, James

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Tomlinson, John

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Tomney, Frank

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Molyneaux, James

  Tuck, Raphael

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Moonman, Eric

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Home Robertson, John

  Morton, George

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Ward, Michael

  Horam, John

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Watkins, David

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

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Watkinson, John

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Weetch, Ken

  Huckfield, Les

  Ogden, Eric

  Weitzman, David

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Wellbeloved, James

  Hunter, Adam

  Orbach, Maurice

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  White, James (Pollok)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Ovenden, John

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Whitlock, William

  Janner, Greville

  Padley, Walter

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Palmer, Arthur

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  John, Brynmoor

  Pardoe, John

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Park, George

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Parker, John

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Pendry, Tom

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Penhaligon, David

  Woodall, Alec

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Perry, Ernest

  Woof, Robert

  Judd, Frank

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Kilfedder, James

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Radice, Giles

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Mr. Peter Snape.

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 259.

  Division No. 108]

  AYES

  10.13 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cant, R. B.

  Allaun, Frank

  Boardman, H.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Anderson, Donald

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Cartwright, John

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Ashley, Jack

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Ashton, Joe

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Bradley, Tom

  Cohen, Stanley

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

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Coleman, Donald

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Corbett, Robin

  Bates, Alf

  Buchan, Norman

  Cowans, Harry

  Bean R. E.

  Buchanan, Richard

  Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

  Beith, A. J.

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Crawford, Douglas

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Campbell, Ian

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Canavan, Dennis

  Cryer, Bob

  395

  Cunningham, G. (Islington)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Judd, Frank

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Radice, Giles

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kelley, Richard

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Kerr, Russell

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Lambie, David

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Deakins, Eric

  Lamborn, Harry

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Lamond, James

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Dempsey, James

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Dewar, Donald

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Doig, Peter

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Litterick, Tom

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Rowlands, Ted

  Dunn, James A.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Sandelson, Neville

  Dunnett, Jack

  Loyden, Eddie

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Luard, Evan

  Sever, John

  Eadie, Alex

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Edge, Geoff

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  English, Michael

  McCusker, H.

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Silverman, Julius

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  McElhone, Frank

  Skinner, Dennis

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Snape, Peter

  Faulds, Andrew

  McKay Allen (Penistone)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Flannery, Martin

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Ford, Ben

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Forrester, John

  Madden, Max

  Stoddart, David

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Magee, Bryan

  Stott, Roger

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

  Mahon Simon

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  George, Bruce

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Ginsburg, David

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Golding, John

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Gould, Bryan

  Meacher, Michael

  Tierney, Sydney

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Tilley, John

  Graham, Ted

  Mikardo, Ian

  Tinn, James

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Tomlinson, John

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Tomney, Frank

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Mitchell. Austin (Grimsby)

  Torney, Tom

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Molloy, William

  Tuck, Raphael

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Molyneaux, James

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Moonman, Eric

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Ward, Michael

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Morton, George

  Watkins, David

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Watkinson, John

  Home Robertson, John

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Weetch, Ken

  Hooley, Frank

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Weitzman, David

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Newens, Stanley

  Wellbeloved, James

  Horam, John

  Noble, Mike

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

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

  Oakes, Gordon

  White, James (Pollok)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Ogden, Eric

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Whitlock, William

  Huckfield, Les

  Orbach, Maurice

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Ovenden, John

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Hunter, Adam

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Padley, Walter

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Harrington)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Pardoe, John

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Janner, Greville

  Park, George

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Parker, John

  Woodall, Alec

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Parry, Robert

  Woof, Robert

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  John, Brynmor

  Pendry, Tom

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Penhaligon, David

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Perry, Ernest

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Mr. Joseph Dean and

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Mr. Thomas Cox

  396

  397

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Goodhew, Victor

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Alison, Michael

  Gorst, John

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Arnold, Tom

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

  Gray, Hamish

  Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Banks, Robert

  Grist, Ian

  Mudd, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Grylls, Michael

  Neave, Airey

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Neubert, Michael

  Benyon, W.

  Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

  Newton, Tony

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Normanton, Tom

  Biffen, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Onslow, Cranley

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hannam, John

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Blaker, Peter

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Body, Richard

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Percival, Ian

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Brittan, Leon

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hicks, Robert

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Brotherton, Michael

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hodgson, Robin

  Raison, Timothy

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Holland, Philip

  Rathbone, Tim

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hordern, Peter

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Buck, Antony

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Budgen, Nick

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Rhodes James, R.

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Burden, F. A.

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hurd, Douglas

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Channon, Paul

  James, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Churchill, W. S.

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

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jopling, Michael

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Clegg, Walter

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Cockcroft, John

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Scott, Nicholas

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Kershaw Anthony

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Cope, John

  Kilfedder, James

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kimball, Marcus

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Costain, A. P.

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Shepherd, Colin

  Critchley, Julian

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Shersby, Michael

  Crouch, David

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Silvester, Fred

  Crowder, F. P.

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Sims, Roger

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Knox, David

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lamont, Norman

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Speed, Keith

  Dunlop, John

  Lawson, Nigel

  Spence, John

  Durant, Tony

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lloyd, Ian

  Sproat, Ian

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Loveridge, John

  Stainton, Keith

  Elliott, Sir William

  Luce, Richard

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Eyre, Reginald

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Stanley, John

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  McCrindle, Robert

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Macfarlane, Nell

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Farr, John

  MacGregor, John

  Stokes, John

  Fell, Anthony

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Madel, David

  Tebbit, Norman

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Marten, Neil

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Mates, Michael

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Fox, Marcus

  Maude, Angus

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Mawby, Ray

  Trotter, Neville

  Fry, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Viggers, Peter

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Waddington, David

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)

  Mills, Peter

  Wakeham, John

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Moate, Roger

  Wall, Patrick

  Goodhart, Philip

  Monro, Hector

  Walters, Dennis

  398

  399

  Warren, Kenneth

  Wiggin, Jerry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Wells, John

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Mr. Michael Roberts

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Younger, Hon George

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House endorses Her Majesty's Government's policy set out in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1979 (Command Paper No. 7474) of basing British security on collective effort to deter aggression, while seking every opportunity to reduce tension through international agreements on arms control and disarmament.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Public Health Laboratory Service Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's sitting though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Graham.]

PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY SERVICE BILL [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY SERVICE BILL [Lords]
  New Clause 2

    ANNUAL REPORT
    "In Schedule 3 to the National Health Service Act 1977 at the end of paragraph 17 there shall be added—
    "(17A) The Board shall prepare and publish in respect of each financial year a review of its activities incorporating therein a separate report on the activities of the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research."."—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    10.26 p.m.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    In Committee we moved an amendment to oblige the public health laboratory service to produce an annual report and to include in it a separate section about the Porton Down Microbiological Research Establishment, which is now to be known as the Centre for Applied Microbiological Research—CAMR—and also to produce separate accounts. The Minister very convincingly dealt with the question of accounts. We have not returned to that. We were left with an opening as to whether there should be an obligation on the PHLS to produce an annual report and whether that obligation should include provision for a separate section about Porton.
    On 15 March the Under-Secretary of State said:
    "It may surprise the Committee to learn—but it may be applied to other bodies as well—that the Public Health Laboratory Service is under no statutory obligation to publish an annual report. However, it does so and I think it would be agreed that it is in the public interest that it should do so, to show what is happening with its activities during the course of the
    402
    year, particularly as it is in receipt of public funds."
    He went on to say:
    "I am assured that it is the board's intention in future to include in its annual report a section dealing with the activities of CAMR. Therefore it may be necessary to lay that down in statute."
    He continued:
    "However, I would like to reflect further on this between now and Report to see whether in the circumstances we should consider whether it would be advisable to place a statutory obligation on the board to publish an annual report, and of course within that annual report to have a separate section devoted to CAMR."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 15 March 1979; c. 96–7.]
    The new clause was tabled by us to give the Under-Secretary of State an opportunity to give the House the benefit of his further consideration.
    I am not irrevocably wedded to the idea of saying that we ought to place a statutory obligation. For the very major undertakings, yes, I think that there should be an obligation to produce a report and to lay it before Parliament, but for these smaller bodies perhaps that is not altogether essential. Nevertheless, I thought that there was an obligation. It turns out that there is not. Therefore, I believe that the House deserves an explanation on what is intended—whether the Government do or do not accept the need for a statutory obligation.
    Mr. Robin Hodgson: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin). I suggest to the Under-Secretary of State that it would be a good idea if the annual report dealt with one special aspect of the activities at Porton Down. I refer to the fate of the great bustard.
    The great bustard is virtually extinct in this country, and its only mating ground lies within the grounds of Porton Down. It requires a great deal of room to fly. It is a very fat bird which has to waddle for a long way before it can take off. It lays its eggs on the ground and it therefore requires an entirely secure area in which to breed.
    Though it may be a small point, I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies to the new clause he will say whether, if the annual report is to be produced, it will cover at least some of the points I have mentioned in connection with this rare and endangered species of bird, with

    403
    its sole and only remaining breeding ground in Britain within the secure perimeter of Porton Down. If the Undersecretary says that he does not or cannot accept the clause, perhaps he will assure the bird lovers of this country that the perimeter fence of Porton Down will remain secure, and that within that perimeter fence this bird can continue to be free and to breed.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): Since the Committee stage I have, as promised, given further thought to the need for a provision of this kind. It seems to be the practice, so far as I can judge, for reports to be required statutorily when they have to be laid before Parliament—for example, as the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) mentioned, in the case of large-scale undertakings such as the nationalised industries.
    There are two bodies rather similar to the public health laboratory service—the National Radiological Protection Board and the National Biological Standards Board. These bodies are not statutorily required to publish reports. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the object of the new clause, with which I am wholly in sympathy, can be attained without adding unnecessarily to the provisions of the Bill.
    As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, the board already publishes an annual report and fully intends to include in future reports a section on the activities of the CAMR. In this connection I have taken note of the point raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) about the great bustard. I am not sure that this is necessarily a matter for the PHLS, since, of course, PHLS will have only a small part of the total area at Porton. However, I shall look into this matter and if it is more a matter for the Ministry of Defence I shall write to the hon. Member.
    I come back to the board's desire to publish an annual report. I should point out that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has powers under paragraph 13 of schedule 3 to the National Health Service Act 1977 which allow him to direct the board to publish such a report, and he intends within the next
    404
    few days to direct the board to publish reports covering the same period, and as far as possible at the same time as the annual statements of account it is already required to submit to him.
    In view of that assurance, I hope that the new clause will not be pressed.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am the last person who would want to add unnecessary words to a statute. I simply remind the Minister that we have not had an annual report from the PHLS for 1977. But, for reasons that I indicated in Committee, I think that the pressure of work connected with taking over Porton have made this extremely difficult. It may well be that that is the kind of flexibility which the absence of a clause will give. However, in view of the Minister's undertaking, that it is certainly the intention that an annual report should be produced, and that there should be a special section dealing with CAMR, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    10.36 p.m.
    Mr. Deakins: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    It might help if I draw out some of the main themes that have occupied the House during the passage of the Bill.
    Almost every speaker, both in the Chamber and in Committee, has had something to say about the industrial and commercial potential of the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research. I think that we have devoted more words to this than to any other topic that we have debated, and I shall not add unnecessarily to them now, but I would like to take the opportunity of emphasising the awareness that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I share of how important it is that this potential should not be neglected.
    Particular emphasis has been laid on the exciting new developments that we may see in industrial microbiology and genetic engineering. I am confident that this message, from both sides of the House, has reached the public health laboratory service board. I have, nevertheless, given an undertaking that my right hon. Friend will specifically ask the the board to examine and report on the opportunity for CAMR to lead and play

    405
    a part in such developments. We have had earlier reports, which have certainly not overlooked this question, but it is right that, now that the future of the establishment and its main lines of development have been decided, the matter should be examined afresh by the board, which is assuming responsibility for its management.
    In saying that, however, it would be wrong of me to overlook inevitable limitations on what can be done, especially in the early stages of the centre's life. It is important that any work of the centre should be consonant, as far as possible, with the health and preventive activities which must be its central function. For the centre to lose sight of that function could lead to a scrappiness which would make it difficult to run, and perhaps impossible to run efficiently and economically. There are obvious dangers in too great and too wide a diversity of activities. That is one limitation. There are others in the laboratory and other space available, and in the staff to undertake work of various kinds.
    We have agreed that additional staff may be employed on short-term appointments to cope with contract work and the fluctuations in the level of activity to which it is bound to give rise, as well as to cope with work over and above that which can be undertaken by the permanent staff of the centre. The cost of such staff will be covered by the income from contracts. But the PHLS board must be allowed to judge the proper level of activity at the centre, and I am anxious that it should not fail because the board has been pressed to go too far too fast.
    Mr. Arthur Latham: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I apologise if this is the inappropriate moment, but I am not sure how far he is through the remarks that he intends to make. Does he at some stage intend to refer to the undertaking he gave me in Committee when I asked whether, in advance of the meeting on 27 April, the virus at present stored at St. Mary's hospital, Paddington could go to Porton, at least on a temporary basis, because of the view in the Shooter report that although all precautions may be taken, there is a risk where human beings are involved and it is wrong to conduct such experimentation
    406
    in areas of heavy, concentrated urban population? Is my hon. Friend yet able to give an answer about at least a temporary transfer of the virus from St. Mary's hospital, Paddington?
    Mr. Deakins: I shall come to that point.
    Another question that we have discussed at length is the safety of the people working in laboratories and the population at large. In addition to the speeches that the Bill has given rise to, we have had a statement by my right hon. Friend on the Shooter report and an Adjournment debate introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle). There is little at this stage that I can usefully add. My right hon. Friend's statement set out the measures that we are taking in the wake of the Shooter report, and there are consultations on a number of issues.
    My right hon. Friend and I have also laid emphasis on the PHLS board's intention to establish a safety reference laboratory at CAMR. Indeed, I believe that work on its establishment has already begun, and from 1 April, when the board formally takes over, it will be able rapidly to go ahead.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) was right to remind the House of our discussion in Committee. Perhaps I could deal with his query in two parts. The work on smallpox hitherto carried on at the laboratory at St. Mary's hospital medical school is work for which Professor Dumbell is personally responsible on behalf of the World Health Organisation. We are examining the possibility of some arrangement whereby Professor Dumbell can continue to do that work for WHO—which is only part of his total work—but in a laboratory located in a less populated area. While the obvious place for that would be Porton, we first have to be sure that Professor Dumbell and the staff directly concerned could operate on such a split basis. That involves discussion with Professor Dumbell—and he is at present abroad—and with the council of St. Mary's hospital medical school and the University of London, as well as with the public health laboratory service.
    Considering the other point that my hon. Friend raised in Committee, at this stage we see no major reason why the

    407
    stocks of smallpox virus should not continue to remain at St. Mary's until satisfactory arrangements are made for future work elsewhere. The virus is contained in a deep-freeze cabinet and is under double lock. The keys are held by two persons. There was no suggestion in the Shooter report that maintaining stocks of the virus in a built-up area under secure conditions presented any specific hazard. The recommendation related to the continuance of research in a built-up area and the removal of that research to another site is being considered.
    I hope that shortly after the meeting of the dangerous pathogens advisory group on 27 April we shall be able to reach speedy conclusions, which will reassure my hon. Friend. He has been most assiduous in his concern on behalf of his constituents, who are wary of such a dangerous pathogen.
    Mr. Latham: I do not believe that there is a grave danger or serious risk to the local population, but the headmaster of a local school has produced a petition signed by many parents, and a lot of people are uneasy. In view of the situation in Birmingham and the Shooter recommendations, there is no good reason for the stocks remaining there. The rate of crime in the Paddington area is not low, and if someone broke in and removed the stock, for whatever absurd reason, there would be a risk. It is considered that the experiments should take place elsewhere, so why in the meantime keep the virus in an urban area? It should be in deep freeze under double lock at Porton. That would reassure the local population.
    Mr. Deakins: Professor Dumbell is at present abroad. I undertake that either my officials or I—depending on the events of the next few days—will contact Professor Dumbell on his return to discuss this matter and see whether some arrangement can be arrived at in line with my hon. Friend's request.
    Mr. Doug Hoyle: Can my hon. Friend give any indication when Professor Dumbell will return?
    Mr. Deakins: I do not know. I imagine that he is abroad on academic business. I shall find out and let my hon. Friends know.
    408
    I turn to two other matters connected with the staff of CAMR and the PHLS generally. The Ministry of Defence Staff Side, representing scientific staff at MRE, have been to see me and, separately, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence. They were quite free to raise with us any points that they wished, and I found the discussion I had with them both interesting and informative and a great help in understanding the probelms and worries of staff. The Staff Side put to us a number of issues which it wished us to consider, and explained to us the ways in which it hoped we might be able to improve the transfer terms that the staff have been offered and the way in which the staff who are not being transferred will be dealt with.
    We have not been able to give them all they would like, for very good reasons. My right hon. Friend has not been able to agree that members of the staff should have complete freedom to seek redundancy, regardless of the alternative employment that might be found for them. I have not been able to agree that we should attempt to safeguard the careers which, rightly or wrongly, they consider that they might have had if they had been able to remain civil servants, but I assure them and the House that it is not because of any lack of concern for them and their problems. We are very much aware of the disruption to their lives and careers that is being caused by the change that they are experiencing. We are doing all that we justifiably can to secure their future well-being, and we remain ready to consider any new problems they may bring to our attention.
    I explained in Committee that we have taken steps to give full protection to the salaries and conditions of service of staff transferring voluntarily—I emphasise that the transfer is a voluntary one—from the MRE to the PHLS. I know that some of them are concerned, because they feel their career prospects may be less good, and that their chances of obtaining senior posts may be diminished. It is impossible to be sure what the career prospects of individuals may be, and I do not think that we should be able to guarantee the future of everyone who has decided to transfer, but I have taken particular care to see that the terms of transfer which

    409
    have been offered to the staff are at least as good as those given to the staff of other public bodies on other occasions. When I met the Staff Side, its members drew my attention to other public bodies where the transfer terms were mentioned in Acts of Parliament. I have studied this very carefully, and I am satisfied that we are doing no worse.
    The Civil Service Commission has agreed that the existing staff of MRE may continue to participate in Civil Service trawls even after they have transferred to the PHLS, and that it will be willing to re-certificate any staff who are successful, although it reserves the right to interview such staff.
    During the Second Reading and the Committee stages of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne and my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington had something to say about industrial democracy. I have explained that I cannot accept the suggestion that we should encourage the public health laboratory service to go ahead of the National Health Service in this. However, I can assure the House that the legislation—the National Health Service Act 1977—will allow an employee representative to be appointed by the Secretary of State if all concerned agree that this is appropriate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consult with all concerned, including other Ministers with fringe bodies such as the PHLS, with a view to such an appointment. Obviously, the question of whether such an appointment is made will depend on the outcome of the consultations. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will ask the board to ensure that employees and their representatives are given all possible opportunities to contribute views on matters affecting their legitimate interests.
    In conclusion, I should like to express to the public health laboratory service board and its staff—and particularly the staff at Porton—the best wishes of the House. They are embarking on an exciting, and in some ways unpredictable, adventure. I should like them to know—I am sure the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches will join me—that we shall follow the progress of the new centre with the keenest interest and that we have complete confidence in the staff and in thir future success.
    10.50 p.m.
    Mr. Michael Hamilton: I wish to express gratitude to the Minister for his remarks. I am also grateful to him for having met a deputation of staff from the Microbiological Research Establishment.
    I am deeply saddened by this change. After decades of valuable contribution to our defence effort, the shutters are to go up in this establishment at the end of this week. I appreciate that that decition was in no way the responsibility of the Under-Secretary of State or, indeed, of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, who is now present on the Government Front Bench. That decision was, as we all know, taken by the Secretary of State for Defence.
    I was hoping that the Minister could give some assurance to the staff that the transfer from one Department of State to another would not damage their prospects and that they could have a more copper-bottomed guarantee than it was possible for the Minister to give this evening. These scientists and technicians have had to endure three years of doubt and uncertainty. I had hoped for a firmer guarantee than the Minister gave tonight. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him for his efforts, and also for his assurances, so far as they go. I wish to join him in expressing good wishes to the new establishment, which starts life at the end of this week.
    10.52 p.m.
    Mr. Doug Hoyle: Although my hon. Friend the Minister did not go as far as I hoped in his remarks, we know that in Committee he undertook to report back to the House. He has fulfilled that undertaking tonight. He may well have opened the way for employee representation.
    What concerns me is that the future in some way depends on talks with the board. I hope that those talks will not take too long in reaching a conclusion. There is an opportunity to experiment, even in a limited way, in this area of activity by having an employee on the board. It would be a good move if that happened, because it would bring to bear the expertise of the staff. Although what has been proposed does not go as far as I hoped, it is at least a step in the right direction. I hope that whatever

    411
    conclusion is reached will not take too long in coming to light.
    10.54 p.m.
    Mr. Hodgson: I share the hopes for the future of industrial microbiology which have been expressed in this House and in Standing Committee. I was delighted that the Minister was able to reassure the House that the work of Porton Down would continue in future. I regard it as a vital matter, and the Minister is to be congratulated on the assurances he has given.
    I turn to the financial effects of the Bill, about which the Minister was kind enough to write to me on 9 March. The numbers still do not entirely add up, and there are one or two points on which I seek clarification.
    The Minister says in his letter that the cost of the centre will rise by about £400,000—that is, from £1·9 million to about £2·3 million, an increase of around 25 per cent. He gives three reasons for the increase. The first is that the new centre for applied microbiological research will have to provide its own security. It is not clear why the security operations which previously covered both centres cannot continue to operate in the same way in future. It is not clear why we have to break the security services into halves and so increase the cost.
    The Under-Secretary of State says that the PHLSB is not entitled to receive Property Services Agency services on an allied service basis. Will the Undersecretary explain briefly what that means, because it is not clear? It would be helpful if he explained the financial effects of that decision.
    I turn to the question of net receipts of the CAMR for 1979–80, which are estimated at £1.4 million. Are any of those drawn from private industry? Alternatively, are they subventions from the Government Departments mentioned in the letter? Has the centre started to charge private industry? If so, how does that £1.4 million break down?
    Notwithstanding these small points, in conclusion I wish the centre a successful and fruitful future. It has a vital role to play, particularly in industrial microbiology.
    10.56 p.m.
    Mr. Arthur Palmer: It would be presumptuous of me to say much, since I took no part in the previous stages of the Bill. I join with others in wishing the new organisation success. I regret that it has not been possible for the Minister to wait until the Select Committee has finished its investigation into genetic engineering, or genetic manipulation.
    It has been suggested that Porton should be used as a centre for genetic manipulation. The Williams committee rejected that suggestion, but biological genetic manipulation is a tremendous technique for the future. Because of the securitiy facilities there, I hope that the centre will be available for such work, whether it is done in the private or the public sector.
    10.58 p.m.
    Mr. Arthur Latham: There was some silliness in Standing Committee about the attendance of the Secretary of State for Defence. That would have been improper, since he was not a member of that Committee. I was surprised that the civil servants had not advised the Secretary of State about what was said about that invitation. I understand that he received no direct communication.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It was made not to the Secretary of State but to the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence—the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert).
    Mr. Latham: All I ask is that it is on record that the Secretary of State for Defence was not aware of that representation.
    I draw the attention of the House to the Standing Committee's second sitting. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) said:
    "With much greater movement around the world, we are now subject to strange new diseases from visitors and others in this country, and this shows how enormously important it is to have the very high quality service available to protect members of the public, to identify new, dangerous organisms at the earliest possible opportunity, to be able to advise on the steps necessary to contain them, and so on."
    In an intervention, I asked him:
    "In the context of his remarks about the development of new viruses, strange diseases

    413
    and so on, will the right hon. Gentleman say a word in passing about those who deliberately produce such viruses and disease organisms, regarding them as a legitimate military aid?"
    The right hon. Gentleman replied:
    "The hon. Gentleman will not tempt me down that path. These are matters of enormous strategic confidentiality about which I have never needed to know and therefore know nothing."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 15 March 1979; c. 99–101.]
    That was a most shameful declaration. There was never a more classic case of burying one's head in the sand. I deplore it and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has had further serious thought since he made that remark.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: In the debates on the Bill, the hon. Member for Padding-ton (Mr. Latham) has spent almost his entire time in making personal attacks on me. True to type, on Third Reading he has not deviated one iota from that. I am not sure what those who consider these matters—particularly the scientists and doctors who work in the PHLS—will think of his contributions. The hon. Gentleman has never been in Government and perhaps does not understand the use of the phrase "need to know". One security classification is that certain information should go only to those who need to know. Therefore, when I gave that reply, I was quoting a technical phrase, which happens to be the truth.
    Mr. Arthur Latham: The point that I was making was not in the spirit of a personal attack but in relation to a genuine issue. Many scientists are concerned about the ethics of some aspects of the development of bacteriological warfare. It is of concern to them whether their talents are misused. Therefore, it should be of concern to the politicians who have responsibility in the matter. That is why I urge the right hon. Gentleman to make a declaration about the possible misuse of scientists.
    Mr. Jenkin: If I need guidance about my duties in the House, one of the last people I should ask is the hon. Member for Paddington.
    I echo and endorse entirely the good wishes that the Under-Secretary extended to the CAMR and all its staff in its new role. I also endorse what my hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury (Mr. Hamilton) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson)
    414
    said about the Under-Secretary's statement on industrial biotechnology. This evening he went further on the matter than either he or his right hon. Friend went in Committee. It is a valuable response to the points made from both sides of the House and the Committee about the enormous importance of using the potential of CAMR for the development of industrial biotechnology.
    There is a great future for these techniques, including the technique of genetic manipulation—to which the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) referred. I look forward to reading the report of the Select Committee. I hope that the Committee will be able to consider in full some of the opinions that I was able to quote in Committee about an over-reaction to the technique. There is a danger that if we persist in that attitude the work will be driven abroad. That would be a great loss in jobs and the development of the benefits which would otherwise accrue to this country.
    Mr Hoyle: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman and I know that the hour is getting late. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would concentrate on safety rather than minimise it. There is a large body of scientific opinion that takes the view that there is a risk involved—hence the reason why the Select Committee is examining the matter. It does not do to minimise the risks. There are risks involved, and we should not always put the profit motive first.
    Mr. Jenkin: I shall not weary the House by quoting again the views of the many distinguished biologists whom I quoted in Committee, but no identifiable hazard has ever been pointed out. I leave it there, though I am sure that the Select Committee will shed some valuable light on the matter.
    I outlined several times in Committee the strong anxiety of the scientific staff at Porton that the industrial work will be dropped. I have had further evidence of that since the appointment of the new medically qualified director, whom I wish well in his new and important post. The Under-Secretary's statement is very important, and I hope that he will ask the management of the PHLS to draw it to the attention of all the staff. This is necessary to allay the anxieties.

    415
    I recently received a long and emotional letter from a lady who, although she does not work at Porton, is connected with the establishment. She said:
    "It is essential for Britain to keep in the forefront of biotechnology, which I believe goes without saying. … With the appointment of a medical director we are certain to see the end of advanced biotechnology in this country which we cannot afford."
    I do not necessarily accept that, particularly in the light of what the Under-Secretary has said. She went on:
    "What has now happened with the remaining staff transferred to CAMRA, i.e. the scientists have lost all career prospects, and anyone at the level of SPSO cannot further their careers within the PHLS and many could have expected to do so under MOD, so by definition CAMRA will not attract the best scientific brains from now on. … No original scientists will remain at this establishment with the lack of career prospects that will exist over the medic/Dentals."
    She concludes, and this is a measure of her anguish:
    "All I can say God help us all, what a ruination of such potential for our nation."
    In the light of what the Under-Secretary has said, I believe that her fears may be unfounded. The House can take credit for the fact that it has moved the Government to be more positive in their commendation of work on industrial biotechnology than they had originally intended to be. I welcome that.
    I hope that the work done after the takeover on 1 April will reflect the Under-Secretary's statement of intent, so that we can realise the full potential in this important and exciting area of the enormously valuable asset inherited from the Ministry of Defence.
    I wish all concerned the best of good fortune in an important and far-reaching enterprise.
    11.8 p.m.
    Mr. Deakins: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply briefly. Let me deal first with the points raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson). On security, the MOD police cannot cover non-Government establishments and therefore the PHLS will probably use Securicor. On the PSA, receipt of services on an allied services basis is for Government Departments only and the PHLS board is extra-governmental for that purpose. As the hon. Gentleman's
    416
    other questions were rather detailed, concerning the breakdown of income and so on, I had better look into them and write to him.
    Mr. Arthur Latham: Some of us shuddered when my hon. Friend mentioned Securicor. If it is not possible for the MOD police to provide the necessary cover, could not some other arrangement be made, perhaps when the Bill goes to another place?
    Mr. Deakins: The Bill has been in another place, if that is what my hon. Friend means. I take note of his comments. I shall look at the situation to see whether or not a contract has been signed. Something has to start from 1 April. Unless there is some carry-over period, it may be that some sort of firm will be present to protect the security of those working there and the experiments they are carrying out.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North-East (Mr. Palmer) asked whether this could be held up any longer. The answer is a comment made by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Hamilton). The Ministry of Defence announced its decision to close its part of the Medical Research Establishment in 1976, which is a long time ago. The staff has been under great pressure and anxiety since then. Now that we have reached a settled date, it would not be appropriate to depart from it.
    My hon. Friend may have misunderstood, but I would like to reassure him on genetic engineering. On Second Reading on 15 February, I gave details of the work that had been drawn up by Sir Robert Williams in consultation with the staff of MRE. Part of that work was genetic manipulation experiments. It was made clear that experimental work in genetic engineering, including experiments requiring the maximum level of containment, which is category 4, would take place there. While my hon. Friend may feel—
    Mr. Palmer: The Williams report seemed to think that much of this work would be done in private industry. That is why I made that point.
    Mr. Deakins: Indeed, I take my hon. Friend's point. I had the advantage of going to Porton. It was a thoroughly enjoyable and instructive visit. The staff

    417
    was well aware that while some genetic manipulation might go on in private industry, the chances are that the running, certainly in the early years, will have to be made by a public research establishment because of the risks involved, the amount of capital for a small return, and the fact that it might be five, 10 or 15 years, or more, before there is any commercial application. I hope that I have answered all the points raised in the debate.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

LIQUEFIED GAS STORAGE (CANVEY ISLAND)
Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham.]
11.12 pm
Sir Bernard Braine: Last June, the Health and Safety Executive published a report which confirmed that 33,000 of my constituents on Canvey Island were facing unacceptable risks from a massive concentration of hazardous gas, oil and chemical storage close to their homes. One-third of the total volume of hazard stemmed from a single installation in the British Gas methane terminal.
Unfortunately, the report did not investigate all the hazards with the thoroughness we have the right to expect in this day and age. It dealt far too lightly with the real dangers posed by the movement of ships carrying hazardous cargoes in the Thames estuary, some of them unpiloted, and the ever-present risk of collisions with large liquefied gas carriers. It suppressed an appendix on the possibilities and consequences of an un-confined methane gas cloud explosion. It totally ignored the human factor of how people living on a small island with only one escape route would react in the event of a catastrophic disaster and what would happen if they tried to get off the island when the rescue services were trying to get on. Its conclusions were feeble in the extreme. No recommendation was made for the removal of any of the main hazards. On the contrary, after making suggestions for reducing particular risks, the ludicrous conclusion was reached that
418
additional hazards in the form of two oil refineries could be safely introduced.
Since the publication of that disappointing document, the situation has worsened dramatically. On 8th January, the 60,000-ton French tanker "Betelgeuse" blew up at an offshore jetty at the Gulf oil terminal in Bantry Bay, with complete loss of life. This tragedy was a sharp reminder that a similar happening at Canvey, where oil and gas tankers dock much closer to land-based petrochemical installations, would have caused a holocaust. For full measure, nine days later the IRA chose to underline the point by blowing up an oil storage tank on the island. It was empty. We had had the narrowest of escapes.
Apart from closing a liquefied petroleum gas pipeline, which I suggested to the British Gas Corporation shortly before the Health and Safety Executive report was published, nothing has happened in the past nine months to reduce anxieties.
The public were momentarily deceived into thinking that action was being taken, because in a Thames Television programme on 21 December an Executive spokesman assured viewers that 12,000 tons of liquefied petroleum gas stored close to people's homes had been reduced to 3,000 tons. That statement was untrue. No such reduction had taken place. Nor had it taken place up to a month ago. So much for the Executive's capacity to act as the public's watchdog on safety or even to monitor what is going on in hazardous installations.
Surely, following the Bantry Bay disaster and the IRA bomb the Executive should have indicated a readiness to reconsider its earlier conclusions, which had totally failed to take into account the possibility of sabotage triggering off the worst peacetime disaster of all time, but that was not so.
In one respect, however, the Executive stirred itself. Five months after the publication of the report it felt obliged to give some advice about one of the main hazards it had identified. It recommended to the local authority, the Castle Point district council, that no new planning permission should be granted within an area of 1 km from the methane terminal. That effectively served notice on 8,000 people and the parents of children at four schools that they lived in a danger area.

419
The local authority and I reacted immediately. We jointly pressed the Government to consider the full implications of that advice both on the morale of the people involved and the financial burden that compensation claims would put on the ratepayers. We said that if the dangers envisaged warranted advice of that sort, the best course would be to remove the hazard altogether. Over three months later we are still awaiting an answer.
It transpires, however, that the advice from the Executive was unsound. On 22 January I asked the Under-Secretary of State
"If in the light of the known hazard posed by the terminal … and the risk of spillages of liquefied gas leading to the release of a gas cloud, he will set out the scientific justification for the Health and Safety Executive to recommend … the establishment of a cordon sanitaire around the installation limited to only 1 kilometre."
The hon. Gentleman's reply was astonishing. No doubt it was drafted by the Executive. It volunteered the information that
"Experience shows that the worst effects of a flammable gas cloud explosion would be unlikely to extend beyond a radius of 1 kilometre."—[Official Report, 22 January 1979; Vol. 961, cc. 37–38.]
The House will appreciate that the worst effects of that sort of disaster are death and destruction by fire on a catastrophic scale.
Leaving aside the chilling effect that the hon. Gentleman's reply had on 8,000 people living in the danger zone and many thousands more just outside it, there is no scientific basis for the Executive's advice. Available knowledge indicates that a gas cloud arising from a major spillage of liquefied gas could travel up to 8 km before ignition. The worst effects of any such explosion might therefore be felt well beyond the 1 km radius and in the heavily populated area beyond Canvey on the Essex mainland.
It has been clear to me for some time that Ministers do not understand the complexity, the scale and the urgency of the Canvey situation. One reason may be the quality of the advice that the Executive is giving them. The scientists whom I have consulted are experts on fire and explosions and they are highly critical of the Canvey report. The House should know that. That is why I felt it
420
necessary last month to ask the Prime Minister to intervene. It is much to the right hon. Gentleman's credit that he has called for a full investigation and has ordered the departmental Ministers concerned to report direct to him. At least he appears to understand and to take the matter seriously.
I find it particularly alarming that the HSE seems totally unaware of what is going on in other countries, where liquefied energy gases are being used on an ever-increasing scale—in the United States, in continental Europe and Japan. I am being charitable here because if it is aware of what is going on elsewhere it is behaving with far too much timidity. The sooner that Parliament wakes up to that fact, the better for the health and safety of endangered communities in this country.
In the United States, legislative controls are being imposed to ensure that any new liquefied gas terminal is built remote from population. For example, the criterion in California is that within one mile from any new terminal the population density should not be greater than 10 persons per square mile and within four miles not greater than 60 persons per square mile. In Holland, the new liquefied gas terminal at Eemshaven will be 4·3 miles from the nearest residences.
All this must have been known to the HSE at the time of its investigation on Canvey. It was certainly aware of the dangers. In its report it conceded that if there were a major spillage of liquefied gas, leading to the explosion of a vapour cloud, it could have serious consequences, including death, but it could suggest no amelioration. Yet, knowing this, it still refused to recommend the removal of the hazard. Its proposals for a limited cordon sanitaire are therefore irresponsible.
Worse than that, there appears to be no consistency whatsoever in the advice it is giving to authorities elsewhere which are faced with planning applications for the storage of liquefied gases.
For example, the HSE announced on 14 February that it had advised the Glanford borough council not to grant planning permission to Nipro UK to install three LPG storage tanks with a total capacity of 1,200 tons at its Flixborough plant. The reason was that the site was within

421
1 km of the villages of Amcotts and Flixborough. It was stated that the probability of an accidental major release of butane from the storage facilities—for example, from a fractured process feedpipe—or the catastrophic failure of one of the storage tanks, although not remote, could not be entirely discounted. Yet almost simultaneously a few miles away in the same district, next door in Cleethorpes, the HSE said that it had no objection, on the grounds of safety, to the storage of five times the quantity of similar gases close to other hazards. The chief executive of Glanford complained of the delay in getting information from the Executive, of vagueness when it was provided, and of its inconsistency.
It is significant that at Canvey we have in store, on one site alone, 10 times the quantity of LPG as that proposed at Flixborough, within a similar distance of a very much larger population. Not only has the HSE declined to recommend the closing down of this dangerous concentration; it cannot even acquaint itself correctly with the exact quantities involved.
An equally bewildering situation has arisen in Scotland over the proposed gas terminal at Braefoot Bay, in the Firth of Forth. Here upwards of 6,000 people live within 1–2 km of what is planned to be the largest liquefied gas terminal in Europe. Following a public inquiry held in July 1977, at which the inspector found that the risk of a major accident was in the region of one chance in 1 million a year, the Secretary of State for Scotland, by indicating that he was minded to approve the proposal, was saying, in effect, that this level of risk was acceptable.
Almost four months after the publication of the Canvey report I am told that the HSE indicated to the Secretary of State that it had not been demonstrated to the Executive what the level of risk would be. Encouraged by this, the residents asked the HSE what level of risk would, in its view, be acceptable. It took the HSE three months to reply. It said that it was not committed to a quantified level of risk as a basis of judgment as to what would be acceptable. In short, the whole project could go ahead. The Executive would decide on the basis of trial and error what was and what was not acceptable after the die was cast.
422
The people of the area are thus to be put deliberately in the same situation as the people of Canvey.
In the light of what we now know about these matters, I was not surprised to hear from a local resident that in his view this was nothing short of criminal folly.
We may contrast that with the very clear legislative criteria in the United States and Holland about liquefied gas installations, and the necessity to keep these well away from populated areas and to insist on the strictest discipline in the movement of gas carriers in busy shipping lanes.
In my constituency the HSE has lost all credibility. It is in danger of doing so elsewhere. The distinct impression has been given that it is susceptible to commercial and political pressures and that it lacks courage and the expertise to ensure that its advice, when given, can stand up to analysis. Increasingly I find that scientists who are expert in gases, fires and explosions are critical of its decisions.
Perhaps Parliament is at fault for not giving the HSE more independence and ensuring that it has the resources to command the best scientific expertise. What is certain is that the present situation simply cannot continue. The plight of Canvey is a national scandal and, as matters have been allowed to drift, other endangered communities may find themselves in the same position.
I trust that the Under-Secretary of State will not defend the indefensible but will seize the opportunity to indicate that the Government are concerned about the matters that I have described and are determined to do something about them.
Mr. John Ellis Mr. John Ellis (Brigg and Scunthorpe) rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. Has the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) arranged with the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) to take part in the debate?
Sir B. Braine: I had hoped that the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) would succeed in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I have mentioned his constituency.
11.26 p.m.
Mr. John Ellis: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) for allowing me a little time to take part in this debate, because he mentioned my constituency.
I realise that the situation on Canvey is very serious, but there is an additional point of which my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State should take note. We are in an unfortunate area now, because there appears to be a clash between the Health and Safety Executive and local planning authorities in these matters.
When the Glanford borough council considered the Flixborough application, it wrote to the Health and Safety Executive. By statute, it is obliged to consider such applications within a certain time. On the other hand, again by statute, it is required to take into account all matters germane to the proposal. In the end, the council considered that planning matter without the advice of the Health and Safety Executive before it. I think that if someone were to take legal action and claim that the council was in default of its statutory duty because the relevant information was not before it, the council would have a case to answer. But that matter has not been tested in law.
The local planning authority is required by statute to deal with applications within a certain time. I should have preferred it to kick the whole matter into touch, on the ground that negotiations with the Gas Corporation for the supply of natural gas by pipeline were still continuing. Indeed, in the event, it was able to conclude those negotiations successfully.
However, planning permission was granted on any conditions that the Health and Safety Executive might wish to impose. The Executive, when asked about the conditions, retorted that, as the hon. Gentleman said, it was an unsuitable venue anyway.
The clerk to the Glanford borough council, in his letter to me of 21 March, said:
"This leaves me wondering whether the effect of the planning permission granted to Nypro subject to the requirements of the Health and Safety Executive amounts to an unconditional planning permission: the reason for this view (which I hope is wrong), is that it would be rather difficult to prove non-compliance with non-existent requirements. Equally, if the view of the Executive is correct, there would appear to be extremely
424
little point in the borough council worrying about conditions relating to health and safety: it would appear that they can grant planning permission in any area where, on planning grounds, it would appear suitable, leaving the question of health and safety entirely in the hands of the Executive. I am by no means sure that this is a correct view or that it is at all desirable that local authorities with responsibilities to their people should find themselves usurped by the Executive. Further, this could leave the Executive as the only possible target to shoot at in the event of any disaster. I wonder if that is precisely what they want."
In other words, we have two bodies: the Health and Safety Executive, which, under the Act, has certain powers to prescribe the building, the shipment or anything else on the ground of that legislation, and the borough council, with overall responsibility. It may think that it is an unsightly plant. The conditions of health and safety are within its ambit as well. But a local authority may not have the requisite expertise to deal with a sophisticated plant.
Therefore, I think that the Minister should consult his right hon. and hon. Friends in other Departments and clear up this situation. It is plainly unsatisfactory as it is, and it is undesirable that local planning authorities should reach decisions without having appropriate advice from the Health and Safety Executive before them. In fact, they may not be complying with the statutory requirements if they do.
Will it help if we give the Health and Safety Executive more staff? That might help, but where there are major hazards it may take many months to consider all the implications. We shall have to have a change here.
I should not like to see the local authorities ruled out of any part of the decision-making on safety or health matters, but I should like the backing-up, essential expertise of the Executive, which can concentrate the sum of the available knowledge, brought into play as well.
We must not get into a situation such as we got into in Glanford, where a planning decision was made, the Executive had powers, and now nobody is in the position of knowing whether that planning consent is open-ended.
11.31 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): I fully understand the concern of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine)

425
in these matters. He should not have suggested that Ministers are not equally concerned, because that is not so. The hon. Gentleman suggested that I had used some chilling words in a parliamentary answer. It is a bit rich for him to accuse me of using chilling words. It is not something that I have set out to do. My ministerial colleagues and I are very concerned, as the hon. Gentleman is, to try to ensure that the public are not put at risk from industry's arrangements, particularly in the matter of the storing of liquefied gases.
As the hon. Gentleman knows well, the liquefaction of gases for storage purposes is now widespread, because it enables a large volume of gas to be stored in a comparatively small space. This is particularly so with what are commonly called the liquefied energy gases—liquefied natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas. There are, of course, other gases that are stored in liquid form, but I shall confine my remarks mainly to LNG and LPG, since it is clear that the hon. Gentleman is most concerned about the possible effects of an explosion involving these materials.
The usefulness of these gases as a clean and convenient fuel has led to their increasing use in recent years. In short, they have become part of our everyday way of life. It is worth emphasising this, because we are dealing here not with a novel form of fuel but with substances which are well known and have been in use for a considerable time on a large scale.
There are two principal hazards involved in all this. Either gas may leak from the storage vessel and ignite, or the storage vessel itself may be affected by fire, with the result that the storage vessels explode. Fires due to leakage of plant would almost certainly be confined to the installation itself and would not affect members of the public. The public would become involved only if there were a sudden catastrophic rupture of the gas storage vessel, a rupture of the kind that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
History has shown failures of that kind to be of low probability. In fact, there has been no such incident to date in the United Kingdom. I do not say this to sound complacent—indeed, it would be wrong to do so—but it seems fair to
426
suggest that this is due in part at least to the stringent precautions which industry has already adopted in the storage and handling of these gases.
These precautions are well known and have been the subject of much detailed guidance, some of it published by the Health and Safety Executive. Considerable efforts have been made over the years by the Factory Inspectorate and other enforcing and licensing authorities to secure compliance with these precautions, and events have shown that where they are put into practice the possibility of fires and explosions which put the public at risk are remote.
Having said that, I am well aware of what the hon. Gentleman said—that we must maintain vigilance and that safety precautions must be enhanced. He drew attention to the Bantry Bay explosion and the explosion caused by the IRA. The Health and Safety Executive will be studying any information which comes to light following investigation of the Bantry Bay explosion and the road tanker explosion at San Carlos in Spain, so that we can learn any lessons and apply them in the United Kingdom.
I turn straight away to some of the hon. Gentleman's specific criticisms concerning the HSE's approach to questions relating to the siting of storage installations and the protection of the public at large. He referred to the advice given by the HSE in the case of the existing large-scale storage installation on Canvey and contrasted this with the attitude towards the proposed new installations at Flixborough and other sites.
It is important—this is relevant to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis)—to recognise that the HSE's role in planning matters is an advisory one. Policy on planning and industrial development is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Scotland, and questions relating to the siting of all industrial developments, including potentially hazardous installations, and to residential developments near to these installations, are matters for local planning authorities to determine. Arrangements have existed for some time under which a local planning

427
authority can ask the HSE for an appraisal of risk at sites such as those where large-scale storage of liquefied flammable gases is carried out. These appraisals take account not only of the nature of the installation itself but of any special problems involving the community in the vicinity.
It is for the planning authority to determine, in the light of the HSE's appraisals and advice on the health and safety implications of proposed developments, whether to give approval for such developments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe raised the matter of delays with me in the House this afternoon. I recognise that there is a problem here. As I said to him in the House at Question Time, this is a matter which I must pursue with the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The HSE's function is to ensure that all industrial plants, whether newly established or not, comply with their duties under health and safety legislation and that the managements concerned have full regard for the health and safety not only of their workers but of the public who may be affected by their activities. The HSE and other enforcing authorities have powers to impose improvement and prohibition notices to secure appropriate standards of health and safety, but such notices would naturally be issued only in respect of existing activities or activities which are about to begin and not when things are only at the planning stage.
I ask the hon. Member for Essex, South-East to accept that it is impossible to lay down hard and fast rules in the matter of the siting of storage facilities and the separation distances between storage installations and other plants and residential areas in the vicinity. Each case must be considered individually in the light of all the circumstances. With existing installation, as distinct from proposed new developments, the question is whether the firm is doing everything reasonably practicable to comply with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.
The hon. Gentleman knows that in comparing the situation at Canvey with the situation in relation to proposed developments at Flixborough and other sites he is not comparing like with like. The HSE, has the support of the advisory
428
committee on major hazards in its view that hard and fast rules on the siting of major installations cannot be laid down. However, that should not be taken to mean that the HSE is not trying to pursue a consistent approach in giving advice on these very complex matters to planning authorities and in determining what action to take in respect of existing installations.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the United States situation. The general line adopted in the report on liquid natural gas terminals by the general accounting office in the United States was that all new large liquefied energy gas storage facilities should be built in remote areas and that no existing large storage facilities in other than remote areas should be expanded in size or in use. These recommendations for remote siting refer only to new storage facilities. The report still acknowledged that it might not be possible to stick to this policy even with regard to new installations, because it went on to make recommendations that plants which could not be sited in remote areas should be built to a very high level of construction. Moreover, the report, in respect of existing plant, commented as follows:
"We recommend that the Secretary of Energy evaluate each existing large LEG storage facility and recommend to the President and the Congress the actions necessary to protect the public from the hazards associated with them."
A detailed assessment of that kind was carried out in respect of all the major installations on Canvey Island.
I come to the particular comments of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East on the Canvey report. As he is aware, Ministers are, at the request of the Prime Minister, re-examining the situation at Canvey, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that it would be wrong for me to anticipate the conclusions that they may reach. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all the parties concerned are actively pursuing the implementation of the recommendations in the report on safety at Canvey Island to try to ensure that the margin of safety at the plants involved is substantially increased.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making a statement on our re-examination of the situation. In the meantime, I want to deal with the hon.

429
Gentleman's reference to the incorrect statement by a Health and Safety Executive official on television about the amount of LPG stored at the methane terminal. I understand that the official concerned has already written to the hon. Gentleman apologising for what was a genuine mistake, which was entirely due to a misunderstanding on the official's part.
I understand that the position now is that nearly 6,000 tons of LPG has already been removed from the site, and it is now expected that the amount stored on site will be further reduced to about 3,000 tons by mid-April.
Sir Bernard Braine: I am very pleased to hear that a statement is likely to be made shortly. Can the hon. Gentleman say when?
Mr. Grant: No, I cannot. The hon. Gentleman will have to bear with us a little longer. It is certainly not expected to take very much longer. Ministers have given the matter some consideration already, but we have not reached final conclusions.
I very much hope that what I have said will at any rate help to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Health and Safety Commission and the Executive—and certainly Ministers and everybody concerned—are paying attention to the
430
problems that he has raised. It is fair to say that there has been more action in this area, despite the shortcomings that the hon. Gentleman feels exist, under this Government in recent years than ever before. I certainly do not defend, as the hon. Gentleman put it, the indefensible, but I think that his criticisms have been too harsh and too extreme, paticularly of the HSE.
I think that we are all at one in our desire to see the highest possible standard of safety achieved and maintained, and while we must not be complacent about the dangers of installations of this kind, the general picture is not one which ought to result in fear and worry by the general public.
The Health and Safety Commission is proposing major legislative changes with regard to inflammable gases. In the meantime, the Health and Safety Executive will continue to use its existing power and techniques to ensure that the highest possible standard of safety—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
CBI AND TUC
  CBI AND TUC
  CBI AND TUC
WEST MIDLANDS
  WEST MIDLANDS
  WEST MIDLANDS
OPEN GOVERNMENT
  OPEN GOVERNMENT
  OPEN GOVERNMENT
EAST ANGLIA
  EAST ANGLIA
  EAST ANGLIA
WEST LOTHIAN
  WEST LOTHIAN
  WEST LOTHIAN
TAMWORTH
  TAMWORTH
  TAMWORTH
NURSING PROFESSION
  NURSING PROFESSION
  NURSING PROFESSION
RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
ANGLESEY
  ANGLESEY
  ANGLESEY
MESSRS. AUBREY, BERRY AND CAMPBELL (TRIAL)
  MESSRS. AUBREY, BERRY AND CAMPBELL (TRIAL)
  MESSRS. AUBREY, BERRY AND CAMPBELL (TRIAL)
PSRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Bargain Offer Claims
  Bargain Offer Claims
  Price Commission (Investigations)
  Price Commission (Investigations)
EMPLOYMENT
  Closed Shop
  Closed Shop
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Employed Persons
  Employed Persons
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Unemployment and Vacancies
  Unemployment and Vacancies
  Job Preservation and Job Creation
  Job Preservation and Job Creation
  Hospital Theatre Workers (Occupational Risks)
  Hospital Theatre Workers (Occupational Risks)
  Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974
  Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974
  Job Release
  Job Release
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
  Working Population
  Working Population
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Wage Settlements
  Wage Settlements
  Work Experience Programme
  Work Experience Programme
  Job Subsidy Schemes
  Job Subsidy Schemes
  Regional Policy
  Regional Policy
  Manufacturing Industry (Skill Shortages)
  Manufacturing Industry (Skill Shortages)
  Health and Safety Commission
  Health and Safety Commission
  North-West England
  North-West England
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Handicapped Persons
  Handicapped Persons
  Employment Protection Act
  Employment Protection Act
  TGWU—Waltham Roadways Ltd. (Agreement)
  TGWU—Waltham Roadways Ltd. (Agreement)
  Prices
  Prices
  Three-day Working Week
  Three-day Working Week
  South Yorkshire
  South Yorkshire
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  Quangos (Members' Allowances)
  Quangos (Members' Allowances)
  Silicosis
  Silicosis
  Hereford and Worcester (Social Fund Grants)
  Hereford and Worcester (Social Fund Grants)
  South-West Region
  South-West Region
  Disabled Persons (Wales)
  Disabled Persons (Wales)
  National Theatre (Industrial Dispute)
  National Theatre (Industrial Dispute)
  Racial Equality
  Racial Equality
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  European Community (Employment Ministers' Meeting)
  European Community (Employment Ministers' Meeting)
  Contract Cleaning Industry
  Contract Cleaning Industry
  Blackburn
  Blackburn
  Pay Comparability
  Pay Comparability
  Tachographs
  Tachographs
ENVIRONMENT
  Liverpool Street and Broad Street Stations
  Liverpool Street and Broad Street Stations
  Immigrant Populations (Ministerial Visits)
  Immigrant Populations (Ministerial Visits)
  Rehabilitation of Dwellings (Acquisitions)
  Rehabilitation of Dwellings (Acquisitions)
  Community Land Act
  Community Land Act
  Allotments
  Allotments
  Public and Local Authorities (Employees)
  Public and Local Authorities (Employees)
  Housing (Bedfordshire)
  Housing (Bedfordshire)
  Direct Labour
  Direct Labour
  Waste Land
  Waste Land
  South Africa (Sporting Links)
  South Africa (Sporting Links)
  Cement (Prices)
  Cement (Prices)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Scientologists
  Scientologists
  Metropolitan Police Computer (Members of Parliament)
  Metropolitan Police Computer (Members of Parliament)
  Constituencies (Electoral Quotas)
  Constituencies (Electoral Quotas)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Immoral Earnings
  Immoral Earnings
  Bouncers (Legal Status)
  Bouncers (Legal Status)
  Prisoner (Winson Green Prison)
  Prisoner (Winson Green Prison)
  Police Officers (Statements)
  Police Officers (Statements)
  IMMIGRATION (GYNAECOLOGICAL EXAMINATIONS)
  IMMIGRATION (GYNAECOLOGICAL EXAMINATIONS)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Community Arts
  Community Arts
  Teaching Staff (Appointment)
  Teaching Staff (Appointment)
  British Library (Somers Town)
  British Library (Somers Town)
  University Recurrent Grant
  University Recurrent Grant
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Computers
  Computers
  SOLICITORS (LAW SOCIETY POWERS)
  SOLICITORS (LAW SOCIETY POWERS)
INDUSTRY
  Small Firms (Subcontract Work)
  Small Firms (Subcontract Work)
  Microelectronics
  Microelectronics
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  Tanning Industry
  Tanning Industry
  Meals-on-wheels Kitchens
  Meals-on-wheels Kitchens
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
TRANSPORT
  Motor Vehicles (Registration)
  Motor Vehicles (Registration)
  Vehicle Licence V10 Form
  Vehicle Licence V10 Form
  Goods Vehicles
  Goods Vehicles
  Northleach Bypass
  Northleach Bypass
CIVIL SERVICE
  Official Cars
  Official Cars
  Ministers and Senior Civil Servants (Travel and Subsistence Allowances)
  Ministers and Senior Civil Servants (Travel and Subsistence Allowances)
  Quangos (Expenditure)
  Quangos (Expenditure)
  Pay
  Pay
TRADE
  Microelectronics
  Microelectronics
  Companies House, Cardiff
  Companies House, Cardiff
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hospital and Health Services (Teesside)
  Hospital and Health Services (Teesside)
  Agency Nurses (Birmingham)
  Agency Nurses (Birmingham)
  Births and Deaths (Registration)
  Births and Deaths (Registration)
  Nurses (Employment Cost)
  Nurses (Employment Cost)
  Pharmacists
  Pharmacists
  In-patients (Costs)
  In-patients (Costs)
  Hampshire Area Health Authority
  Hampshire Area Health Authority
  Equal Rights for Disabled Women Campaign
  Equal Rights for Disabled Women Campaign
  Marriages (Statistics)
  Marriages (Statistics)
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
WALES
  Genetic Counselling
  Genetic Counselling
  Unemployed Persons (Clwyd)
  Unemployed Persons (Clwyd)
  Schools (Careers Education)
  Schools (Careers Education)
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Bypasses
  Bypasses
  Antenatal Screening
  Antenatal Screening
  Roads (Repair and Maintenance)
  Roads (Repair and Maintenance)
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
  Welsh Language (Birth Registration)
  Welsh Language (Birth Registration)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia (Public Service Pensions)
  Rhodesia (Public Service Pensions)
  Grenada
  Grenada
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  South Africa
  South Africa
NATIONAL FINANCE
  House of Lords (Members' Fares and Allowances)
  House of Lords (Members' Fares and Allowances)
  Civil Service (Industrial Dispute)
  Civil Service (Industrial Dispute)
  Paye
  Paye
  British Petroleum
  British Petroleum
  Tools and Industrial Clothing (Allowances)
  Tools and Industrial Clothing (Allowances)
  Public Bodies (Members' Fees and Expenses)
  Public Bodies (Members' Fees and Expenses)
  Child Allowances
  Child Allowances
DEFENCE
  Recruitment (Review)
  Recruitment (Review)
  Low-flying Aircraft (Carnforth)
  Low-flying Aircraft (Carnforth)
  NATO Aircraft (Parachute Operations)
  NATO Aircraft (Parachute Operations)
  Service Hospitals (Bed Occupancy Rate)
  Service Hospitals (Bed Occupancy Rate)
  Forces Pay
  Forces Pay
  BAOR
  BAOR
ENERGY
  BNOC
  BNOC
  Electricity Supply (Farms)
  Electricity Supply (Farms)
  Coal-burning Gas Turbine Locomotive
  Coal-burning Gas Turbine Locomotive
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
SCOTLAND
  House Building
  House Building
  Disabled Persons (Employment Quota)
  Disabled Persons (Employment Quota)
  Nursery Education Building
  Nursery Education Building
  Capital Transfer Tax (Works of Art)
  Capital Transfer Tax (Works of Art)
  Scottish Grand Committee
  Scottish Grand Committee
  Births (Forth Valley)
  Births (Forth Valley)
  Unemployed Persons (Social and Health Problems)
  Unemployed Persons (Social and Health Problems)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Terrorism (Arrests and Detentions)
  Terrorism (Arrests and Detentions)
  Colleges of Education (Staff)
  Colleges of Education (Staff)
  Students (Emergency Training Courses)
  Students (Emergency Training Courses)
  Chiropody (Training)
  Chiropody (Training)
  Peterhead Prison
  Peterhead Prison
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Correspondence (Members of Parliament)
  Correspondence (Members of Parliament)
  Schools (Use of Youth Hostels)
  Schools (Use of Youth Hostels)
  Fish Landings (Value)
  Fish Landings (Value)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Bypasses
  Bypasses
  Road Maintenance (Cost)
  Road Maintenance (Cost)
  Handicapped Students (Facilities)
  Handicapped Students (Facilities)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Public Services (Abuses)
  Public Services (Abuses)
  North Sea Gas Supply
  North Sea Gas Supply
  Civil Service (Staff Absences)
  Civil Service (Staff Absences)
  Moneylenders Act 1933
  Moneylenders Act 1933
  Street Lighting, Belfast (Cost)
  Street Lighting, Belfast (Cost)
  Belfast Harbour Board
  Belfast Harbour Board
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Bennett Report
  Bennett Report
  Benefits (Deductions)
  Benefits (Deductions)
  Arts Council
  Arts Council
  Industrial Estates (Ground Rents)
  Industrial Estates (Ground Rents)
  Fair Employment
  Fair Employment
  Industrial Training Centre, West Belfast
  Industrial Training Centre, West Belfast
  Rents
  Rents

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

VIENNA CONFERENCE: EAST-WEST CO-OPERATION
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made at the Vienna conference on East-West co-operation in trade, energy, science and technology.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, discussions were held at the Vienna conference on all the topics to which my noble friend has referred and on the environment. No decisions of substance were taken on East-West co-operation in any of these individual areas, but the conference agreed that a permanent body should be established in Vienna to co-ordinate future activities within the existing framework.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I welcome the last part of that Answer. However, has any agreement been reached regarding the linking of electrical power stations across the borders and the pooling of energy reserves? Would not that go far to realise the core of the Helsinki Act which saw economic co-operation as the basis for disarmament and peace?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I do not have the detailed knowledge for which my noble friend has asked, but I absolutely agree with him that the Helsinki Final Act acknowledges that the Economic Commission for Europe is the proper place for these discussions to take place. We all know how deeply important it is that we should get a world consensus on our energy problems.

FISH FARMING: POLICY REVIEW
2.38 p.m.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to redress the disabilities from which fish farmers suffer, as set out in the report issued last summer.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Government's review of their policy towards fish farming is continuing, and full account is being taken in that review of the report by the National Farmers' Unions of England and Wales and Scotland.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, I am glad to hear that discussions are continuing. However, as I said yesterday, what we really need is action of some kind, especially regarding co-operation between the Waterways Authority and fish farming which at present are in a certain amount of disagreement. Fish farming is one of our first lines of defence in the sense of producing food, and it really is important that the Waterways Authority and fish farmers get on together.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, this is one of the issues which are being discussed. The issues are complex. It took the National Farmers' Union some 18 months to reach its conclusion. However, good progress has been made in considering the report. The National Farmers' Union—unlike the noble Baroness—accepts that it takes time.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, may we know what progress has been made?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I must ask the noble Baroness to await the Government's Statement.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us more precise reasons as to why the Government have not proceeded with a fish farming Bill in the current Session? Is he aware that in this

1463
House it has already been demonstrated that throughout all the parties there is a desire to see such a Bill put through, that it would be received with acclamation and that in another place all parties are in general agreement about such a Bill?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I cannot prejudge the outcome of our consideration. However, we are doubtful whether a single measure would be appropriate for all the various proposals; for example, taxation matters would be more appropriate for a Finance Bill.

BRITISH ROAD SERVICES AND THE TACHOGRAPH
2.41 p.m.
Lord REIGATE: 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 British Road Services were among the employers referred to by Baroness Stedman as being "against both the installation and use of the tachograph" (Official Report, 8th March, col. 297).
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Stedman): My Lords, the words which the noble Lord quotes represent the position in recent years of the main employers' organisations, rather than the attitude of individual employers. The National Freight Corporation, of which British Road Services is a subsidiary, said in their evidence to the Foster Committee on road haulage operators' licensing that they, as a responsible employer, would welcome the introduction of the tachograph, as a contribution to effective enforcement of the operators' licensing system.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, while I, for once in a way, sincerely thank the noble Baroness for that Answer, can she say how many tachographs BRS have themselves installed and what percentage are actually operating?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, no, I cannot say how many have been installed
1464
or how many are operating. My understanding is that the new lorries, which are being supplied to all the operators, have the tachograph as part of their normal equipment. It is only taken out at the request of the person who is buying the lorry, if he does not want it. Any lorries which carry out trade on the Continent must have a tachograph because they have to abide by the rules and regulations of other European countries. In some cases the tachograph is being used voluntarily in this country.

OIL POLLUTION OF NORTH SEA
2.43 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what further actions they have taken since the debate on 19th March, in concert with local authorities and industry, to put a stop to pollution of the North Sea by the deliberate release of tankers' ballast.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, as I informed your Lordships in the debate on 19th March, we have asked for a report by the end of the month on the efficacy of the measures already introduced to deter the unnecessary and unlawful discharge of oily ballast water by some tankers coming to load crude oil at the Sullom Voe terminal. We have additionally asked the Nature Conservancy Council to monitor, and report on, oil pollution damage in the area to wildlife and the beaches. We shall consider whether there is a need for any further action in the light of those reports.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Are the Government using aircraft, including the RAF, for monitoring and policing? In particular, are the Government using, or considering the possibility of using, infra-red equipment installed on aircraft which can detect rogue tankers at night when perpetrating ballast offences? I understand that that has been successfully used by the United States Coastguard, and acts as a deterrent.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, yes. As I said in the debate, tankers en route to Sullom Voe are now being required to advise the terminal of their exact position and route when north of latitude 58° 20' North. Aerial surveillance over the route is being maintained, and the Warren Springs Laboratory is developing an all-weather 24-hour per day airborne capability to detect oil on the sea using a combination of infra-red sensors and radar.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, although recognising what a nuisance this pollution can be, is my noble friend not aware that these ships—whether they be tankers or some other vessels—must release their ballast somewhere? If they release their ballast a long way from their destination, it could create very awkward consequences, because it may affect the navigation of the vessel. Is my noble friend aware of that? Ought not this matter to be taken up with the General Council of Shipping and its international counterpart in order to see whether or not some arrangement can be reached? There are technical difficulties which must be understood.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, this, of course, is what we have been working on for several months; in fact, for several years. The problems, to which my noble friend has drawn attention, are covered by international law. At Sullom Voe we are awaiting a water-reception facility, which will be in use by the summer. However, the absence of those facilities does not justify discharging oily ballast at sea. It is perfectly possible to avoid that by proper operating procedures.
As I said in the debate last week, the international oil companies and BNOC are considering invoking sanctions against individual ships' masters who will not co-operate. I would point out that the penalties are very high and the Government will not hesitate to prosecute. There is a penalty of £50,000 on the owner or the master on summary conviction, and an unlimited fine when convicted on indictment.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord add to the previous information which he gave the House and tell us when the studies at the Warren Springs Laboratory will be com-
1466
pleted? In the meantime would it not be useful if we borrowed some of the equipment being used by the United States Coastguard while waiting for our own to be made ready?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, very full contingency plans for operation at Sullom Voe exist, and this is not the occasion to go into them. I would remind the House that the pollution at the end of December was the result of an accident to the "Esso Bernicia" and not a result of discharging oil at sea.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say when the equipment, of which he spoke earlier, will be available?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, not without notice.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, can the Minister say whether or not this matter is being urgently considered by the Law of the Sea Conference, which is now in session?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords, it is. As I said in the debate, we are considering with that Conference an Informal Composite Negotiating Text which would authorise any State to prosecute foreign ships for discharges in contravention of applicable international discharge standards on the high seas. Furthermore, the question of a 12-mile limit is one of the factors being weighed by Ministers in their current consideration of the problem. In answer to both my noble friends, I would say that the Government take this very seriously.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, is it not the case that we do not have to go quite as far as the United States for experience? Are not the French using aircraft surveillance with infra-red equipment? Are we co-operating with the French in using this equipment, particularly in the English Channel?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think that that is a different question, but there is very close international co-operation over all these matters, and there is an improved routeing scheme which is at present being formulated to ensure that

1467
tankers are kept as far away from the shore as possible.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, in relation to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, did it not emerge from our debate last week, first, that it is important that the oil should continue to flow through Sullom Voe?—because about half the oil from the British sector is likely to pass through that terminal within a year or two. Secondly, if the amount of pollution around the shores of the North of Scotland, Orkney and Shetland becomes much worse than it is now, there will be a public outcry for the closure of that terminal.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I agree. We are doing our utmost to ensure that there will be no pollution in future so that the terminal does not have to close.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether or not equipment exists which ships could fit which will effectively separate the oil from the water, and then the water can be freely discharged?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, that will be done at the terminal when the installation is ready.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is not the main trouble that discharging oily water ballast at sea is extremely cheap, whereas getting rid of it by pumping it into barges or shore facilities is comparatively expensive? Would not the easiest way to get rid of this nuisance be to make it cheaper and easier to discharge it on shore, possibly by subsidy, and possibly by taking some standard sum from oil tanker owners to balance up the expense?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure that that is something that will be considered. As I said earlier, the international oil companies are considering invoking sanctions against tanker owners who go in for this disgusting practice.

EEC COUNCIL OF MINISTERS: APRIL BUSINESS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, a Statement is
1468
being made in another place today about business to be taken in the EEC Council of Ministers during April. I shall, as usual with the leave of the House, arrange for this to be made available in the Official Report.
Following is the Statement referred to:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement about the main business to be taken by Ministers of the European Community during April. The more detailed written forecast was deposited yesterday. At present five meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for April.
"A oint Foreign Affairs and Finance Council will meet on the 2nd and will consider two Commission discussion papers, first Financing the Community Budget—The Way Ahead and secondly A Global Appraisal of the Budgetary Problems of the Community.
"The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on the 2nd and 3rd and will discuss the relaunching of the EEC/Turkey Association Agreement; relations with Yugoslavia; and preparations for UNCTAD V. Ministers will also review the position reached in the GATT Multilateral Trade Negotiations and will discuss negotiations with China for an agreement over trade in textiles. The Council will prepare for the next and possibly final meeting at ministerial level of the Greek accession negotiations, which will take place immediately after the Council, and will again consider revised Commission proposals concerning specific aids given by member States to the Steel Industry.
"The Environment Council will meet on the 9th for a general exchange of views on environment policy which is expected to include discussion of Commission papers on waste management, clean technologies, guidelines for the assessment of the possible impact on the environment of any proposed building or construction work, and European Conventions on the quality of life.
"The Agriculture Council will meet on the 9th and 10th to continue discussion of the 1979/80 CAP price proposals.
"A Finance (or special Fiscal) Council may meet on the 23rd to resume discussion of interest rate subsidies to be paid to the less prosperous members of the EMS exchange rate mechanism, and may also consider the harmonisation of excise duty on alcoholic beverages and the three draft Directives concerned with VAT."

ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL AREAS BILL [H.L.]
2.52 p.m.
Bill read 3a with the Amendments.
Clause 42 [Restrictions on use of metal detectors]:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 1:

1469
Page 39, line 23, leave out from ("is") to ("situated") in line 24 and insert ("either—
(a) the site of a scheduled monument or of any monument under the ownership or guardianship of the Secretary of State or a local authority by virtue of this Act; or
(b)")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 1 to 8 together. The purpose of this group of Amendments is quite simply to remove an unnecessary distinction. As at present drafted the basic offence of using a metal detector without consent applies equally to "protected monuments" (that is to say, scheduled monuments and monuments under the ownership or guardianship of the Secretary of State or a local authority by virtue of the Bill) and to designated areas of archaeological importance; but the secondary offence of removing an object of archaeological or historic interest discovered by using a metal detector applies only to those protected monuments. This apparent anomaly arose from a reluctance on our part to create new offences without clear justification. During the drafting of this Bill we have had increasing evidence that an irresponsible element among metal detector users deliberately ignore their own code of conduct and its instruction not to interfere with archaeological sites.
Just as the scheduling of a monument has attracted treasure hunters in the past so, I fear, will the designation of areas of archaeological importance act as a beacon in the future. These areas are designed to allow archaeological excavation before development and there is a real danger that treasure hunters will descend upon such sites in mid-excavation when finds may be easily located. Indeed this is already a growing hazard in archaeological excavations. My Lords, it is the Government's duty to do what they can to prevent such vandalism and to ensure that archaeological areas do not become a treasure-hunter's paradise. Designation of an area is not, of course, designed primarily to prohibit the hobby of metal-detecting; it is designed to enable the archaeology of important areas to be professionally investigated and recorded. Amateur metal-detecting works directly against this end. The Government have therefore decided that the offence of
1470
removal of objects by this means should apply in these areas as it will on the sites of protected monuments. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the Government for having introduced these Amendments. They go a certain way to ameliorating the situation about which we were all rather afraid. We all know that there are dangers, as the noble Baroness has said. I should have liked—possibly she might also, but I cannot speak for her —to see it go further in giving protection from these metal detectors in irresponsible hands. Putting these metal detectors into the hands of some people is like putting a dodgem in the hands of a child on a motorway. I have heard from the noble Baroness at very full length—and I am grateful—as to why the Government feel that it is hard to go further than they have gone. I understand that it is fraught with difficulty of a legal kind. So far as they have gone, I am most grateful.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 8:
Page 39, line 29, leave out from beginning to ("he") and insert ("in a protected place")
Page 39, line 41, leave out from ("detector") to ("in") in line 42 and insert ("in a protected place")
Page 40, line 7, leave out ("either")
Page 40, line 10, leave out from ("interest") to end of line 13.
Page 40, line 14, after ("subsection") insert ("(1) or")
Page 40, line 17, leave out ("the site of a protected monument") and insert ("a protected place")
Page 40, line 19, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 2 to 8 en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
An Amendment (privilege) made.
2.57 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In doing so, I should like briefly to thank noble Lords for their informed and constructive comments, not only in this House but also in correspondence. I trust that my replies here and my letters have not only clarified much of the thinking behind the provisions but have

1471
also given reassurance where necessary. I am also gratified by the warm welcome which the House has given to this long-awaited measure.
Past experience indicates that the opportunity for such major legislation about our archaeological heritage comes only about once in a generation. It is therefore probable that this Bill will have to serve as the legislative framework at least until the end of this century. I believe we have produced a measure that will serve that purpose well because it makes adequate provision for preservation or recording in the face of inevitably increasing threats for our heritage without imposing impossible and unreasonable burdens on developers and others. I am very grateful to noble Lords for their help in improving the Bill and in getting it through. I hope it may have an equally safe and speedy passage in another place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (Baroness Stedman.)
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, we have been very lucky in the Government having a Minister in the form of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, to move this Bill. She has done it with great tact and ability. There have been many fears from the mineral operators and people in cities, developers, about the effects of this Bill. We are at one with the Government in their intent to preserve what is best of the past for future generations' information. Archaeology is this. We want to preserve ancient monuments intact.
This Bill has consolidated a lot of previous small Bills which have never been effective because they have been so disjointed and people did not know the law sufficiently about any one point. The way the Government have gone about the archaeology areas Bill has been very satisfactory, certainly from the archaeological areas' point of view. I think that the mineral operators ought to be satisfied with the protections and, above all, the assurances that the Minister has given from that Dispatch Box.
There are one or two small matters that have come to my notice since. One or two county councils have expressed worry lest, with the increasing enthusiasm
1472
for archaeology, small splinter amateur archaeology groups can spring up in areas where there are already well established archaeological groups. Sometimes these small groups are able to go to the noble Baroness's Department of the Environment and collect grants, although not of enormous sums, I agree. One county mentioned that a small splinter group had received a sum of some £30,000 and was being slightly a pain in the neck of the established archaeological group. The one county I am thinking of, in particular, suggested that it might be better if the Department were able to consider with the council concerned and possibly disburse their charity to these bodies, their benevolence, through the local authorities. The latter would have advance information of motor planning or town planning and therefore would be able to channel the funds to areas where they would be more useful to the community because the matter would not have to be dealt with in such a hurry. That is not a big point, but I wish to mention it at this stage so as to bring it to the notice of the Government.
We have been particularly lucky with the Bill, in that all the complainants—be they the farming community, the landowning community, the CBI, mineral owners or mineral workers—have at the end of the day, so far as I am aware, all expressed themselves as satisfied with the way the Government have expressed their intention to proceed and operate the Bill, and to that extent the Government are to be congratulated. The noble Baroness has been the catalyst of the Bill for the Government and I congratulate her sincerely. So far as we can see from these Benches, it should prove a useful measure. If experience shows otherwise, whatever Government may be in power, it can be altered, but I agree with the Minister that this will be the definitive measure for some time to come.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, gave me notice that he would be raising the particular point he has asked about. I have had a short time to make some inquiries about it and I hope I may be able to satisfy him on that point. The body he referred to is the rescue unit which has for many years carried out rescue investigations in Kent. It has its own

1473
archaeological trust, and it is known as the Kent Archaeological Rescue Unit. The noble Lord is right in saying that the Department provides the bulk of its funds, and £30,000 has been allocated for 1979–80. That covers four projects of which three are in the post-excavation stage.
We certainly do not support splinter groups, and the Kent Archaeological Society is anything but a splinter group. Fortunately, many county councils are taking an increasingly active interest in archaeology. The Department and, I am sure, noble Lords, welcome that. Kent County Council are, we understand, considering the appointment of an archaeological officer, and that too is to be welcomed. We cannot understand why the continued support by the Department of a long-established rescue unit should be a matter of difficulty for the county council at this time. We understand that the unit has applied to Kent County Council for help and we understand too that it has perhaps not disclosed the amount it has received from the Department. If so, the unit has been remiss and we deplore that action on its part. However, there is no secret about our grants. We shall be happy to supply to Kent County Council any details of grants we have given to this organisation or others in their county if they care to approach us.
If the noble Lord has other particular points in mind and will write to me, I will go into them at greater detail. It is clear that this is a matter of administration, not something arising directly from the provisions of the Bill, which I hope may now pass.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

NURSES, MIDWIVES AND HEALTH VISITORS BILL
3.4 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Constitution of Central Council]:
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and SOCIAL SECURITY (Lord Wells-Pestell)The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and SOCIAL
1474
SECURITY (Lord Wells-Pestell) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 4, leave out from ("midwives") to end of line 5 and insert ("health visitors or registered medical practitioners, or have such qualification and experience in education").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. These Amendments have been brought forward to meet points raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, when he was supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Lord Smith sought to clarify the position of doctors on the new bodies and he wished it to be put beyond doubt that persons with "qualifications and experience in medicine" would be called "registered medical practitioners"; he thought that that would be better phraseology. Lord Smith made the point that there had always been a special relationship between members of the medical profession and nurses, and that doctors had for a long time been referred to as registered medical practitioners. Having looked at the matter, the Government have come to the conclusion that this would be reasonable and as a result the Amendment is introduced. It will necessitate a change in two other places in the Bill, as represented by Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. I believe this will serve to make the position absolutely clear and remove any doubt. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, subject to anything the noble Lord, Lord Smith, may say, I wish to point out from these Benches that we are glad the Government have seen fit to bring forward these Amendments. They meet what I felt to be a weakness in the Bill, in that what was meant by "medically qualified" was never either defined in a definition clause or set out in detail in Clause 1. It seemed necessary that the intention behind the Bill—that the council should include such persons as were clearly meant to be registered medical practitioners—should be clearly stated. I do not know whether what is proposed will meet Lord Smith's complete point, because there is still no guarantee that such a person would be put on the council, but at least it shows that where someone is representing the medical profession, that person will be a registered medical practitioner. I feel this is a major

1475
advance on the Bill as we saw it in Committee and we should be happy to accept the Amendment.
Lord SMITH: I am glad to support the Amendment, my Lords. Until today I had some major anxieties about the Bill and it was apparent when the Bill was discussed in Committee that a number of noble Lords were unhappy too and shared my opinion that there was a flaw, that it should be corrected before the measure was finally passed and that the Bill should give some guidance in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, earlier referred to as the key relationship between the medical profession and the nursing profession. In its original form, the Bill did not do so.
In relation to the Central Council, to take an example, the unique help which the medical profession has always given to the nursing profession—it does now and must surely continue to do so in the future—should not be left to the imagination by referring merely to those who,
"have such qualifications and experience in education, medicine or other fields as … will be of value".
That was felt by many to be a somewhat perfunctory reference to medicine, lumping it together, as it were, with anything that might come in handy.
It was not merely that the medical profession was taking umbrage over the fact that its willingness to continue helping the nursing profession should be dismissed in a somewhat cavalier fashion. The medical profession certainly should not seek—and I believe does not seek—any privileged position. As I said to your Lordships on an earlier occasion, to me the only group deserving of privilege is the patients. As the Bill left the position it was possible to comply with the letter of the Bill; to set up, for instance, the Central Council with the Secretary of State's appointments filled by educationalists and those experienced in other fields, without having any doctors at all on the committees. If anyone quarrelled with that, I suppose that under the wording it would have been possible to appoint a couple of vets and to say, "This is veterinary medicine, which is a branch of medicine." Surely it is better that there should be no ambiguity here, and if registered medical practitioners is what is meant, surely the Bill should say so.
1476
Since the Committee stage I have spoken several times with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and he has been good enough to write to me two long and detailed letters on the matter. I wish to thank him warmly for those letters and to say how much I have appreciated throughout this matter his courtesy, consideration and understanding in relation to the point that I was trying to make. I now believe that any difference between us has disappeared. The suggested change in the wording is not merely a change in description. I believe that it will achieve precisely what I have been trying to achieve. It provides guidance, not dictation. It makes clear that the help that the medical profession should give to the nursing profession is distinct from the links between the nursing profession and other disciplines, and it makes it plain by implication that the preservation of this is important if the changes in the education of the various branches of the nursing profession are to succeed.
Personally I experience no pain whatsoever in withdrawing an earlier suggestion that the way to solve the matter would be for the Bill to lay down in advance the precise number of doctors to serve on the various committees: four here, three there, and so on. After all, it is the quality of the advice, not the volume, that matters. I believe that the co-operative approach and the new suggested Amendment make my own Amendment to Clause 1 unnecessary, and so in supporting the Amendment I wish to point out that if the House decides to pass it, I shall not take up time by moving my own Amendment.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, it ought to be acknowledged that the Amendment is a great improvement to the original Bill, and I hope that all sides of the House will feel that it is the result of most careful and sympathetic consideration on the part of the Government; and as such we all ought to welcome it. The new wording is so wide that where it refers to having:
"such qualification and experience in education"
it might also be extended to cover even unregistered practitioners, such as osteopaths, chiropractors, and other so-called practitioners. This is a matter on which many of us would have rather severe reservations, and I take it from my noble

1477
friend that such people as I have mentioned are not totally excluded from the Bill.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with the leave of the House I wish to point out that at the Committee stage I made it perfectly clear that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who will be responsible for nominating people for membership of the Central Council and the boards, has always had every intention of appointing people from the medical profession, now to be referred to in the Bill as "registered medical practitioners". We ought to bear in mind that when the time comes to make the appointments, the Secretary of State (whoever he or she may be) is unlikely to appoint to a body of this kind, people who may not be acceptable to the nurses, midwives, health visitors, and medical profession generally.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Standing committees of Council]:
3.16 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, leave out line 10.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4 I wish, with your Lordships' permission, to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 8. As your Lordships will see, the first Amendment is a paving Amendment. The Amendments are intended to meet the commitment I gave during Committee to bring forward Government Amendments, after consultation with the draftsman, to clarify the position of any district nursing committee. Your Lordships will recall that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, introduced Amendments for this purpose in Committee, and I was able to accept them in principle, though I could not accept them as they then stood.
The effect of the present Amendments is to put beyond doubt the problem of district nursing by making it clear that any committee established for district nursing—and Ministers have already promised that there will be such a com-
1478
mittee—will be a joint committee; that is, one serving both the new Central Council and the national boards. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will feel that we have honoured the commitment and that she will accept the Amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, once again I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell—this time for bringing forward the two Amendments. As the noble Lord rightly said, we debated this matter at the Committee stage, when he undertook that if I withdrew my Amendments he would bring forward Amendments on Report. This matter has been of very great concern to district nurses, and I believe that the two Amendments now before us entirely meet their point; and we are most grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [The Midwifery Committee]:
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 28, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) The Council shall assign to the Committee all matters relating to midwifery practice; and the Committee shall—

(a) consider any matter so assigned and report on it to the Council;

(b) where it thinks fit, include in the report recommendations for the making or amendment of rules concerning midwifery practice; and

(c) before reporting to the Council, consult the Midwifery Committee of each of the National Boards.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we are concerned here with yet another matter which we discussed at length at the Committee stage, when the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, assured me that this was a question about which he felt concerned. I should like to remind your Lordships briefly of the history of the matter. When the Bill was originally published the position of the Midwifery Committee had not been considered, and a provision which came to be known as Clause 4 was inserted in the Bill during the Committee stage in another place. On Report the Government moved an Amendment to delete a subsection of the clause. This has caused great concern to the midwives because they now

1479
feel that their position under the Bill is weaker than that afforded to the health visitors and, subsequently, to the district nurses. The midwives feel that there should be a sense of parity between the three groups.
I wish to refer your Lordships to the point at issue. We are concerned that under Clause 4(3) the Midwifery Committee has power only either to amend or to revoke the rules referred to in Clause 15, while Clause 8 provides for the health visitors to be consulted on a whole range of other matters. When I raised this matter in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said—and I refer to column 534 of the Official Report of 13th March:
"This is an argument which I think it is on the face of it difficult to resist. I do not think there is need for me to say anything more, and I hope I have given a satisfactory answer …".
Subsequently, the noble Lord has written me a very long letter on this point, for which, I may say, I am very grateful, but, on reading the letter very carefully, I am not at all sure that it meets the point of the midwives. The letter does not discuss their point, which is that they believe their committee is weaker than that of the district nurses. It merely says that it is a constitutional distinction, and that the committee on the midwives is the only one to be consulted, whereas the district nurses and the health visitors, in their turn, have to consult a number of boards before they can make a report to the full council. It seems to me, therefore, that the letter, although making a perfectly valid point, does not really meet the objective of the Amendment that, with my noble friends, I have put down, nor indeed the very real fears of the midwives.
I believe that we ought not to let this Bill go until we have had an opportunity to hear further from the Government on this matter, because I think it would be unfortunate if at this late stage one party to this Bill felt aggrieved that it was being singled out for treatment somewhat inferior to that meted out to the other sections, the nurses and the health visitors. So it is really on the point of principle, rather than on the constitutional point, that I have put this Amendment down again on Report. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has made perfectly clear, we in Government have given a great deal of consideration to this. As she quite rightly points out, I wrote her a very long letter—longer than I wanted it to be, quite honestly—because I felt it was essential that one covered the situation almost word for word. Since then I have been able to have further discussions with my advisers, and at the same time we have consulted legal draftsmen on this, and what I want to say to your Lordships is this. I am advised, and am almost convinced—not having any great legal knowledge at all, I say "almost convinced"—that the wording in the Bill itself is preferable. Two crucial issues are at stake here: the definition of midwifery practice and the lines of communication between the various midwifery committees. It is important to look very carefully at these two points in order to understand why the original wording of this subsection was modified at a later stage during the Bill's passage through another place; because this clause was first introduced in Committee in another place (where, I think the noble Baroness will agree, they gave it a good deal of consideration) and it was felt that any other wording was much more likely to lead to confusion than the wording in the present Bill.
When one comes to think of midwifery practice, this phrase has quite a distinct meaning. It relates to the definition of those tasks and clinical procedures which a midwife can undertake. It does not—and it is important to realise this—mean midwifery training or education, nor the regulation of the profession. It is, in fact, a fairly narrow field, but one vital to the protection of the public. So the midwifery committee which is going to consider midwifery practice will be considering something which is in itself very clearly defined and very limited. As I say, it is important to realise that it does not mean midwifery training or education, nor the regulation of the profession.
If one looks at what functions the Central Council will have in relation to practice, it becomes clear that these are limited to the making of rules on practice under Clause 15, which sets it out very clearly. Supervision of practice is a matter for the council supervising authorities under Clause 16, and the responsi-

1481
bility for giving guidance to supervising authorities rests with national boards, as stated in Clause 16(4). Thus, the Central Council's remit in this narrow field is itself narrow. It was therefore thought desirable, in order to avoid any potential misunderstanding and confusion of the remit of the council and boards, to redefine in more accurate terms what it is that the council can assign to its midwifery committee in relation to midwifery practice. As I have already stated, all it can assign are matters relating to making rules. Thus, the wording of the Bill is in substance identical with that of the Amendment as far as the preamble to Clause 4(3) is concerned, with this important difference: that the wording of the Bill is clearer, and eliminates—I say this with great respect—the possibility of confusion. I think everyone, including the noble Baroness, would feel that this is of supreme importance in a Bill.
May I say just a word or two about the lines of communication. I am sorry to take so much time, but I accept what the noble Baroness says: this is an important matter, and we must get it right. This was a point which was discussed in Committee, when it was explained that the present wording of the Bill again represents a clarification of what was originally introduced. It would be quite wrong for a subordinate committee of one body, which is precisely what the council's midwifery committee is, to have a formal relationship with a subordinate committee of another body; namely, the midwifery committees of the national boards, because the Central Council is going to have a widwifery committee and each of the four boards is going to have a midwifery committee. The parent bodies carry the ultimate responsibility for what is done, and must therefore have a general oversight of what their committees are doing; otherwise, there is a danger that their authority will be undermined and that they will not be carrying out their statutory duties responsibly when it comes to formal consultation. It must, therefore, as a matter of good constitutional practice, be conducted between one parent body and another; that is, between the council and the boards.
As I have said, each of the four boards and the council has a midwifery committee; the midwifery committee of each of the boards will report to its respective
1482
board, and the midwifery committee of the Central Council will report to the Central Council. It is that kind of communication which I think is likely to be considerably upset if your Lordships adopt the Amendment which is before the House. But, as I said to your Lordships in Committee, this does not preclude informal links, and one must look, not only at what is in Clause 4 but also at what is in Clause 7(4), which requires national boards to seek the views of their midwifery committees when consulted on matters relating to the rules of midwifery practice. Thus, there is a channel for the national boards' committees to voice their views; but it is one of more constitutional propriety than that first incorporated into the Bill.
I feel, therefore, that to accept the Amendment would be a retrograde step leading to potential misunderstanding. I am sure that that is something we all want to avoid. I know that some midwifery bodies prefer the earlier wording —but not all of them. I want to suggest to the noble Baroness that she really is not speaking for midwives as a whole. She is certainly not speaking for the midwives in Scotland. I have personally received a letter from them saying that they want the Bill left as it is. That is the view of the midwives in Northern Ireland. The midwives of Wales have not found it necessary to express a view one way or the other.
If this provision is to be changed, then we ought to be absolutely certain that what is being done is being done at the request of the midwives as a whole. I ask the noble Baroness to think about this. I know that she has done so and will do so again, but really she is not speaking for the midwives as a whole. I do not think your Lordships should accept an Amendment unless you could be given that assurance.
3.32 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, the noble Lord has given what I call a purist, almost legalistic, answer to my noble friend; and I suppose one ought to be purist and legalistic when one is putting legislation on the Statute Book, in order that there shall be no misunderstanding. Nowadays, however, particularly in this field, I do not think that the

1483
Government ought to ignore the general atmosphere surrounding this matter, the general social conditions and the maintaining of the co-operation of all sections of this great service. I could not help feeling in his very persuasive speech that the noble Lord went a long way towards agreeing with my noble friend. I think there is no question of challenging what it is. He used the word "challenge". I think that what my noble friend would ask him to consider—and it could be done on Third Reading because we can move Amendments in this House at that time —is this. Is there no way of finding words which do not go so far as this Amendment but which reflect the concern that my noble friend has said exists in an important quarter and which the noble Lord himself admitted is there?
The fact of his admitting it was demonstrated by his persuasive suggestion that there will, in any case, be informal contact to do what this Amendment is designed to do. He is recognising the need to have informal contacts, the need for some sort of contact. I should have thought that, if there were some way of introducing into the Bill words which reflect the advance that the noble Lord has made towards my noble friend's Amendment, it would be helpful. I admire his legalistic and purist approach. There is nothing wrong with that; but the wider atmosphere ought to be taken into account. I would ask him, even at this late stage, whether he could not give my noble friend some assurance that he will look at the point again to discover whether some words can be found to be written into the clause which will meet the halfway agreement that seems to have been reached—rather than standing rigidly and using words like "ought not to be challenged".
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has just put forward a plea for what seems to me to be the formalisation of the informal. He has suggested that the informal discussions described by my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell would take place and therefore he asks: "Why not put it, in a formal way, into the Bill?" But it would appear that this really strikes at the heart of all informal discussions. If you have informal dis-
1484
cussions, then they are much easier and freer than formal discussions. I should have thought, after listening to my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, that the argument was rather strong for not having a further step of formal consultation.
The new structure which is proposed here does mean that there will be proper discussion all the way through. It means that when, in the end, the committee makes its proposal to the council, the council is bound to take into account the views of the national boards on which are represented the various midwives' associations. Consequently, one has all the channels of proper consultation. But I should have thought that it was the experience of most of us that the more formal channels we introduce, the more delay occurs and the more difficulties arise—because, somewhere or other, someone who has had already his or her opportunity to make a case will cone up through this new channel and re-make the case and will perhaps be able to delay proceedings still further.
My Lords, after reading the Bill—and I do not claim to be in the slightest degree an expert; but I have taken the trouble to look at the Bill—it seems to me that the Bill provides all methods of sensible communication. In fact, I should have thought that the risk may be that it has already too many channels of communication. To bring in one more channel would merely tend to make the whole proposed machinery very cumbersome—not unworkable; no machinery is ever unworkable unless people refuse to make it work. But the machinery can be troublesome and the introduction of any fresh stage into what is already a fairly complicated procedure would be undesirable.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, with the leave of the House, if I may reply to noble Lords who have spoken and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, I am grateful for that lengthy explanation on this Amendment. On this constitutional point he has made it much clearer that if Clause 4 (which deals with the midwifery committee) is concerned only with midwifery practice, then one can see that the way Clause 4 has been drafted is much clearer than was the original drafting of this clause and which

1485
my Amendment would put back into the Bill. That I absolutely accept. But what he said to me that is extremely important—and which I accept that I had not fully understood before—was that this clause is concerned only with midwifery practice. I had thought that the midwifery committee was a committee designed to look after midwives and, in particular, their education and their training. But the noble Lord has made it clear that they are not to be consulted about education or training—which, I would remind the House, is, in fact, the purpose of the Bill. It seems to me that we have clarified a point which has not come out before.
On the point about who is satisfied, I accept that some of the midwives are satisfied; and I am very pleased that that should be the case. I am not, at this particular moment, speaking on behalf of all midwives, but I can say that I have had about 30 letters on the subject all of which are from groups of midwives who are dissatisfied with the Bill as it now stands. In view of the fact that there seems to have been certainly a basic misunderstanding about this point, which I believe is a matter of principle, I would be prepared to withdraw my Amendment and to consult further, with the idea of bringing forward (if I thought it necessary and in consultation with my noble friends) a further Amendment at Third Reading. I think it is very important to get this right. What I should like to say to the Government, because I think it is important, is that the real fear of midwives that they are not going to be consulted about their education and training should be met. We ought to have an appropriate way to do this or an assurance that this is going to take place. In those circumstances, I would withdraw this Amendment, seek further consultations and possibly come back with an Amendment at Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.40 p.m.
Clause 5 [Constitution of National Boards]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 33, leave out ("or health visitors") and insert ("health visitors or registered medical practitioners").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment when moving Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 35, leave out ("medicine").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment when moving Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Joint committees of Council and Boards]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 7, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) There may in particular be constituted under subsection (4) a joint committee to be concerned with district nursing.").
The noble Lord said: My Lord, Is spoke to this Amendment when moving Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [The professional register]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 8, line 35, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
("(8) Orders under subsection (2) may, by reference to the part or parts in which a person is registered, prescribe the more advanced qualifications which he must have in order to be treated as a qualified nurse for the purposes of any particular enactment or instrument.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 9, with your Lordships' permission I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. The effect of these Amendments is to remove from the Bill the expression "fully qualified nurse" which gave rise to considerable debate in another place, and to replace it by "qualified nurse", the term which, after full consideration of many alternatives, was adjudged to be the most suitable, and which I gather will not give offence to the nursing profession.
Perhaps I could explain briefly what the problem is, why we need an expression of

1487
this kind at all, and why the one selected for the Bill as drafted met with such opposition. For certain purposes, for example, the Medicines Act 1968, there are certain functions—in that case the custody of drugs—which can only be carried out by a registered nurse; that is, SRN or equivalent. But once the present Bill becomes law, all nurses, regardless of the type of training that they have had and for what purposes they had that training, will be registered nurses because they will go on a register. We have to find another term which will describe the nurse with the more advanced level of qualification. Under the Bill, as your Lordships know, all nurses, whether they are mental nurses or state registered nurses, all with different types of training at different levels, will become registered. So we can no longer use the term "state registered nurse". It is questionable whether we should have ever have used the word "state", but that is another matter.
The term selected, "fully qualified nurse", was disliked by the nursing profession because the word "fully" carried with it the implication that all other nurses were not fully qualified at their appropriate level. My right honourable friend the Minister of State, anxious to meet the desires of the nursing profession, went to great lengths to find a suitable alternative. It was not easy. Advice was taken and a number of people were consulted. The combined efforts of all concerned have resulted in this alternative being devised, and the references in the Medicines Act and other legislation mentioned in Schedule 7 will be amended from "registered nurses" to "registered and qualified nurse", it being understood that the requisite qualifications will be spelt out in orders to be made under Clause 10(8) of the Bill before your Lordships. I trust that this explanation, although a brief one, will have helped your Lordships to understand the purpose of these Amendments and that the solution will be welcomed, not only in your Lordships' House but also elsewhere. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, there was considerable discussion about this particular point in the Committee stage
1488
in another place and we on this side of the House welcome these Amendments brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. I agree with him, the use of the term "fully" applied before some kind of a qualification is open to doubt; it suggests that some nurses are not properly qualified. The word "fully" is much too loose a term when applied to a qualification. It should not be written into a Bill. Therefore these Amendments make the intention of the Bill much clearer and we are glad to support them.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, during the Committee stage of this Bill, I raised a point which seems to be germane to this Amendment. I asked what was going to happen first to the description, "state registered nurse" and, secondly, to "state enrolled nurse". It seems to me that the position of the state registered nurse will be fully covered under the new orders that are to be drafted; but what will be the position of the state enrolled nurse? Probably the difference between the two is the same as the difference between a second lieutenant and a company sergeant major. We should like to know whether anything derogatory of the state enrolled nurse is to be applied to her under the new terminology that is to be introduced. What will the state enrolled nurse be known as? She will be known as a registered nurse, as the SRN is known as a registered nurse; but what other qualifications either in brackets or subordinate to the term "registered nurse" will be used?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, one of the main purposes of this Bill is to keep a register of all nurses. Those of your Lordships who are familiar with the Briggs Report will know that it is suggested that all nurses should undergo a basic training, and that should last for 18 months. At the end of 18 months they will have been given sufficient training and competence to enable them to do a certain degree of nursing. "Certain degree" is my phrase, and is not from the Briggs Report. They will then be enabled to register as nurses. Those nurses who want to go on and take further training with a view to getting added skills will be able to do so for up to a further 18 months. Some will want to specialise perhaps in mental nursing; others in different forms of nursing.

1489
They will then be enabled to be known as a registered mental nurse or something of that kind depending upon which branch of nursing they are in. The basic training will enable persons to become nurses, but whether at the end of the 18 months' period they will be entitled to be known and registered as nurses with these added skills is doubtful. I think I am right in saying that the present state registered nurse, because she is a state registered nurse has undergone training for three years, can handle drugs and administer them under supervision. The state enrolled nurse, who has a training period of only two years, is not permitted to do that. The effect of the recommendations from the Briggs Report is that all nurses will have the basic training and then if they want to specialise in other fields they will be able to do so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Finances of Council and Boards]:
3.50 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 13, line 10, at end insert—
("(6) Where duties or functions under this Bill are carried out by a Joint Committee, finances shall be made available by the Central Council and National Board for these purposes.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to make clear within the Bill that if duties and functions are to be allocated to a joint committee by the Central Council and national board, these bodies receiving the monies, finance shall be made available to such a committee to enable these functions and duties to be carried out. To illustrate the point, I should like to quote from the Minister of State, Mr. Roland Moyle, speaking in Standing Committee B in the House of Commons on 14th December 1978 about the work of the education and training of health visitors. He said this:
"I endorse every word of my honourable friend the Member for Brent South (Mr. Pavitt) about the work which the Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors has carried out since it was created in 1962. It has been excellent work and, in fact, when I last met the health visitors I was so impressed by the work done by the staff of the Council that I said I was sure that arrangements could be made to ensure that the staff would move over in a body to the
1490
health visitors joint standing committee to carry on their good work based on their experience.
"Therefore, I yield to no one in the admiration that I express for the work of the Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors and in my support for the continued expansion of health visiting. I believe I have done enough to show that it has a very important role to play in the future Health Service".
Those are words of very high praise concerning the training and education of health visitors. Obviously, it will mean a certain amount of expenditure and finance in order to carry on the new system of training of health visitors and indeed the other training work which is required. Without the funds to do that, a joint committee would be virtually unable to function and the National Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors is rather afraid that this Bill might result in a lowering of standards in the education and training of health visitors, unless it is possible to see that the standards of training are maintained and indeed improved.
It is therefore necessary that there should be some provision to make sure that there can be a continuance of this training, and also of training in other spheres, and that it should be provided by the Central Council and the national board. I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will consider this as simply dotting the i's and crossing the t's of what really ought to happen. I hope very much he will feel he can accept this Amendment, which is purely intended to make it quite clear that the training and education of health visitors will be carried out in the best possible way under the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I should like to support what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, because this is going to entail a great deal more work for the nurses concerned. We are going to have all these committees, which I gather add up to about 80 meetings a year, and a possible attendance could be 563. I gather the average attendance is about 17·29. This is probably going to entail considerable expense to many nurses to get to these meetings. They are very independent people who have always financed themselves up to date, but with all this extra work being added they are rather nervous that they may not be able to carry on

1491
as they have done in the past, because included in the number of meetings are of course the advisory committees for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
Furthermore, I gather that many nurses may have to attend the Finance and General Purposes Committee and also the Joint Staff Consultative Committee. As I understand it, the average attendances at these meetings, for health visitors alone, on the figures that I have, is about 15·8 attendances a year. Even if these bodies meet only four times a year, this would increase the demand by 24 and that would give a minimum requirement of 39·8 meetings each year. This is speaking of attendances relating to only 26 members, speaking for health visitors. Therefore, I think it would be very advantageous if we could have some reassurance that if the expenses are very large there would be a possibility of assistance under this Bill. I am not suggesting that we should decide exactly on what they should get on this occasion, but I suggest that there should be some financial aid so that these nurses in various sections could carry out their duties as well as they wish to and as well as has been done in the past. I should like to support this Amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, what is wanted by both noble Baronesses who have just spoken is clearly set out in Clause 19. Where a joint committee carries out a function of either the board or the council, finances for those activities would be given to the committee in question by the council or the board. This is exactly, as I say, what appears in the clause itself. If your Lordships would turn to Clause 19, you will see that it deals with the finances of the council and the boards and sees that they have the resources to carry out their responsibilities. In Clause 19(4) it says this:
The Council shall reimburse the Boards in respect of expenditure incurred by them with the former's approval in so far as that expenditure is not defrayed by fees received by the Boards or funded by the Secretary of State with grants under subsection (3)".
It then goes on to say in subsection (5):
"Any sums required by the Secretary of State for making grants under subsection (3) shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament".
1492
The fact that the council or a national board decides to assign specific duties to a joint committee, or for that matter to one of their own committees, does not vitiate their ultimate responsibility for seeing that that duty is carried out. They are therefore responsible for ensuring that the committee to which they have assigned a duty has the necessary means to fulfil its obligations; otherwise they would be open to the challenge of not complying with the duties placed on them by statute.
To take a specific example, if a national board assigned to the Health Visiting Joint Committees responsibilities under Clause 6(1)(b) of ensuring that health visiting courses within that country met the standards laid down by the Central Council as to the kind and content of training—something which one would indeed expect to be assigned to a specialist committee—that national board would then have to make sure that the committee had the financial means to carry out its assignment.
One cannot put in any Bill, if I may say so with the greatest respect, words and sentences to cover every kind of expenditure. One would have then to put in about rates, rent, lighting and heating. All this is covered by the responsibility given to the boards in this case to assign certain responsibilities to their sub-committees because each board has a finance committee. The Central Council has a finance committee, and it is their job, when they assign things to other committees, to see that they have the means to carry out what is assigned to them.
I hope this serves to reassure both the noble Baronesses who have put down this Amendment that this is really covered. No mention of joint committees is needed because the processes they have in mind are implicit in the way the Bill is constructed. The parent bodies must finance their own joint committees and, equally, they must finance their share of joint committes. Once the Amendment was put down, I took advice on it, and I am advised by Parliamentary draftsmen that the provisions in the Bill do meet the situation. To add what both noble Baronesses have in mind would be rather superfluous, if I may say so.
Lord LLOYD: My Lords, might I ask one brief question? I am not sure whether it is strictly relevant to this

1493
Amendment, but I should like to know whether the accounts of this particular QUANGO are open to inspection by the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this is not a QUANGO, and I am sure that the nurses, the midwives and the health visitors would take a very poor view if it went out from your Lordships' House that this was a QUANGO. This is a body which is responsible for registering some of the most important people in the community, and for seeing that they get training and so on. Its accounts will certainly be available to members of the public and, as it will receive money from the Government—I do not know how much, at this stage—it will certainly be accountable for the way it spends that money.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I was rather interested in the noble Lord's reaction to the word. Is there something disreputable about being a member of a QUANGO? If the midwives would find it objectionable to come under that umbrella term, what about all those eminent people who have been put on the various QUANGOS? We thought that their job was to be applauded. T think that the reaction showed some kind of conscience, such as I should like to see the Government show on other occasions.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships, I do not think that the noble Lord is in a position to make any comment about my conscience. I reacted as I did, as a result of the way in which his noble friend mentioned the word "QUANGO". I know that it is open to a certain amount of criticism, but it would not be fair to apply it to this Bill.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, as I have taken a certain amount of interest in the subject of QUANGOS, may I say that, had I thought that we were establishing a series of them, I am not so sure that I should have been prepared to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, let alone its continuation. But I should just like to press the noble Lord a little on the Amendment of my noble friends
1494
Lady Elliot and Lady Vickers. As I understand it, he has argued that it is implicit in Clause 19 that money will be available for the expenses incurred by joint committees set up under this Bill, although Clause 19 does not in any of its subsections refer at all to a joint committee. It is very important that this should be understood, because it does not seem to me that the expenses of a joint committee can be bracketed with things like rents, rates and lights which are administrative matters.
As I understand it, we are referring to the kind of expenses that would, as a rule, be covered by fees—for example, examination expenses and expenses incurred over qualifications, which would include committee meetings—and not the other kind of expenses. It is essential that we should be assured that members of the joint committees will be treated in exactly the same way as members of either the Central Council or the national boards.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, may I say that I think the noble Baroness is being unduly difficult about this. She knows, as well as I do, that this is a joint committee of the council and the boards. It is set up by both of those bodies with a very definite responsibility, which is laid down. If it is assigned anything by the boards or the Central Council, it has to do what is required of it, and it is obvious that it must have the financial means to do it if money is involved, as it will be.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for the clear, concise and satisfactory reply which he has given to the Amendment which I put forward. It is important to get down in our report what the noble Lord has said, so that it reassures the many different organisations of the nurses and the professions that they will be covered, because, naturally, it would be very frustrating if they found that they could not meet the expenses. But the noble Lord has given us this assurance. I share his view that this is one of the most important and valuable Bills that we have had before the House for quite a long time, and I am delighted to hear what he has had to say.

1495
I shall not press the Amendment and I intend to withdraw it, but I am sure that the health visitors and others who read the report of our debate will feel satisfied that their anxieties will be met. I am sure that we all want to thank the noble Lord for the fact that during the passage of this Bill he has been so co-operative, so helpful and so anxious to make this Bill into something not of a political nature, but something which will help the whole nursing profession. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Citation, etc.]:
4.6 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 16, line 7, after ("section 21(2)") insert ("and this section").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical Amendment which rectifies an earlier omission. It ensures that this clause, which specifies how the various parts of the Act are to be brought into force, is itself operative from the moment when the Bill passes into law. Without it, it would not be possible to implement the different provisions within the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
In the Schedules:
Schedule 7 [Amendments of enactments]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 17 en bloc:
Page 27, line 6, leave out (""fully") and insert (""registered and")
Page 27, line 8, leave out (""fully") and insert (""registered and")
Page 27, line 19, leave out (""fully") and insert (""registered and")
Page 27, line 21, leave out (""fully") and insert (""registered and")
Page 27, line 40, leave out (""fully") and insert (""registered and")
Page 28, line 34, leave out (""fully") and insert (""registered and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 12 to 17 inclusive when I moved Amendment No. 9. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 12 to 17 en bloc. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL: moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 29, line 36, at end insert—
("Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30)
29A. In Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978 (words and expressions defined) at the appropriate place in alphabetical order insert—
"Registered" in relation to nurses, midwives and health visitors, means registered in the register maintained by the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting by virtue of qualifications in nursing, midwifery or health visiting as the case may be.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical Amendment, which is designed to rectify a previous omission by incorporating into the Interpretation Act 1978 a definition of "registered", in relation to nurses, midwives and health visitors. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

DIRECT LABOUR (MAJOR CONSTRUCTION WORKS) ACCOUNTING BILL [H.L.]
4.8 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill has a somewhat formidable title, but it simply concerns the direct labour organisations of local authorities, and is of acute interest to all local councillors and, indeed, ratepayers. It has one prime purpose and aim, which is to meet what is now to many people an urgent need for a more effective control of DLOs, with particular reference to control of their costings, their productivity and their efficiency, and to put on to DLOs, and those who run them, a duty to be competitive and in no way to waste ratepayers' money. I know that that is an opening which the Government will support.
The need for greater control and for legislation has grown more acute, because of what has become almost continual exposure. Although the cases that district auditors bring forward and the number of reports which they make are not numerous, nevertheless there is a continual drip of worrying reports from district auditors about wastages, overspending and a general lack of cost control over the

1497
DLOs. But, also—and here one speaks personally, as well as for many other people—there is the continual worry of ratepayers. Ratepayers are becoming more and more militant, as indeed I am, about the massive, swingeing rates increases facing us for 1979, and the seemingly powerless control of our elected council members over the financial affairs of councils.
The House will recall that the origin of the direct labour organisations goes back a long way in local government history. I believe that the first direct labour organisation was set up in West Ham in 1893. Today there are approximately 487 direct labour organisations, which operate on an internal funding basis of something like £1,200 million of construction work per year.
These organisations differ enormously in their size and capacity. Some of them undertake major works, such as housing, schools and roads as well as the required maintenance, while others concentrate only on the very important emergency services which are carried out by the direct labour organisations. I was going to cite as an emergency service the gritting of roads, but perhaps that is an unfortunate example. Many direct labour organisations are very efficient units which give an extremely good service to ratepayers and represent very good value for money. There are, however, some direct labour organisations, which the Government and Members of your Lordships' House know about, which cause considerable concern when one reads what the district auditors have said about the way that they run their contracts.
Astonishment is sometimes expressed by councillors, who are the elected members and who are supposed to control the direct labour organisations, about what the district auditors have reported. If one looks at the Greater London Council in 1978 the district auditor reported that no final contracts would ever be produced for 163 contracts, that there was overspending on 36 projects costing £1¼ million and that the present cost of the direct labour organisation department to the Greater London Council was exceeding the value of work by £¼ million per month.
There was a very large housing programme in Glasgow some years ago. I
1498
do not know what was the original price of the contract, but after £2 million had been spent upon that contract it was abandoned when it was discovered that by the time the contract would have finished—and by that time the contract was already delayed by five years—the cost of a flat would have reached £36,000. In South Tyneside, the district auditor reported that cost control was quite inadequate, that £1 million had been overspent on 21 projects and that labour charges were 2¼ times more than the average. The district auditor could find no trace of some of the bonuses paid for extra works.
In Liverpool, it was discovered in 1977—again, I think, by the district auditor—that the cost of a new house built by the direct labour organisation was about £7,500, whereas a similar competitive estimate from an outside contractor came to £5,300. I hope that those few examples —I am sure that those who are taking part in this debate will have others—illustrate and demonstrate the need for far tighter control of district labour organisations.
May I remind your Lordships that this point was picked up by the Layfield Committee when it reported, that it was highlighted in the CIPFA report—the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy—of 1975 and accepted by the present Government as long ago as 1976, at the time of the CIPFA report.
What is the root cause of the lack of control in direct labour organisations, and does it require legislation? I believe that the root cause—I am making no sterile, political point here—is that where direct labour organisations undertake major new works or large maintenance contracts they do not operate or, indeed, think like a trading undertaking. I do not blame them; they are not asked to do so under the present system of accountancy. There is no direct comparison on overhead charges and on capital employed, and there is no vital spur of competition or fear that the department could go bankrupt and be closed down and become non-existent if it continued to show losses. These are not my arguments. They are judgments to be inferred from many of the reports of district auditors, from the CIPFA report and even, indeed, from the Government's working party's report which was published in September 1978.

1499
Can the direct labour organisations be more effectively controlled within existing statutes, or is there a necessity for legislation? The answer, I believe, is that there can be improvements within the existing statutes but that they would be only marginal. There is an urgent need for legislation. It is now a matter of some priority, particularly for ratepayers. The House will recall that the present guidelines to local authorities on direct labour organisations go back as far as 1969. The Government's circular dealt with competition, trading undertakings, profitability and separate accountancy practice.
Turning to competition, the circular stated that direct labour organisations should be encouraged to tender a proportion of work as a test of efficiency. No recommendations were made regarding trading organisations. On separate accounts, the recommendation was that all costs should be recorded separately, but only in the case of new work.
Perhaps the most important and informed document since that time has been the CIPFA report of 1975. It is upon that report that this Bill is entirely based. On competition, the CIPFA report recommended that tendering should be adopted for the great majority of works and that the definition of what is the minimum that they should put out to tender should be £5,000 on any contract. The report was very firm about trading undertakings: that the direct labour organisations should be treated as trading services and should therefore be able to show a surplus or a deficiency. Indeed, this would give a financial discipline to the direct labour organisations and be of help to the councils, councillors and, indeed, the ratepayers.
What have the Government done since CIPFA? In 1976, the Government promised a Bill, but this was never hatched; anyway, it was never published. The Government then appointed a working party which took 2¾ years to produce what many people believe to be a watered down version of acceptance of the CIPFA report. The Government then announced that as soon as possible they would publish a consultative document, and in 1977 they announced that they would send what was termed, "further advice by circular to local authorities, stressing the
1500
need within the existing Statutes for careful and accurate accounting, for fair procedures and for a clear comparison with the private sector." I am quoting from col. 1183 of Hansard during the passage of the Local Authorities (Restoration of Works Powers) Bill 1977. The Government also indicated at that time what were their views. Their views were quite clear.
The Government's policy—here I quote from col. 492 of 7th July 1977 when the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, was the Government spokesman—was stated as follows:
"The Government's policy is to encourage efficient direct labour organisations. In this context the Government would have implemented in essence the recommendations in the report of June 1975 by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. Separate accounts of DLO activities would then have been required. Charges would not have been limited to actual costs as at present, but could be based on original tenders, so that the extent of profits and losses would be known. All appropriate overheads would have had to be taken into account, including a return on capital employed. A local authority would have been under a duty to avoid making a loss, and powers would have been taken to close down activities where an organisation failed consistently to meet the financial objective".
That was the policy of the Government in 1977; but we see now, after four years of the CIPFA report, despite the need, despite the evidence and despite the concern, the Government have still not come forward with a Bill. I hope that the Government will be able to accept the general principles of this Bill this afternoon and will encourage its Second Reading; so perhaps now I may turn briefly to the Bill itself.
The Bill has three prime purposes: first, to organise separate accounts for DLOs, to demonstrate to local authorities, to councils and to ratepayers the true costs and competitive positions of the DLOs. Secondly, to establish that the DLOs could be a trading undertaking with certain limited purposes; and, thirdly, to impose a duty that they should compete for 80 per cent. of the value of new or other works as set out under Clause 10, which clause refers to any contract over £10,000.
Clauses 1 and 2 provide for the establishment of new accountancy systems suitable for a trading undertaking. Clause 3 provides, together with Clause 10, a form of tendering with a duty to tender

1501
for 80 per cent. of the work. Clause 4 limits the operations of the DLOs as under existing legislation; in other words, we are not trying to widen the powers of the DLOs. Clause 5 and Schedule 1 set out the additional financial requirements to ensure the true cost position for fair competition. Clause 6 and Schedule 2 deal with the tendering procedure, again to ensure the fair comparison with outside tenders. Clauses 7 and 8 and Schedule 3 set out the accountancy procedures. Clause 9 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State within two years of making an order to bring the Schedules to the Act into force and Clause 10 defines what constitutes a major construction work, as I have already said.
I wish to add two things about the Bill. First, it will be seen that under Clause 11 it excludes Scotland and Northern Ireland. In fact this was a mistake on my part and I hope it may be corrected in Committee. There are a number of other possible faults with the Bill as at present drafted. There is no provision as yet for the Secretary of State to require the closure of a Department which consistently makes a loss, and I hope that this may be put into the Bill. Also, in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, under paragraph (c) "the value of new construction work "should read" the value of major construction work", as defined in Clause 10.
I hope that short explanation gives the bones and purposes of the Bill. This is not a political Bill, on a subject which attracts fierce comment from the extremes of many parties. It is a Bill designed to minimise wastage and loss of ratepayers' money, and to encourage greater control and direction of the DLOs. The need has been recognised and it is a Bill which, I would submit to the House, the Government should have introduced many years ago. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Earl of Kinnoull.)
4.25 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, we welcome this Bill most warmly and we believe that my noble friend Lord Kinnoull has performed a major public service in bringing this matter to your Lordships' attention. All of us as ratepayers share
1502
an interest in the Bill. In the first place, I congratulate my noble friend on being so persistent over this important subject. We shared that same interest in a Bill with a long name—and I will quote it: Local Authority (Restoration of Works Powers) Bill 1977. At that time it revealed a situation which was, to say the least, disquieting. Since then it has become much more disquieting and my noble friend has suggested that some of us may make other quotations, so I think it would be appropriate if I were to accept his invitation and mention what has been taking place in Liverpool over the past nine or 10 years.
My first quotation is from the Liverpool Daily Post of 1st May 1969, nearly 10 years ago. At that time the Department was expected to lose £1½ million on work worth about £6½ million. That was the first point which the Liverpool Daily Post brought out. Going on a number of years, to the 20th September 1978–last autumn—the same newspaper, the Liverpool Daily Post, advised its readers that the city architect of Liverpool reported that the Department's—and that of course is the Direct Labour Department—last four major schemes for housing rehabilitation were 19 per cent. above what he regarded as a reasonable price.
Let us take these two facts together. In the first case, the much earlier date of nearly 10 years ago when the Department was losing £1½ million on a £6½ million project, did it not then suggest to that Department that it would be very well worthwhile looking further into the means of accountancy? My Lords, apparently not, because last autumn the city architect considered that the figures were nearly 20 per cent. above a reasonable price. I think that points more than anything else to the need for the elimination of the waste of resources. On this side of the House our party has taken a special interest in this factor, and for that reason alone I believe that my noble friend should be commended for bringing forward this Bill.
One of the principal factors is that the manual drawn up by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in its working party of July 1969, and recommended in the departmental circular 587/69, is over 10 years old, and of course there are very definite weaknesses in the

1503
present situation. First, the direct labour departments should win a significant proportion of their work in competition, and for that purpose the Bill quotes 80 per cent. At the present moment there is no compulsion, and I will refer to that again later in my speech: there is no compulsion on direct works departments to tender competitively. The second weakness is that the basis of charging works carried out should be on costs incurred and not on the original tender.
The Comptroller and Auditor General has an interest in this, but he has effectively handed over his interest to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accounting, referred to as CIPFA, and my noble friend has referred to the CIPFA report at some length. So, at the present moment there is no accurate way of assessing whether the ratepayer and the local authority as a whole is getting value for money. The CIPFA working party on direct works undertaking accounting reported on this subject, as my noble friend has said, in 1975, and it said this—and I quote the exact words:
"Competition is the only real means of ensuring that an authority gets genuine value for money from its direct works undertaking".
That comes from Part I, paragraph 7(12). A little further down in the same paragraph they say:
"There is no compulsion on direct works undertakings to tender competitively".
So the basic information which we can adduce from the present situation is that the most effective systems of control should be these. First, all costs attributable to their operations must be recorded in completely separate accounts and the DLOs should be established as separate trading organisations; secondly, effective competition must take place for at least 80 per cent. of the work; thirdly, the value of the work must be certified by independent supervision and inspection; fourthly, it is essential that repairs and maintenance should be the subject of separate accounts.
The Bill's Title refers to major construction works, and this is very important. It does not say "major construction works and maintenance" accounting. So we are to assume that the terms of reference exclude at the present moment the maintenance situation. I think it is
1504
very important indeed to consider Schedules 3 and 4 to the Bill. I think we should turn to these two Schedules, which set out the code of accountancy practice. I hope that in setting forward these two Schedules a form of contract and financial control will be established which will be both workable and practical. It will meet the terms of the CIPFA Report, and it will also mean that local authorities will be able to bring accounts forward in a manner they would find satisfactory.
To sum up, I think one of the most important things of all is that a direct works department at the moment is working under a system which does not place any limits on its operation. I suppose the most discredited argument is that direct labour departments must save money, that councils do not have to pay builders' profit. It is impossible in this present situation for there to be any profit. In fact, the losses are so enormous that they are something of a public scandal in those authorities where they have been mentioned. I have mentioned only one local authority. I could quote many. I suppose it is rather invidious to quote one, because I understand that there are no fewer than 89 local authorities up and down this country employing over 500 on their staff. This must mean a very large number of local authorities who employ less than 500 people. I think it is axiomatic that the Bill when it comes forward will have a substantial number of Amendments, and I wish my noble friend every success in the later stages of the Bill.
4.34 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, on the basis that silence means consent, I think that the principle behind this Bill is obviously going to be completely acceptable to the House; there is no doubt my noble friend reflects the point of view on these Benches, while the absence of noble friends of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, to put criticisms means, I hope, that the general principle behind the Bill is one that we all want. It ought to be like that, because while it has always been important to ensure that value for money is obtained from local authority spending, it has never been more important than it is at this minute when rate increases are going on at an alarming rate and new increases are announced almost every day. It is quite clear that

1505
councils of all political complexions who have to announce these increases reflect a certain conscience about it.
The work done by councils' own direct labour departments is one area in which local authorities have not been getting value for money, not having the disciplines of having to compete fairly with the free enterprise firms in order to arrive at the best price. There is a terrific amount of evidence to show that because of this lack of discipline costs have been soaring, which is reflected in the extra imposts put on every ratepayer and taxpayer. This wastefulness —because that is what it amounts to—is costing millions of pounds to ratepayers and taxpayers throughout the country, and it is for that reason that I hope that the House will accept the principle behind the Bill, as it looks from the list of speakers as though it will. I am certain that the local authorities themselves will welcome it and will support the initiative taken by my noble friend in presenting this Bill to the House.
My noble friend has explained that the Bill seeks to ensure, among other things, that council building departments keep accounts in a prescribed form so that true costs and competitiveness are demonstrated. I do not see how anybody could object to that. Anybody spending money which is not his own should keep proper accounts that can be easily identified and easily and properly checked. People are rather stupid if they do not do the same thing with their own money, but it is really vital when you are spending taxpayers' and ratepayers' money at a time when there are so many charges.
The second thing that my noble friend includes in his Bill is that the trading undertakings should be for limited purposes. I think that is right. I do not think it right to give an open-ended power to build anything and to maintain. I think the powers given, because of the amount of money involved, should be easily recognisable and prescribed and laid down. Thirdly—and I think this is the most important because at the end of the day it is the most effective check—the Bill seeks to ensure that the DLOs compete for at least 80 per cent. of the value of new construction work they undertake. That is the only way they can test the market. With people all over the country having to dig even deeper into
1506
their pockets to meet steeply rising rate demands, and with many wondering where the money is to come from to meet these demands, I am happy to note that this Bill is going to go right across political lines. I think that is overdue.
The Bill seeks to provide that at last we do have a comprehensive framework for accounting. Council building in this direct way dates back more than 80 years. Yet there has never been any real attempt to provide a comprehensive system of accounting. We have had several half-hearted efforts to guide local authorities, but we have never had a requirement that they shall fit into a system which would satisfy even the most compliant accountant, to enable him to give a report that he knows where the money has come from, and what has happened to it and whether it has been efficiently looked after. In the last few years the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee—and they are a very good watchdog in these matters — have become increasingly anxious over the accounts of direct labour departments. So I believe my noble friend is right in trying to face up in a proper way to these anxieties which come from such an important and authoritative body as the Public Accounts Committee in the other place.
At present, the accounts which they examine do not enable a local authority to assess the efficiency of the work of its direct labour department. Under the present loose system an authority cannot tell whether it would be better to use direct labour or to ask free enterprise contractors to tender. The reason for that is that the accounts do not produce the right figures at the right time to enable a proper judgment to be made.
Some reference was made to the difficulties which councils encounter. Councillors have no way of knowing at the end of the day as regards a direct labour estimate—although originally it may seem to be lower than a free enterprise contractor's tender—what the real cost has been to the ratepayers, because the figures presented are not comparable. If the work goes to direct labour, councillors will not be in a position, until a long time after the project has been completed, to know the financial outcome, and they will not know whether a better alternative could have been obtained had the project been put out to tender.

1507
As my noble friend has already said, this is not a matter where we, as individuals, are merely putting forward our point of view or even reflecting a personal prejudice. These are not the views of any individual, or the views of the private building sector alone. Nearly four years ago, a working party of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy which—and I stress this—represents the public sector treasurers (and there is nobody in a better position than they to form a view) declared that the present system of direct labour accounting does not work at all well. The chairman of that working party, Mr. Hopkins, who was Director of Finance at Newham at the time, said:
"from the present form of accounts we cannot discover how the undertaking is performing".
Indeed, I do not think that we need speeches to emphasise that point.
In order to justify the Bill we can find many examples of failure—several have been given—which affect this lack of discipline in the direct labour departments. The most recent one concerned the Newcastle-upon-Tyne direct labour department which on 21st March—only six days ago—announced that a modernisation scheme for 123 houses which had been given to the direct labour department without any competition, was to be taken away from that department. An approach has now been made to five building firms to tender for the project. That is a welcome return to competiton, and I have no doubt that they were stimulated to make that decision because they had found evidence of the concern that we are trying to express today—concern which, to some extent, if not completely, can be overcome if the terms of the Bill of my noble friend are taken into account.
I turn next to the report of the Layfield Committee. I think that one or two views of that committee's wider investigation ought to be on record. On page 7 of its report it said:
"the complaint most forcefully made to us was of a lack of control over expenditure … it was said that local authorities decided first what they intended to spend. Only thereafter did they consider what rates they must levy to meet the bill. This process was not considered to be budgeting in the sense that individuals understood it".
1508
That is what the Layfield Committee said, and I think that it is almost stating the obvious —once they had recognised the need to be disturbed. The committee went on to say:
"Moreover, it was alleged that once a budget and spending programme had been settled little attempt was made to exercise a continuing financial discipline through the year. The operations of direct labour organisations were singled out as particularly bad examples of a failure to control costs".
Then, on page 95 it said that the problem most relevant to the complaints made to it was:
"how to provide safeguards against inefficiency when an authority is acting within its legal powers".
It was not a question of the authority acting outside its legal powers, but just that the framework within which it had to work—because of the looseness of it all—meant that these wasteful expenditures took place at the cost we know. The Layfield Committee came down very much in favour of a much strengthened central audit system. As the Bill of my noble friend goes some way towards that, I believe that we should accept it.
It is absolutely clear that local authorities, left to their own devices, have not been able to develop effective economic controls for direct labour. The Bill would help them to do that. The basic requirements are that all costs should be accurately and clearly ascertained and recorded that they should be clearly separated from other local authority activities —both the new construction and for maintenance—and that work should be allocated by effective competition for at least 80 per cent. of direct labour work; and that the value of all direct labour work should be established and certified by independent supervision and inspection. That is what everyone does who runs his own business. If he does not do it he will run the risk of becoming bankrupt, or at any rate being put in considerable financial difficulties.
If those requirements are observed in full, with the supporting provisions that exist in the Bill, there would be much less chance of the many failures of direct labour recurring, such as we have seen. I wish to make the point that by tightening up and carrying it out more efficiently it does not necessarily mean that there

1509
would be a reduction in direct labour. We do not approach this matter—at least I do not—from any ideological standpoint. I am saying that by the very nature of things, the looseness of the direct labour system means that it will be very wasteful. If it can be made efficient and if, at the end of the day, it can be shown that it can compete more effectively with private enterprise contractors, then that is what we want. We want efficiency and good results.
I emphasise the point about it not necessarily meaning that there would be less direct labour. That matter was brought to my attention only the other day by a local councillor who had been canvassing for the local elections. Apparently the situation arose as regards a family which was employed in a direct labour organisation. People had gone to that family and said, "If you support the Tory candidates, they will cut out direct labour and your people will be out of work". That is the type of incident which introduces the prejudice against wanting real efficiency, and it is something that we should try to avoid. Therefore, I emphasise that this tightening up is not designed to end this form of business by local authorities. All we are saying is that if it is to be done, it must be done efficiently and without waste. Clearly the national interest demands that these departments should operate only where, and at a size at which they can demonstrate that they are competitive and efficient. If they do that—and that is the purpose of the Bill—the kind of thing that is happening throughout the country should not happen.
I shall give some examples. In the large City of Manchester the direct labour department would not be able to vest the ownership of all the plant in its maintenance section; it would then recover its overheads for new construction by a charge based only on the actual hours the plant is used at work. That is covering up the real costs. That system can lead to a serious under-recovery of overheads. So, new construction costs are likely to be underestimated, creating a false impression of the department's efficiency. If the department is efficient, if everything is taken into account, if all the council's expenses are being properly recouped, instead of someone shouldering part of the burden to cover up for another, it would
1510
give a wrong impression. Although it may seem clever to whoever tries to operate that system, at the end of the day it is not right, nor, where it is done, is it in the best interests of the local authorities.
The district auditor was able to pinpoint some shortcomings in maintenance at Manchester. For example, he said that abuses of the bonus system were:
"firmly established and have existed for some years".
Men were able to claim bonus payments for work not done and for hours not worked. If we had the inspection and the supervision laid down in the Bill, those failures would be much less likely. The statement about people claiming bonus payments for hours not worked is rather sad. We know that it applies only in a minority of cases; we know that overall an honest day's work is given. It is not fair to those people that the looseness of the system allows one or two to get through the net and, as a consequence, that sort of charge to be directed against all of them.
I should like to give another example. With this Bill operating it is unlikely that Newcastle-upon-Tyne would have expanded its direct labour department rapidly to 400 men, lost nearly £1 million and then run the department down to a target figure of 70 men. Under a system such as is envisaged in the Bill, that could have been prevented. Wigan would not have been able to award nearly two years' work to its department using overhead rates that did not cover its full costs.
Direct labour addicts are inclined to argue—I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is not one, because she has vast experience in local government, perhaps more experience than most of your Lordships in this Chamber—that they need much less supervision than building firms and that, therefore, they save costs. Experience has shown that in almost every department of every industry supervision is needed in order to make certain that results are achieved. Supervision reduces the cost; it does not increase them.
Those are just a few of the inefficiencies that can be prevented by a proper system of accounting and control, such as is envisaged by the Bill. The points that I

1511
have made, and which my noble friends have made so far, are what I would call the businessman's points, supported by the accountants. I do not think anyone could say that the terms of the Bill could be more businesslike or sounder in terms of accountancy.
However, we should not be coy. What of the politicians' points? In recent weeks we have suffered from snow and ice and we must recognise that centralised organisations, such as the direct labour organisation, can hold, and have held, the public to ransom. Therefore, on social grounds, we should look at whether it is a good idea to build up the centralised organisations which can have that sort of power. In recent weeks private enterprise has had to be called in; the dustmen have gone on strike, the gritting men have not been working and volunteers have been necessary in the hospitals. However, I think that we are learning a lesson and that lesson is taken very much into account by the Bill.
Therefore, in recommending the Bill to the House—and it will obviously be accepted with acclamation on all sides—on economic, accounting and social grounds it is a must. When it is on the Statute Book we must recognise that in terms of obtaining real efficiency it is only a beginning.
4.55 p.m.
Lord HEWLETT: My Lords, we have heard from my three noble friends that the Bill seeks to establish value for money, fair trading, honest accounting and fair and prompt reporting of direct labour to the council and ratepayers. I believe—as indeed my noble friend Lord Sandys suggested that this House, the country and in particular the tax and ratepayers owe a real debt of gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for introducing the Bill.
For far too long many direct works departments have been run as a rather inefficient social service and not at all in a businesslike manner. It is essential—it is long past time—that proper financial disciplines are introduced and enforced. That is precisely the aim of the Bill. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that this is not a Bill made out of prejudice; it is a Bill desiring
1512
the best value for money and the best possible establishment of the true facts in fair competition, particularly in local building—whether it be done by free enterprise or by direct labour.
Local authorities carry out a very considerable volume of building work—about three-quarters of all public building organisations' work and nearly 10 per cent. of all construction work. Without the provisions of the Bill being enacted and enforced, I believe that further wastage of money and resources will continue almost unchecked. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls referred to Manchester. I know that city pretty well. Perhaps I should declare an interest in that my company does not pay rates in it. Until the reorganisation of local government, Manchester's direct works organisation was not subject to district audit. The first district auditor's report in 1976 revealed a terrible situation. As my noble friend said, the bonus system had been abused for a good number of years, so that men were paid for work that had not been done. Excessive issues of stores were made and in many instances the use to which those stores had been put could not be established. Client committees of the council had been severely overcharged. Only internal audits were made in Manchester up to 1974. There is a suggestion that a period of seven years elapsed without a proper audit of this department's work being carried out. Now we are talking in present-day terms of a force of 4,300 manual workers and 1,000 staff presently engaged in £65 million-worth of building work. However, no major capital works were put out to free enterprise tender, not even last year. Therefore, no one can confirm that proper value is being had for all this money being spent.
In 1977–78 the work obtained in competition was probably as little as 2½ per cent. of the total turnover of the department. That just does not bear any sensible reference to what was said earlier about the guidelines given in response to the report made in 1969 in regard to direct works. It was not what was intended when these rules were produced. Department of the Environment Circular No. 57/69 recommended that the DLO should obtain in competition with contractors:

1513
"a considerable and representative proportion of their work by value".
Frankly, 2½ per cent. this year is trivial. Do noble Lords realise that before these rules were established Manchester's DLO actually went six years without facing any competition whatever for any housing project? The whole thing was handed out on a plate without reference to what the cost to the public might eventually be. That is scandalous. Even recently it obtained work worth £4 million by a margin of less than 1 per cent. on tender. As some of my noble friends have said, the DLO does not have to make a surplus to meet tax, to finance future work or to pay interest on working capital—what we call servicing the money—so clearly it is not truly competitive. It must be using more resources than a contractor would if it can only show a saving of 1 per cent. on the overall cost.
Let me make it clear that I am making no reference of an adverse nature whatever to the new manager of Manchester's direct labour department. Mr. Munday has had a comparatively short time with the department and I hear that his services are very highly thought of. I am talking essentially about the past. We have to talk about the past to establish the case for the need for the Bill, and from what has been said already by all my noble friends this really has been established.
If you think I am just particularising on Manchester, let me refer to Glasgow. A good reason for extending this Bill to Scotland, as the mover has suggested, can be illustrated, not by the report of some Tory body but by the Scottish Development Department's decision in February to decline to approve the award of three projects to Glasgow's direct works department, because the development department decided that the estimated costs were "in excess of relative costs and also well above the general level of prices likely to obtain in the Glasgow area". That is a fair indictment.
These projects, worth some £1¼ million, were said to be necessary for the department's survival. There we strike the nub of the matter. Many a time we are given the reason that the work has to be put out otherwise the department will fold, and that is one of the worst reasons imaginable for putting work out through this channel. I ask your Lordships:
1514
should a wholly uncompetitive price be paid to keep a DLO in business? Until the next project comes up. This is as long as it lasts, mind you, and then the same story is told all over again. There are far less expensive ways of providing employment even in so high an unemployment area as Glasgow. I share the noble Earl's view and my other noble friend's view that both Scotland and Northern Ireland should be included in the Bill at a later stage.
Support for the grossly inefficient just brings delay and higher tax burdens until the inevitable has to be faced, which I regret to say does sometimes mean the closure of the department. Despite what my noble friend Lord Kinnoull reported in regard to Tyneside, that on one project alone the wage cost was two and a half times the expected level, still that department was given work without any challenge of competition after that disclosure was made. This seems to be perhaps wilful behaviour of an unwelcome type.
Indeed, I have evidence of houses built in South Tyneside by the DLO being one-third higher in cost compared with the free enterprise tenders for that particular area in similar conditions. So surely the case for a Bill to bring proper financial disciplines to DLOs is made by the speeches so far in this debate. What we have said from this side of the House is that we seek to ensure that direct labour organisations of local government keep separate and effective accounts in some common form so that genuine competition can take place with outside contractors. Direct labour organisations really will have to set up their own separate trading undertakings to compete for 80 per cent. of the work carried out. In fact, putting it bluntly they will have to commence fair trading.
The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy has pointed out that the present rules do not ensure that there is genuine fair competition. We cannot afford such inefficiencies to continue nor such a growth in the wastage of our resources when, but for North Sea Oil, we should ourselves be in desperate straits on the economic front. I realise that presently DLOs cannot be bound by contracts. They cannot because they are servicing individual departments, client departments, as their own local authority in most instances. Therefore, the liability

1515
for the taxpayer and the ratepayer is quite limitless. If they really do a thoroughly bad job on the financial front, bad luck, we pick up the bill and there is no answerability whatever in contract terms.
There is, to say the least—and other Members of this House have said so—a resentment against the terrifying increase in local government rates. If better protection for the ratepayer is not given we shall be facing the equivalent of a rates revolution. You cannot push our reasonable and generally unexcitable people too far. The lesson of California and taxation should not be lost on us. With this Bill we shall alter for the better one of the unacceptable faces of Socialism. I suggest that long before there is any further talk of extending nationalisation to the building industry, we put right the present frightening situation with respect to direct labour organisations in local government. It is past high time that we did so.
5.7 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, I ask the House to forgive me if I rise for just a few moments conscious, as I am, of the inconvenience which it occasions the House if too many people who have not put down their names on the speakers' list do just that. Yesterday, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will know, in discussion on another Bill in which we both took part, no fewer than four noble Lords sought to do this, one of them even after Lord Jacques had wound up on behalf of the Government. At least I am not doing that.
I rise because I am conscious that there have been no contributions to the debate from these Benches and in response to something that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said when he supposed that the absence of any speaker—save for the noble Baroness—from Benches other than the Conservative Benches meant that this Bill would command general assent. I thought that for my part I should just say, having read the Bill, having heard the explanation from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, as to its general principles and purposes —namely, that direct labour organisations should be required to submit to competition and to conform to certain basic costings and
1516
accounting procedures in order to operate on a reasonably commercial basis —that those principles do commend themselves to me. I should like, therefore, to offer my general support to this Bill.
5.9 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for the way in which he has presented his Bill to the House this afternoon. He has identified a subject where there is genuine concern, and where there is a real need for early legislation. It is an area where the Government are already committed to act as soon as circumstances allow, and I therefore welcome this opportunity to discuss the Bill, and to give some indication of our thinking on the important matter of local authority direct labour.
First, let me say right away that there is fundamental agreement between the Government and the noble Lord whose Bill we are discussing so far as its objectives are concerned. The controversy which all too often surrounds the subject of direct labour is and and inconclusive. It is futile to attempt to weigh against each other the charges and countercharges which each side levels against the other alleging alternatively gains and losses to the public purse in particular cases in particular areas, because no one can ever be sure whether the performances of direct labour and of private contractors are being compared on a consistent basis. So this afternoon I propose to concentrate on elements of the problem on which there is agreement; and I believe I can demonstrate that these elements heavily outweigh—both in number and in importance—those few areas where there remain some differences. Moreover, it is all too easy to forget the solid advantages which direct labour organisations can bring to their parent councils, advantages that are solid enough to persuade 456 out of 457 local authorities in England and Wales to set up their own direct labour organisations. The benefits of having a construction capability on hand at all times, of having a workforce skilled and experienced in meeting the special requirements of their statutory functions, and of being able to integrate the provision and maintenance of physical facilities with the planning and development of services for their electorate

1517
are accompanied by wider benefits to the community at large.
In an industry where conditions of work and employment are often far from satisfactory, and where the hazardous nature of construction operations can demonstrate itself in site accidents, direct labour organisations set an outstanding example of good practice. Many firms in the private sector would do well to examine their own record and compare them with the achievements of the DLOs in giving their workers reasonable terms of employment, in protecting them at work through good safety practices, in looking after them in retirement through good pension schemes and in contributing to the well-being of the industry as a whole through the training they give to their force. Even though the present Bill is not specifically concerned with these wider questions, it is essential in our consideration of it to bear in mind the fundamental nature of the organisations we are discussing.
We have, of course, at the same time to look at the DLOs as a provider of construction services and to ensure that they give value for money. We want to be sure that those local authorities who use their own direct labour get the best possible job done in the most efficient way, and they must be able to demonstrate, to their own ratepayers no less than to central Government, that they are doing so. This means that the performance of every DLO must be kept under continuous scrutiny. Their effectiveness must be regularly and frequently checked by careful comparison with the results that might have been expected from private contractors brought in to do the same work. And their accounting and tendering procedures must be designed and presented to make these checks and comparisons as easy as possible.
The noble Lord's Bill is directed to this objective, and it is an objective we share. He takes as his starting point the report of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy on Direct Labour Accounting, which was published in June 1975, and we agree that that is a useful document to base oneself on. The Government have declared publicly that they accept the broad lines of the recommendations in that document, and our own departmental working party,
1518
whose report was published in August last year, founded a great deal of their work on it. So we start from the same place, and we are trying to reach the same destination.
Let us look in a little more detail at the Bill: I shall take the Explanatory Memorandum and comment on the intentions outlined there. I have already said we agree with the overall purpose of the Bill to implement the CIPFA Report. However, in some respects we feel the measure before us does not go far enough. The Explanatory Memorandum speaks of "major construction works", which are elsewhere described as "new" works. We believe that more comprehensive proposals are necessary to impose the requirement for more stringent accounting and tendering procedures on, for example, maintenance work as well as new works. Of the three principal means which the memorandum lists as ways of achieving the objectives of CIPFA, we can accept entirely the first—that local authorities must keep proper accounts which show up true costs and enable fair comparisons to be made.
We are also happy to accept in principle the notion underlying the second point—that direct labour organisations should become trading undertakings—though there are certain difficulties here in reconciling the degree of independence a trading body must have with the need to keep the organisation under the firm control of the parent authority. This is a matter on which the Government are committed to consult the interested parties before they present legislation.
The requirement that direct labour organisations should compete for an appropriate proportion of their work embodied in the next point is also entirely acceptable to us in principle. We do, however, have serious doubts about the wisdom of fixing the proportion rigidly at so high a figure as 80 per cent. We think the aim should be to put DLOs as far as possible on an absolutely equal basis with private contractors, and it seems to us most unlikely that any contractor ever finds himself having to compete for so high a proportion of his work. We should like to hear the arguments about this, but we feel it would be best to allow a degree of flexibility so that the proportion of work to be won in

1519
competition can be adjusted to take account of the great variety of DLOs, of the work they do, and of the extent to which they are able to demonstrate a proven record of efficiency.
It will come as no surprise, at least to the noble Lord, Lord Harmer-Nicholls, that we find ourselves able in principle to accept the intention behind virtually every clause of the Bill. Yet we have a serious quarrel with it. Our objection is not that it goes too far in trying to sharpen up the operations of direct labour organisations and improve their efficiency, but rather that it does not go far enough. It addresses itself, like the excellent CIPFA Report from which it springs, only to the technical accounting and book-keeping arrangements of direct labour organisations. Yet, there are other factors which have a critical impact on efficiency. I refer in particular to the limits on the scope of their operations—that is, the clients they are allowed to work for and the geographical area in which they can work.
Because direct labour has grown up gradually in response to local needs, and has never had a coherent statutory framework for its operations, the limits on its working are haphazard, and without any underlying logic. As a general rule, for example, the direct labour department of one local council cannot do work for another, and cannot in most circumstances work outside the boundaries of its own authority. This means, therefore, to take the most obvious instance, that where a road crosses and recrosses the boundary between two councils, the job of repairing and maintaining it cannot be given to one DLO, as common sense might suppose was the most efficient solution; the two must have a go at it.
There are no such restrictions on the operations of private contractors, who can accept work anywhere in the country or indeed overseas. This freedom enables them to make the most efficient use of their resources and to avoid so far as possible unproductive idleness. Since we are agreed that the objective of this legislation is to ensure that DLOs and private contractors are put as far as possible on an equal footing, it seems to the Government essential that these other factors which unbalance the comparison between
1520
the two ways of doing things should be looked at closely, and adjusted as necessary.
We do not believe that all restrictions on DLO operations should be lifted at this stage. We think they should still be tied to working only in the public sector, save perhaps in certain exceptional circumstances, such as for example where a private owner in a housing action area wishes to employ local authority workmen to do repairs to his property or where a person has bought a municipally-owned dwelling. We also consider that DLOs should not be allowed to extend the area of their operations beyond fairly tightly defined geographical zones. However, we are satisfied that some relaxations will have to be made simply to allow management to take sensible decisions about the economic use of resources.
Beyond this, I have to say that, admirable though the intention is behind the clauses in the Bill, our lawyers advise that if it were enacted it would fail to achieve its purpose. They have detected what they believe to be a fundamental flaw whose correction would take us beyond amending the language of the Bill into its complete restructing. The flaw is, in essence, that the Bill is based on the assumption that a direct labour organisation has its own legal existence and that its existence is separate from that of the parent local authority. This is not the case.
Many noble Lords have referred to various items relating to particular authorities and to the district auditor's powers. The district auditor is an independent person whose reports are made to the elected members of local authorities. The Department is sent copies of those reports, but they are sent to us for information only. It is the responsibility of the council concerned to take whatever action is necessary if an adverse report is made. We find that the unfavourable publicity that such a report invariably attracts is usually enough to ensure that something is done. In the extremely rare event of an audit uncovering unlawful expenditure or revealing a wilful failure to account for money spent, it is the auditor who would take the council to court; it has nothing to do with the Department.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness a

1521
question. I do not understand the legal advice that the direct labour department is not an entity within itself. If, as is usual, the committee concerned is given executive powers by the council, the department would be an entity within itself, and if there is any wrongdoing, the members of the committee can be surcharged. Thus the department is a separate entity from the local authority. If that is the noble Baroness's only reason for not wanting to base improvements on the Bill, I should like to hear a little more about the matter before I accept entirely what has been said.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we have to accept what our legal advisers say, and they advise us that complete restructuring of the Bill would be needed. That is not beyond us; we did that to a minor Bill a few weeks ago, when we were discussing wild creatures and wild plants. We virtually re-wrote that Bill on the Floor of the House. However, that is not a task that I should like to suggest to any noble Lord, but we are advised that that is what would be needed for this Bill if it is to have the necessary legal backing.
So far as the district auditor is concerned, the number of adverse reports on the DLOs has consistently been very low in relation to the number of authorities involved. The most common subject of criticism from the district auditor has been the control of the operatives' bonus schemes, and we know of no recent case where an authority has been taken to court for irregularity in the running of its DLO.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, suggested that this was a field in which the Comptroller and Auditor General might appear. However, that official has no locus whatsoever in relation to local authorities. He acts on behalf of Parliament in respect of Government expenditure, while the district auditor acts in the way I have already outlined, in relation to local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Hewlett, referred to the amount of work done by the direct labour organisations. I have before me figures showing DLO work as a proportion of all the construction output, including new work, improvement, and repair and maintenance. In 1975, the DLOs undertook 11.3 per cent. of the work. In
1522
1976 the proportion was 11.8 per cent., in 1977 it was 12.1 per cent., and in 1978, 11.6 per cent. So the figure varies between 11 and 12 per cent. With regard to the total in the public sector, the figures for 1978 are not yet available, but in 1975 the DLOs undertook 21.2 per cent. of the work; in 1976 it was 20.8 per cent. and in 1977 21.1 per cent. There is some degree of consistency in those figures, too. In 1975 17 per cent. of DLO work was new work; in 1976 it was 19 per cent.; and in 1977 17 per cent. In the public sector the DLOs account for only 6 per cent. of all the new work and approximately 50 per cent. of the repair and maintenance work, and this includes the improvement work now going on in housing action areas and so on.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, referred to the comments in the CIPFA report which made obvious the difficulty of making general judgments about over-spending and under-spending of estimates. Paragraph 7.4 of the report points out that in a typical sample of a dozen contracts the results may range from an under-spending of 10 per cent. to an over-spending of 10 per cent. This wide diversity in out-turn seems to be inseparable from building operations and is affected by the philosophy commonly held in the building industry; namely, that in any half-dozen contracts, one contract can be expected to show a useful profit, one will probably show a loss, and the remainder will show small profits, or will just about break even. The report also states in the following paragraph (paragraph 7.5) that because of the tendency towards unevenness in results, it is important that the performance of the undertaking should be judged on the results not of a single contract, but of a number sufficient to give a fair picture, and that ordinarily this will entail a review over a long period of five, seven, or even 10 years. So it is not a matter that we are able to judge on only one year's performance.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and other noble Lords asked what would be the possible effect upon the rates, and wondered why we cannot tell exactly what the effect is. It is not possible to trace any direct connection between rate levels and the use of direct labour. The

1523
rate demands contain very many variables, as the noble Lord knows very well, but the CIPFA Report, in paragraph 7.14, suggests that because DLO prices do not include any allowance for profit, they should normally be between 2 and 6 per cent. lower than those of contractors. The working party report, which started on the basis of the CIPFA Report, gives details of an exercise which was carried out by the GLC's treasurer on contracts in force with its authority in 1975 and 1976. That shows that if housing maintenance work done by the DLO was given to contractors at the lowest tender rate, the GLC would have to find an extra £8 million a year, and these savings can be expected ultimately to show up in the lower rate bills. So there are some consequences of a better nature.
It would be a very difficult and hazardous step to provide that a direct labour organisation should have its own legal existence. Therefore it follows that all the main clauses of the Bill, which presuppose a contractual relationship between the DLOs and the local authorities, are ineffective. I am afraid that you cannot make a contract with yourself. For example, Clause 6 of the Bill speaks of an authority "employing" a DLO. Schedule 2, paragraph 1, says that the DLOs
"shall observe all … contractual obligations applicable to other contractors".
There are many other pieces' of defective drafting in the Bill, apart from the underlying legal ruling which we have had. For example, I am advised that the expression in Clause 4
"permitted to operate as a trading undertaking"
has no meaning in law. There is no getting over the basic flaw without starting again from scratch.
Therefore, on behalf of those of us on the Government Benches I have to advise the House that the present Bill should not be proceeded with at this time, though I know that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is anxious that we should proceed to the Committee stage. However, I am able to give noble Lords the firmest assurances that the Government intend to introduce as soon as they can their own legislation on the subject. It will include provisions identical in intention and similar in spirit to virtually
1524
all those contained in the Bill now before us. We shall ensure that local authorities run their direct labour departments as efficiently as possible. We shall require authorities to keep, and to publish regularly, accounts in a form which brings out clearly the true costs involved. We shall require councils to test their direct labour departments by exposing them to competition from private contractors, and we shall ensure that when they do so the competition is on a basis of fairness and equality.
We are confident that a measure of the kind that I have outlined will mean that local authorities will get value for money on their building operations and that the elected members, the ratepayers, the construction industry, and indeed central Government, will be able to satisfy themselves easily that this is so. We agree with the principles behind the present Bill, but as I have said, it contains considerable defective drafting, and we believe that in the circumstances it does not go far enough.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like briefly to thank all my noble friends for their support of the principles of this Bill; and, indeed, the noble Lord from the Liberal Benches. I must say I am a little disappointed with the noble Baroness's final remarks because, having listened to every speech which has been made, each of which was in support of the Bill, she then proceeded to give us a Government view which was encouraging right up to the very last moment. I should like to recommend to the House that we proceed with this Bill on the grounds that when we get to the Committee stage—and I hope we shall, although I recognise that time is short and that the Sword of Damocles is hanging over the Government, with that fragile thread between their existence or otherwise—we can look at the defective clauses and can usefully examine the principles which the noble Baroness has just set out. I would therefore ask your Lordships to give this Bill its Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING) BILL [H.L.]
5.31 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord Alport in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [General exception from Sunday closing]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SAINSBURY: I beg to move the first starred Amendment standing in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, the noble Lords, Lord Blease and Lord Robertson of Oakridge, and myself; and, with the permission of your Lordships, I should like to speak to a number of related Amendments. At the Second Reading of this Bill the House was very sparsely attended, and only 32 noble Lords went into the Division Lobbies.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: Thirty-three.
Lord SAINSBURY: I will not argue about one. It was therefore not a great success for its promoters nor a disaster for its opponents. The series of Amendments which we propose seeks a compromise solution. There are, in addition to the first starred Amendment, Amendment No. 1, the second starred Amendment and Amendments Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. The first Amendment is the unnumbered one on the Marshalled List, which should be considered with the unnumbered starred Amendment on the second page and Amendment No. 11. These Amendments seek to remove Clause 1, and therefore Schedule 1 to the Bill, and thus restore the status quo in so far as Sunday trading in items listed in Schedule 5 to the Shops Act 1950 is concerned. Thus, shops may continue
1526
to sell those items—such as milk, fresh vegetables, medicines, tobacco and the others listed in Schedule 5—which it is lawful to sell at the moment.
However, Amendment No. 7 would widen the range of additional items which local authorities may by order permit to be sold on Sundays. In this way, the general restrictions on Sunday trading will remain, with the exceptions listed in Schedule 5, but it will be possible, by local action, to extend Sunday trading for particular ranges of items. The new Schedule 2 to the Bill as amended would be much more extensive than Schedules 6 and 7 to the principal Act, which it would replace. Deletion of subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 2 of the Bill by Amendment No. 1 on the Marshalled List means that Section 52 of the principal Act will remain unchanged; and, therefore, a local authority would make an order only after ascertaining by poll that a two-thirds majority of the shops or classes of shops to be affected by the order approve the order being made. We think it is important to retain the status quo in this respect in view of the very great number of additional types of goods for which exemption orders may be made.
Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 would leave Section 22(5) and Sections 60 to 65 in the principal Act. This would retain the exclusion of butchers' meat—"butchers' meat" means fresh, chilled, frozen or salted beef, mutton, veal, lamb or pork, and their offals—from the list of foods to be permitted to be sold under local authority order. This is not only because of the hostile attitude of the trade to Sunday opening, but also in relation to the number of people who could possibly be employed; and, thirdly, because it is hard to believe that any but a very small minority of people would want to buy their Sunday joint on a Sunday morning. The sale of kosher meat, under the provision of Section 62 of the principal Act, will of course continue to be permitted. This would also leave Section 56(1)(c) of the Act, which is a quaint provision relating to the cooking of customers' food. We believe these Amendments continue to protect the majority of shop employees from Sunday working, but do not totally obstruct the way to extending Sunday trading in areas where there is sufficient demand. We therefore commend them to your Lordships.
Viscount INGLEBY: In supporting these Amendments I should like to stress again—it seemed rather complicated, although I thought the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, explained it most clearly—that the effect would be that the extensions to Sunday trading proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, would be subject to the control of the local authority, which, in turn, before it could make an order, would have to have a two-thirds majority vote of the local shopkeepers. This is a very sensitive area, and we feel that local feelings should be consulted.
Indeed, I, myself, would like to see a referendum conducted among the people who would have to work on Sundays if this Bill was passed. This Amendment would not propose a total ban, as the noble Lord has said, on extensions to Sunday trading but it would limit it to areas where there is strong local support. We hope, as he said, that this Amendment would continue to protect the majority of shop employees from Sunday working.
Lord BLEASE: I welcome the opportunity to join with my noble friend Lord Sainsbury and other noble Lords who support the Amendment standing in our names. Since it is the first time I have spoken in connection with this Bill, I should like to make it known that I am a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. I have no pecuniary interest other than as simply a paying member of that union. I have been employed in the shop trade and in the retail business for a number of years, and here I am putting forward personal viewpoints, of course, with the interest of shop workers very much in mind. In my view, the principal Act, the Shops Act 1950, is in need of review. The present legislation is unsatisfactory, complicated and gives rise to many anomalies. The Bill does little to remedy or rectify the position. In my view, as it stands, the Bill would create further complications and greater problems and would take away an important aspect of the quality of life of many citizens of the United Kingdom. I realise that this Bill is largely designed to meet the situation in England and Wales, but it does exclude Northern Ireland and Scotland; although I still have doubts about the reference to Scotland and perhaps we could deal with that matter later.
1528
However, my participation is really because, from my experience, legislation of this kind has a tendency to start off in England and Wales and then goes on to apply to other places in the United Kingdom at a later stage. I want to say that Part IV of the 1950 Shops Act dealing with Sunday trading is the most important part of that Act. It has 20 sections, more than any other Part of the Act, and is designed to make general provisions for Sunday trading. The measures were intended to keep under review by local government and parliamentary control the excesses and abuses of Sunday trading.
I think that this Bill seeks to undermine and take away the spirit of that main Part IV of the Shops Act 1950. It opens wide the door to major extensions in Sunday trading. In my view, the Amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, redress and help to bring under some sort of rational control the social and economic problems that the Bill as it stands gives rise to and would impose. I support the Amendment in this general way. It tackles the Bill at the outset. At a later stage we can deal with the consequences and implications on the Schedules and other parts of the Bill caused by the deletion of Clause 1. I support this Amendment.
Lord LYELL: I have listened carefully to the Amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, and the noble Lord, Lord Blease. But I would admit to a great deal of confusion and I would also say that, having looked at these Amendments, I am not much further on than I was when I first looked at the Bill when we discussed it at Second Reading. I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said, and many of us take his point. But I believe—and I think it is the view of many of us on these Benches—that we do not want to force any persons in any particular sector of trade to work on Sundays where there is an overwhelming desire to have that day free. One of my noble colleagues listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, defining butchers' meat. My colleague asked: "What about poultry meat?" I have not heard poultry meat discussed or defined at this or the earlier stage.
A noble Lord: It is not butchers' meat.
Lord LYELL: I heard a noble Lord say it is not butchers' meat; but whenever I buy poultry I buy it in the butcher's shop if not in a supermarket or elsewhere. But I am interested and I have not had any explanation from any of the three noble Lords who have put their names to the Amendment why they wish to remove Schedule 1 from the Bill. When I look at Schedule 1, under head (f)I find:
"newspapers, periodicals, magazines, books …"
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, pointed out that this particular Bill does not extend to Scotland or to Northern Ireland. Noble Lords may know I come from Scotland; yet in all my lifetime we have never had any bother about getting newspapers and periodicals et cetera as described at head (f).
I think we might consider the reality of Sunday trading from the consumer viewpoint. I do not speak as a member of any consumers' association. It certainly makes no sense at all in my mind; and I would suggest that it would not make a lot of sense in the minds of the public or, least of all, to the assistants in such establishments, shops or other places or localities where trading in the items mentioned in Schedule 1(1)(f) to the Bill is carried on. A person serving and selling such Sunday newspapers may be in a garage filling station; and, in many cases, certainly in Scotland (and, so far as I can discover, in England and Wales) such newspapers may be sold on a street corner but very often in a shop, a tobacconist's or newsagent's shop or a general shop. When I spend a weekend in London, the shop where I buy my newspapers sells not just newspapers, but is able to sell everything else which is on the shelves. Would I be right in thinking that the movers of this Amendment are of the opinion that shop staff should be able to sell only newspapers or one or two things which are in that shop, and not others, and that they should have to go round on Friday night putting up brown paper so that we cannot see the items they cannot sell on Sundays, or if we can see them, they would have to say, "No, you cannot buy that. It is against the law"?
I suggest that such anomalies have brought the Shops Act 1950 into disrepute and I believe they bring the law in general into disrepute. At the Second Reading debate we discussed how the 1950 Act
1530
goes back to 1677. Having listened to the Amendments proposed, I am not much further on from 1677. I will give way to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury.
Lord SAINSBURY: I think the noble Lord should read the last three lines in Amendment No. 7:
"*…in so far as such sales or transactions are not included amongst the sales or transactions mentioned in the Fifth Schedule to the principal Act.".
I say this without discourtesy: Unless one studies the main Bill, the Amendments are very hard to understand. The point is that anything—newspapers or anything that is permitted under the main Act—remains, as now, permitted to be sold.
Lord LYELL: I accept what the noble Lord says regarding the last three lines; but, first, can he tell me what points in my argument fall foul of Schedule 5 to the principal Act? Secondly, if what he says is true, why did he and his fellow movers of the Amendment need to remove Schedule 1 to Schedule 2, which, so far as I understand it, allows sales to take place, but only with the approval of the local authority?
Lord MONSON: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, will resist this series of Amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, claimed that the Second Reading was not a great success for those of us who approve and support the principles of this Bill. May I remind him that the Division took place late in the evening and that the majority in favour of the Bill was two to one. I do not believe that anybody nowadays can be compelled to work on Sundays if they do not wish to do so. I would guess that the majority of those who find themselves working in shops on Sundays, if this Bill becomes law, will be part-timers and will be paid Sunday rates. If not part-timers, they might well be Asians or others who come from societies where Sunday is not the traditional day of worship or rest. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will stick to his guns on this issue.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: May I briefly support the Amendment so ably and lucidly put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. Obviously this

1531
is a very sensitive area. So far as I understand the noble Lord, in a particular area local opinion would be obtained about the sale of specific items. It is a very sensitive area, and I agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down that no employee should be forced to work on Sunday. There are a wide variety of people who would welcome this kind of reasonable Amendment to this Bill to enable a certain amount of trading on Sundays.
We from Wales have had a wealth of experience of trading on Sundays or regulated trading on Sundays so far as specific goods are concerned. Alcohol of all kinds was not allowed to be sold in an orthodox way on Sundays, but the local communities in the various areas were consulted, and although some areas differ in their views, there is local trading now regulated in so far as alcohol is concerned. Provided that the noble Lord can give me the assurance that there will be adequate consultation in the local areas, I support the Amendments that he has put forward.
Baroness PHILLIPS: The noble Lord made the point about consulting in local areas. He will recall—and he is probably talking about whether these districts should be "dry" —it was a slight difference to these Amendments because the whole of the population were consulted. In these Amendments, it would merely be the shopkeepers who would be consulted and presumably not the customers. I have listened to my noble friend Lord Ingleby, and I understand the reservations that my noble friend Lord Sainsbury has from the point of view of the workers, and other Peers may have these views.
However, I suspect that my noble friend speaks from the religious angle. What concerns me is that so far as I can recall no one in either House of Parliament has ever raised their voice about the fact that many shops are now open on Good Friday. To me as a Catholic from the religious standpoint that is a far greater affront than that any shop should be permitted to be opened on a Sunday. There is an element of hypocrisy, that we are now asked to believe that Sunday is put in a different category; but that always was a holy day and we are still a Christian community. One can buy any-
1532
thing now on Good Friday including this very wicked butcher's meat. I am not quite clear why that is so much worse than buying a newspaper. Perhaps a noble Lord who is moving these Amendments can explain it to me. I am sorry to say that there is an element of what I can only call dichotomy of thinking about this which I should like explained more fully.
5.54 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: This series of Amendments to which Lord Sainsbury has spoken are ingenious and are trying to get over a particular problem. Noble Lords who looked at earlier Amendments submitted by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Blease, would have seen that the Amendments were differently framed and everything was automatically transferred to the category of local authority order, whereas the Amendment, as now phrased, effectively only transfers to local authority order those items which are not covered under the existing Act; that is, the proposals now are that there should be local authority orders and consultations in so far as additional items are to be sold on a Sunday which were not previously allowed under the Act. For example, take the case which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, mentioned: under the present Act, the sale of paperback books in a newsagent's shop on a Sunday is prohibited. The Schedule now includes that matter and, presumably, under Lord Sainsbury's Amendment there would have to be a referendum of newsagents to see whether they wish to sell paperback books on a Sunday. That, as I see it, is the effect of this new Amendment which has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. In speaking to Clause 1, he has covered the whole field of his Amendment. I do not intend to deal with some of the aspects that he raised, such as the question of the percentages of shops to be polled, because that can be more concisely debated under the particular Amendment concerned.
My worry about these Amendments is whether they will result in even more confusion than there is at the present time. I want to build into the Bill a requirement on local authorities to take action in the form of canvassing local shopkeepers, or when they were asked by local shopkeepers to canvass, in order that a number

1533
of the matters raised in the Schedule could be resolved fairly quickly. Otherwise there would be very great confusion from area to area as to what could be done. On the whole, I think this is the most ingenious Amendment which has been tabled to the Bill. I am not an absolute authority on the procedure of this House, but I hope that the noble Lord does not press the Amendment because there are a number of different Amendments to Schedule 1 which could not be discussed by the House if this first Amendment is pressed. Therefore, I hope that if the noble Lord wishes to press the matter to a Division, he will do so under the Amendment to leave out the Schedule, so that we may at least get the feeling of the Committee concerning the question of the flowers, garden plants, caravans and accessories, which are other items covered by Amendments to be moved by noble Lords.
6 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: Like other Members of the Committee, I find myself in some difficulty in understanding where the pressure is coming from to alter the status quo. I see that there is an evident conflict of opinion within the Committee as to how far, if at all, the public—that is the general consumer—will benefit from any change. But it seems to me that the group of people whose views, perhaps more than any others, deserve to be considered are those employed in shops who stand most to be affected by the Bill. My understanding is gained more, I suppose, from reading the Official Report of the Second Reading debate on this Bill, which unfortunately I was not able to attend, and from the remarks of people such as the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, with all his experience of the retail trade, and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Fallowfield—so many members of the union of which he is general secretary will be much affected. And my understanding is that that very important category of people do not want to see this change and, on the basis of the debate as it has proceeded so far in Committee, I feel inclined to support the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Boston of Faversham): The Amendment we have before us moved by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury
1534
on behalf of himself and others, has been presented in a fairly comprehensive fashion. Indeed, in moving it he referred to the series of interrelated Amendments, and so it might be helpful if I were, if only briefly, to summarise the arguments on each side, as the Government see them. The question that we have to consider here is whether the transactions which are set out in Amendment No. 7 should be permitted on Sundays throughout England and Wales or only in those areas where the local authority has made an order under Clause 2 of the Bill allowing such transactions. If the Amendments were carried, then the only transactions permitted on Sundays without an order made by the local authority would be those already permitted by the present law, that is, by Schedule 5 to the Shops Act 1950: for example, the sale of "meals or refreshments", sweets and other confectionery, tobacco, and newspapers. The sale of other commodities, such as toilet requisites and films, would remain unlawful, except in so far as any of them was specifically authorised in any particular area by an order made by the local authority with the approval of a specified proportion of the shopkeepers affected.
Since these Amendments deal solely with items which cannot now be lawfully sold on a Sunday, I am content to leave entirely to your Lordships' judgment the question whether such items should appear in Schedule 1 or in Schedule 2. If your Lordships decide in favour of the latter course—that is, in favour of making any change in the existing law entirely a matter of local option—then I should remind the Committee that you will be preserving Schedule 5 to the Shops Act 1950, with all its obscurities, as a statement of the commodities which may lawfully be sold on Sundays throughout England and Wales. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and I, and perhaps other noble Lords, drew your Lordships' attention on Second Reading to some of the anomalies and ambiguities which had arisen over the interpretation of that Schedule, particularly as regards what constitutes "meals or refreshments". I think it is also fair to say that these Amendments import a similar degree of obscurity into the Bill itself, in that Amendment No. 7 adds a long list of items to Schedule 2 but then, in the last few lines, subtracts those which are

1535
already covered by Schedule 5 to the 1950 Act. But we are concerned here with more than questions of drafting, and I would, if I may, leave it to your Lordships to decide whether there is a case for extending the list of articles which one can buy on Sunday anywhere in the country—broadly as the Crathorne Committee recommended—or whether any such extension must be a matter for the exercise of local discretion by local authorities.
Clause 1 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 1 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Transactions for which shops may be open on Sunday]:
6.7 p.m.
Lord ALLEN of FALLOWFIELD Lord ALLEN of FALLOWFIELD moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert—
("(a) intoxicating liquors;
( ) meals or refreshments whether or not for consumption at the shop at which they are sold, but not including the sale of fried fish and chips at a fried fish and chip shop;
( ) newly cooked provisions and cooked or partly cooked tripe;
( ) table waters, sweets, chocolates, sugar confectionery and ice-cream (including wafers and edible containers);
( ) flowers, fruit and vegetables (including mushrooms) other than tinned or bottled fruit or vegetables;
( ) milk and cream, not including tinned or dried milk or cream, but including clotted cream whether sold in tins or otherwise;").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. In doing so I would say that those who were in this Chamber during Second Reading will appreciate that I opposed the Bill root and branch, and gave what I believed to be considered views on economic, social and other grounds for doing so, in the sense that one felt justified on Second Reading to speak in total opposition to it. Certainly neither then nor since has there been any proven case for substantiation of the Bill. Therefore in moving this Amendment I do so with a
1536
desire to replace subsection (1)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Shops (Sunday Trading) Bill with the provisions relating to food in Schedule 5 to the Shops Act 1950.
I hope I shall not weary the Committee by reminding your Lordships of the present law. Under the present law, shops generally are required to close for the serving of customers except for the transactions listed in Schedule 5 to the Shops Act 1950. Broadly, these exceptions cover the sale of food and drinks for immediate consumption, confectionery, medicines, tobacco, aircraft, motor or cycle supplies and accessories, newspapers, periodicals and magazines, sundry items concerned with specific activities, Post Office business and the business carried on by a funeral undertaker. Provision is also made, as your Lordships know, for certain shops in holiday resorts to remain open on Sundays, if the local authority makes the necessary order, up to a maximum of 18 Sundays in any one year; and traders of the Jewish religion can also apply for a special exemption after 2 p.m. on Sundays, provided they close on Saturdays.
Against that background, is it to be argued, as the supporters of the Bill have argued and will continue to argue, that people will starve or go without medical supplies or be deprived of news, tobacco or confectionery on Sundays? I do not think it can be so argued. It is against that backcloth that I submit the Amendment in my name. Its effect will be to restore the provision relating to the sale of food on Sunday. I readily acknowledge that this Amendment does not iron out anomalies—for example, fish and chips shops—nor is there any intention of doing so, and it does not deal with other minor changes. However, one feels that it is logically defensible, and the aim is to restore the position in the major area where change is proposed; that is, food. It does not attempt to deal with anything else.
I believe that it can be defended, if for no other reason, on the grounds of shortness of time, and possibly, the complexity of parliamentary drafting. I said in the Second Reading debate that those of us who were looking at the problems of Sunday trading and the Shops Act ought to look long and hard. It is complex legislation and I do not believe, with the shortness of time available to us

1537
and the manner in which the change to Schedule 1 has been suggested, that this in any way represents an in-depth examination, in order to deal with some of the problems which were referred to on Second Reading and again today.
This is a piece of legislation which requires an exhaustive, in-depth examination. In the absence of that—I say this with the utmost respect to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede—the only effect of what we are attempting to do will be to compound a number of the difficulties which one acknowledges exist. It is suggested that the United Kingdom as a whole is waiting for the moment when food shops in our country—in particular, butchers' shops, and this in the age of refrigeration—open on Sundays. But I hope that this Amendment, which is an attempt to maintain the status quo, will be accepted by those who looked sympathetically at the point during the Second Reading debate, and supported it. Having said that, I beg to move.
Lord SAINSBURY: In rising to support my noble friend Lord Allen, may I say that I was slow off the mark. I intended to rise, but was hardly given time to do so, in order to explain that I had no intention of pressing my Amendment at this stage. I prefer to wait and hear the views on other Amendments. But I have every intention of bringing it back, perhaps in a slightly revised form, at Report stage.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Alport): I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, if I foreclosed on him rather earlier than I should have done.
Lord LYELL: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Allen, to decipher one aspect of his Amendment, which he moved so well? I take his point that it covers a fairly narrow field, but I should like to refer to the third sub-paragraph which reads "table waters, sweets, chocolates". I presume that this refers to confectionery and ice cream. One or two of my colleagues and I were very interested in the last item "edible containers". Am I right in thinking that "edible containers" are what I referred to in my youth, and what I refer to in my relative youth today, as cornets, into which one drops a blob of ice cream? I think that they are referred
1538
to as comets, pastries, or something like that. I see that in the same sub-paragraph the Amendment refers to "wafers".
Lord ALLEN of FALLOWFIELD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of his youth. It reminds me of mine. If I answer his question by saying that the intention is to maintain the status quo, for the reason that I have given, then the answer is, Yes.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: As my noble friend indicated, his Amendment reinserts into the Bill the words in Schedule 5 to the 1950 Act. In a sense, that Schedule is already out of date through legal decisions which have been taken since the passing of the 1950 Act. For example, the Amendment refers to "tinned or bottled fruit or vegetables", as being items which cannot be sold on a Sunday. But the courts have determined that "tinned or bottled fruit or vegetables" come within the category of "meals and refreshments". So that, in a sense, to go back entirely to the wording of Schedule 5 to the 1950 Act does not make any progress at all.
I am very much concerned that we should find a form of words for this Bill which will not invoke hostility from any section of the community. I have been most attracted by the ingenious suggestions put forward today by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury and his supporters, and it may be that we can find some means of making progress in that way. Therefore, I very much look forward to seeing my noble friend's Amendment, and I and my advisers will no doubt think about what amendments one can make in order to clarify the situation, and to introduce a legal option on a number of these matters. But this Amendment of my noble friend Lord Allen does not take us any further forward, and I suggest that it should be resisted.
Lord ALLEN of FALLOWFIELD: I can understand the good intention of my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, not to give offence to any section of the community by this legislation. But I have to remind him, as I did on Second Reading, that close on half a million men and women were offended when he suggested that this land of ours would be a much better

1539
place to live in if all food shops were open on Sunday; in particular, butchery shops. I am not sure to what court judgment my noble friend referred. I remind him that we are dealing with this Bill as we see it, and the Amendment, for which I make no apology, is to maintain the status quo. Again, I repeat that to proceed in the way that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby is attempting is really tinkering with a piece of legislation, and I hope that he will see the matter in that way. One hopes, too, that there may well come a time in this House, or in the other place, when there will be a very long and careful look at the Shops Act itself. They will have to make a judgment upon it at that time.
I think that it would be an ill judgment on the part of this House to support the proposals we are now discussing in Committee which have been made by my noble friend. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, is not here, because she referred to what she described as "some hyprocrisy" among certain sections of the community regarding working on Good Friday. I share her apprehension about that, but I think that the noble Baroness knows, as do many other people, that the whole of the retail distributive force has opposed working on Good Friday for many, many years. They see this as the thin end of the wedge.
6.20 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: Again I intervene only briefly on this Amendment, to say that I drew your Lordships' attention during Second Reading to the fact that paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 1 to the Bill goes further than the Crathorne Committee recommended, in so far as it would allow the sale of food or drink of any kind for consumption off the premises as well as on the premises without any restriction. The Amendment which has been put down by my noble friend Lord Allen of Fallowfield would also depart from the Crathorne Committee's recommendation, but in the opposite direction, and would simply preserve the existing law, as the noble Lord himself told the Committee in moving the Amendment.
1540
In favour of the proposal contained in the Bill, it can be said that the existing law is vague and obscure and that it confronts the courts with questions about the precise status of raw kippers, cream buns and other delicacies. Some noble Lords might feel that this tends to make the law look rather ridiculous. Because of the difficulty which the courts have had in setting any logical limits to the meaning of the term "refreshments", a matter upon which your Lordships centred to some extent during the Second Reading debate, it seems that food shops can already sell a high proportion of their stocks without breaking the law. On the other hand, the more widespread opening of food shops, particularly supermarkets, on Sundays might not in all respects be a very welcome development, especially when one takes account of the effect on shop workers' conditions and the cost which might fall, as a result, on the consumer. I leave it to your Lordships to judge whether or not, in the light of the arguments which have been put forward, it is right to make any change to the existing law.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
6.23 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS Baroness VICKERS moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 19, at end insert—
("(d) parts of, or accessories to caravans or trailers.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3. This is a rather different subject. Under subparagraph (h) of Schedule 5 to the Shops Act 1950, premises may be open for the serving of customers on Sunday for the sale of aircraft, motor or cycle supplies or accessories. Under this provision, caravan dealers' premises, which include accessory shops, have been open on Sundays for such sales. The Bill which 'is now before your Lordships' House would prevent the application of this exemption. Any premises offering caravan parts or accessories for sale would require an order to be made by the local authority if they are to be open for business on Sundays. I suggest that this is rather unfortunate, because the position is likely to vary in different parts of the country.
May I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, that ideally the

1541
caravan industry would like to see the sale of caravans permitted on Sundays, because these are family leisure items. Frequently, it is only possible for the whole family to inspect caravans together on a Sunday when they, as a family, can make their choice. This is borne out in particular by the large attendances on Sundays at the caravan exhibitions organised by the National Caravan Council at Earl's Court in London and Kelvin Hall in Glasgow.
So far as the provisions of the Bill are concerned, a number of local authorities throughout the country have in recent years taken proceedings against caravan dealers for opening their premises on Sundays, on the ground that they were exceeding the exemption provided by Schedule 5 to the Shops Act 1950. Regrettably, this has led to a number of caravan traders having to close entirely on Sundays.
The application is piecemeal, and this can only result in unfair competition because premises on one side of an authority's boundary have to be closed while those on the other side of the boundary do not. I have no idea whether this happens, but if one tried to buy some of these accessories in Plymouth on Sundays and met with a refusal, one would cross the Tamar and get them on the other side of the river. Because of this, I feel that to make it a requirement of an order by a local authority to permit caravan parts and accessories to be sold on Sundays would result in fewer facilities being available to the public on Sundays when they are most likely to be travelling in their cars and caravans.
The proposed separation in the Bill of parts and accessories for caravans from the parts and accessories for cars would produce, I consider, the absurd situation that a motor garage which was open for the sale of parts and accessories under Schedule 1 to the Shops Act 1950 would be permitted to sell a caravan owner a new bulb for one of his car lamps but not if the bulb was to be used in the caravan that he was towing. Similarly, if a caravan owner had a tyre failure, he could buy a replacement tyre if it were for the motor car but not if it were for the caravan that he was towing.
If this Amendment is not accepted, it will produce a quite absurd situation.
1542
For this reason, I hope that the Bill can be altered so that if parts and accessories for caravans are to be specifically introduced into the shops legislation they are given equal status to that given to motor vehicle parts and accessories. The proposal in this Amendment is that caravan parts and accessories should be allowed to be sold on Sundays without a special order so as to retain the present status under the law. I beg to move.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: The concern here relates to what could be included under the word "accessories". The whole purpose of the Bill is to try to define items more closely. Any furnishings required for the inside of a caravan might be claimed by some salesmen to be an accessory, and that would begin to open up the law as to the interpretation of the word "accessories". We feel that the needs of caravan owners are covered to a large extent by paragraph (c): that if something goes wrong with a caravan and the owner wishes to buy a tyre for it, it can be bought under this paragraph. It should be a question of local determination and control so that the whole situation does not become wide open for the sale of items which would otherwise be prohibited under Schedule 1. If the Amendment had not included the word "accessories", it would have been much more acceptable than it is.
Lord SOMERS: Would it not be possible to get over that difficulty by saying "mechanical accessories"?
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: Certainly that is a form of drafting which I should like to look at very closely.
Baroness VICKERS: May I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Perhaps he would give me the opportunity to withdraw the Amendment for the time being with the idea of accepting the suggestion, or a suggestion similar to the one which has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, which I think was very helpful. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord NORRIE Lord NORRIE moved Amendment No. 4:

1543
Page 4, line 39, at end insert—
("(3) The sale of flowers, plants and gardening or garden leisure equipment supplies and accessories at any premises or place where the sale of these items represents the sole or principal activity of the business.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I wish to explain some of the difficulties which face the horticultural trade. I should like to draw particular attention to nurseries and garden centres, in which I have previously declared an interest. The needs of the general public have changed since the Shops Act was passed in 1950. Quite new situations and conditions have arisen and it is a matter of chance as to whether they may be covered by the present Act. The entirely new existence of yacht marinas is a specific example, as these may sell a complete range of goods on Sundays, while nurseries and garden centres, which represent Britain's oldest and most popular leisure activity, may sell only a limited range of goods on that day. Over 78 per cent. of households in Britain have a private garden, which puts garden ownership in this country far above that of many other countries in Europe. It should come as no surprise that independent research shows that gardening is Britain's pre-eminent active leisure pursuit for both men and women. Even as long ago as 1970, 25 million people, including a significant proportion of those in retirement, were actively engaged in tending gardens or allotments. What these figures are today has not been estimated but we all know that there has been a huge increase in gardening during the intervening nine years.
Economically gardening is good for Britain and also it is a pursuit which tends to keep more and more families united and at home. The population recognises the need to aim at self-sufficiency and is now growing an increasing amount of the fruit and vegetables which it consumes. This was never borne out more clearly than during the recent transport difficulties when the price of vegetables, even if they could be obtained at all, reached heights which placed them out of reach of many. The majority of people pursue their leisure hobby at the weekends and Sunday is usually the day when their immediate needs become apparent. Consequently, a visit to a garden centre is often made a
1544
family outing where the gardening and leisure requirements may be satisfied on that day. It has been estimated that some 94.2 per cent. of nurseries and garden centres are open on Sundays. That day represents 30 to 40 per cent. of the total trade for the week and it has thus become regarded as the best trading day.
The Shops Act has always allowed some garden requisites to be sold and the present Bill constitutes a more modern and rational approach but still falls far short of what is now required. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a few of the trivial anomalies which will continue to affect my trade if this Amendment is not accepted. Trees may be sold but not the stake or tie which is essential for their support: shrubs may be sold, but not the peat or compost in which they are grown; roses may be sold, but not the pesticides or fungicides or fertilisers needed for healthy growth; bedding plants may be sold, but not the seeds from which you may grow your own; house plants may be sold, but not the bulbs or the tubers from which some originate, nor the decorative pots or containers in which they are usually displayed; tomato plants may be sold, but not the liquid fertiliser required for successful crops.
I am even informed that one garden centre visited by an inspector last year was actually told that its staff could not talk to a customer about a product which was prohibited from sale on a Sunday. These are but a few of the irritating instances which my noble friend Lord Lyell so aptly described as "trivia" during his speech on Second Reading. Large numbers of people visit garden centres every Sunday and find the restrictions on what they can buy to be arbitrary, perplexing and annoying and there is no doubt that many businesses break the law to placate the customer. If a buyer cannot get what he wants at one garden centre he will proceed a short distance to the next, where he will probably be more fortunate. Strict interpretation and rigid enforcement of the Shops Act in its present form will probably cause very many garden centres to close on Sundays, with a consequent loss of trade which in time will force them to close down altogether or severely restrict their activities. This will result in a considerable number of people losing their jobs and

1545
the public being deprived of a service which it both appreciates and requires.
I should like to point out that nurseries and garden centres are usually located away from shopping centres or high streets, so that allowing them to trade legally on a Sunday does not, in my view, create unfair competition for any business located in a traditional shopping environment. I firmly believe that the shop in the town is visited by the shopper as part of his or her weekday shopping routine, whereas the visit to a nursery or garden centre on a Saturday or Sunday more often than not involves family participation. The importance of offering this week-end service to the family is fully recognised by the staff working in this type of business. Equally they recognise that the maintenance and daily care in horticulture, as with livestock for farmers, must continue at weekends. Therefore, in their contract of work they accept a staggered five-day week with an option to earn overtime according to their circumstances.
Finally, there may be those of your Lordships who believe that our trade is "money for old rope", but I would remind you that horticulture is seasonal and very dependent upon the weather. The trade has just suffered the worst winter since 1963. Not only have sales been practically non-existent but a great deal of nursery stock has not survived the recent spells of intense cold. The removal of the anomalies which exist in Sunday trading is therefore of paramount importance to the horticultural trade.
With the increasing amount of leisure time available, here is an example of a trade that has already responded by offering the service that people require at the time they want it. To do so, however, nurseries and garden centres in many cases have had to break an unenforceable law. I am convinced that the time has now come for your Lordships to remove the difficulties that face my trade and by supporting my Amendment you will be giving it the assistance it deserves. To those noble Lords who do not wish to support my Amendment, I can only say that I hope the disappointment registered by 25 million gardeners will not bring about a permanent blight of greenfly and blackspot on the roses in their gardens. I beg to move.
Lord SOMERS: I do not wish to speak either for or against this Amendment, but I should like to point out to the Committee that if it is accepted it will mean that every nursery and garden centre in the country—and there are very many of them—will have to maintain a skeleton staff on Sundays, and although my noble friend Lord Monson pointed out that nobody is being forced to work on Sundays, in effect of course they are, purely from the point of view of competition. They will have to be there if there are other garden centres in the neighbourhood, and therefore I must leave the Committee to draw their own conclusions from that.
Lord LYELL: Has the noble Lord, Lord Somers, considered the views of farm workers and indeed everybody else who is running essential public services? I am a farmer when I am away from your Lordships' House and certainly when the weather is fine and the harvest is ripe I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Somers, will find every combine harvester in my part of Scotland working on a Sunday, and the farm workers know, when they take employment as farm workers, that when the harvest is ready everything starts off and harvesting goes ahead. I suggest that the same argument might apply to workers in nurseries or similar establishments to those described by my noble friend Lord Norrie.
I was fascinated to listen to my noble friend Lord Norrie explaining the different requisites and supplies and accessories he spoke about. My mind is appalled at the thought of liquid manure being sold on a Sunday; apart from the nuisance of it, I am a little worried! I am also in some trepidation at the thought of motor mowers or other gardening and agricultural equipment, small diggers and tractors, being demonstrated! I would have thought that such things are demonstrated and are sold already on a Sunday. At the same time I do take Lord Somers' point of view that one should not force people to work. But I suggest that, in this industry, be it agriculture or horticulture, employees engaged in such activities know what is expected of them; that on certain occasions during the year, particularly on certain Sundays in the growing season or at harvest time, their work will have to go ahead, and they will not be left unrecompensed.
Lord SOMERS: I can assure the noble Lord that I have enough farming blood in my veins to realise that. But I still feel that the sale of flowers to the public is rather a different thing.
Earl GREY: In the Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, does not state whether paragraph 1(d) of Schedule 1 is to be included, or whether his Amendment is in addition to paragraph (d) which says the sale of
"flowers, plants, shrubs (other than artificial)".
Does his Amendment include artificial?
Lord NORRIE: If I may explain this, in fact because the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, introduced his own Amendment I had no alternative but to put my Amendment at the end of Schedule 1 as paragraph (3). It is my intention that my Amendment be substituted as a new paragraph 1(d) within Schedule 1. I hope that clarifies the situation.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: As a horticulturalist, I should like, first, to congratulate my noble friend Lord Norrie on his excellent exposition of Sunday trading as it affects the horticultural industry, and indeed the situation in this country of the horticultural industry as a whole, especially as appertaining to non-edible productions. However, while I am a supporter of the Amendment in its major tenor, I would point out to the Committee that it does bring up something which, potentially, has very wide ramifications. The end of the Amendment reads,
"…where the sale of these items represents the sole or principal activity of the business".
What you are going to do is to prevent one section of traders from having the same rights as other traders under this Schedule. I would have thought that the same words might with advantage be made general for all the trades and traders who are listed in this Schedule 1.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I think that the spirit behind Lord Norrie's Amendment is certainly a commendable one, in the sense that the suggestion is that, if one buys one's shrubs or roses, or whathave-you, on a Sunday, one should be able to buy the fertiliser and whatever is necessary for the cultivation of that article. However, the wording of the Amendment
1548
causes some considerable trouble because it refers to the sale of
"garden leisure equipment supplies and accessories at a place where the sale of these items represents the sole or principal activity of the business".
In other words, it could be interpreted, as it stands, that a place whose sole or principal business is the sale of garden leisure equipment supplies, without the sale of flowers, plants, shrubs et cetera, would come within the ambit of this clause. I think it would be far better if the paragraph referred to the sale of flowers, plants, shrubs and horticultural equipment and supplies at a place where horticultural products are produced—in other words, some wording which tied it in with horticultural products, as most of the people who work in garden centres are under the horticultural wages Acts and not other Acts. The Amendment, as it stands, does have anomalies. The noble Lord has indicated that in any case he intends to come forward with a reworded Amendment at Report stage. I would hope that we could deal with it then, but, if not, I myself would be prepared to come forward with an Amendment roughly along those lines.
Lord NORRIE: I thank the noble Lord for that. I think in that case I would rather have an opportunity to withdraw my Amendment and perhaps reword it in a way which your Lordships would approve. I feel that the general consensus of the Committee is that they would support an Amendment like this. I would, therefore, prefer to go away and think about it and produce an Amendment which would be acceptable. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Schedule 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.47 p.m.
Lord LYELL: May I seek some guidance from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, before we leave Schedule 1. I note that, in Schedule 2, paragraph 1 describes,
"Articles required for the purposes of bathing or fishing".
My mind worked in a somewhat naughty frame. I looked at Schedule 1(1)(j). This sub-paragraph spells out,

1549
"… the sale at any premises or place where a game or sport is … carried on of requisites for that game or sport".
I have been given to understand that the sport of angling is one of the most widely-practised sports in England and Wales. I understand that more people practise the sport of angling, be it competitively, professionally or intensively, on any day of the week, and I would have thought especially on Saturday or Sunday, than go to either play or watch football, which fills the newspapers and media in the winter and autumn and part of the spring. That goes for angling.
What about swimming? I would suggest that bathing suits might be described as articles required for the purpose of bathing, except in certain delineated areas —I think they call themselves naturist parks. I wonder why paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 is necessary, since I understand that everything that might be required for bathing or fishing would be covered by sub-paragraph (j) of paragraph 1 in Schedule 1. I would suggest that most swimming and almost all angling is what might be described as a game or sport. For that reason, I wonder whether paragraph 1 of Schedule 2, which allows bathing suits and I suppose fishing rods, tackle, lines, bait and the rest, to be sold only with the concurrence of local authorities, is necessary. Yet if one took a slightly broader view of sub-paragraph (j), all these items would be sold, with or without the permission of local authorities, all over England and Wales. Could the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, set my mind at rest, if not tonight, at the next stage, or before the next stage?
Lord BLEASE: I should like to ask about a number of accoutrements; what about skin-diving and other aqua sports? There is no end to it. I think it indicates that we are tinkering with something in this particular Schedule and the other legislation proposed here that requires a complete review of the whole situation.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I shall certainly come back to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. From briefly looking at the particular point which he mentioned, paragraph 1 (j) of Schedule 1 refers to the sale of specific items,
"at any premises or place where a game or sport is played or carried on".
1550
However paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 refers to the general sale of the items referred to. So, in the first case one can buy a bathing suit at swimming baths, but in the second case one can buy the bathing suit at a stall on the beach. Indeed, one might say that the beach was a swimming place in any event. I think that that is the distinction between the two paragraphs. However, I shall take advice on the matter and advise the noble Lord further.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: I hesitate to intervene, but no doubt further advice can be given by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede on another occasion—if there is one. However, I think that he would also recall, turning to Schedule 2, that the articles mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2 are already included in Schedule 7 to the 1950 Act although "souvenirs", I understand, have not been defined previously. The items in paragraphs 3 to 5 accord, I understand, with the Crathorne recommendations.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 not moved.]
Schedule 3 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

AIRLINER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
6.53 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY The Earl of KIMBERLEY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government why the United Kingdom does not take the lead under the auspices of Airbus Industrie in designing and building a series of European airliners in the 130–180 seater category for services starting in the middle 1980s. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. Since the nationalisation of British Aerospace certainly some progress has been

1551
made, but there are quite a number of employees within the industry who feel that more could have been done. Nobody could disagree that a healthy competitive manufacturing industry—whether publicly or privately-owned—is an essential and vital necessity to the nation's wellbeing, whether it is for employment, domestic and export markets, help for our balance of payments, or lastly taxation revenue. Therefore, I ask: Do we have a national role in world industry?—to which the answer must surely be in the affirmative. I submit that one major role should be in a skilled and highly intensive industry, such as the manufacture of aircraft, computers and avionics.
It was gratifying last year to see that British Aerospace declined the American offer of our becoming a mere sub-contractor to their giant industry. One reason given two-and-a-half years ago for nationalising the aircraft industry of this country was that a decision had to be taken on building a family of aircraft in the 130 to 180-seater category. That decision had to be made rapidly as otherwise Britain would once again lose out to the United States.
My noble friend Lord Beswick—and like to call him my noble friend—who is chairman of British Aerospace said on 15th March at a lecture at Bristol that the real problem for British Aerospace was not short-term, but a long-term one of building a secure base on which to earn a living. Two-and-a-half years ago at Farnborough I was sitting at lunchtime next to Mr. Harding Lawrence, who is the President of Braniff Airways. He categorically stated to me that there was a world market for 3,000 aircraft in the 130 to 180-seater category in the coming 10 years. As an American he saw that there was no reason why, if Britain and Europe got together, we should not have, at the very least, 30 per cent. of that market.
I agree that it is perfectly true that at present all the major airlines are looking at wide-bodied aircraft and, for the time being, are temporarily content to top up their medium and short-haul fleets with present-day technology narrow-bodied aeroplanes. But they cannot continue to do that forever due to the very strict noise regulations which will come into
1552
force in the middle 1980s. Therefore, if there should be any noble Lord who might think that my figure of 3,000 is wrong, may I say that there will have to be 3,000 existing geriatric narrow-bodied short and medium-range jets replaced, as by the mid-1980s the majority of the world's major airports will refuse to let those aircraft operate not only for noise, but probably also for safety, reasons due to structural defects and metal fatigue.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Leonard, when he replies whether, in view of the Dan Air 707 crash in Lusaka when the tail fell off, the Government have any proposals for the next few years for not allowing these ancient aeroplanes to fly into airports which have a very heavy population around them? Also what agreements are there, if any, with other foreign civil aviation authorities?
Therefore, a new aeroplane must, if it is to be a winner, be launched now because the United States has the DC.9 Super 80 and the Boeing 757. McDonell-Douglas still has the possible advanced-technology medium-range aircraft sitting on the sidelines. New technology airliners are not just needed for less noise: they are also needed for economy and fuel saving reasons. As regards fuel economy there are three reasons which are particularly pertinent: first the price of it: secondly, there is only so much oil left in the world until we perfect the production of oil from coal—which seems quite a long way away—or we can produce a new power plant which may work on hydrogen; and finally the more economical the aircraft the lower will be the passenger seat mile cost.
To quote an example of an old/new aeroplane, British Aerospace tried very hard with the X-11 but the French and the Germans said—no, it was not a new aeroplane. Simultaneously British Airways and Lufthansa ordered the Boeing 737 as a stopgap. Air France tried to do so, but the French pilots refused it as it only needed a two-man crew. Therefore Air France went back to old Boeing 727s. However, Lufthansa is now thinking very seriously of phasing out its 737s because they are not large enough. They want a 140 and a 180 seater. In fact, they say that if this family of aircraft is launched now, it would be a certain winner and would

1553
also be an integral part of the family of Airbus Industrie. Therefore, I hope it is beginning to be obvious that unless we start in the very near future—in other words, now—we shall once again be too late and present the Americans with yet another monopoly of a large piece of the civil market.
While I am on this subject, out of interest, perhaps the Minister can tell us how much our balance of payments has been affected by British Airways buying 737s and 757s. Perhaps we shall be told that as the 757 will have Rolls-Royce engines, the bill will not be as large as it might otherwise be. However, even if that is so, I am not certain that it is a good enough answer. Perhaps it is of interest to note here that in his lecture the other day in Bristol the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, again said that he thought it would cost this country £1.5 billion. Perhaps the Government could confirm that figure.
What do potential customers of British Aerospace think when our nationalised carrier gives absolutely no encouragement by buying British or, as it is today, Anglo-European? The following European flag carriers have ordered or purchased A300s from Airbus Industrie: Air France, Lufthansa, SAS, Alitalia, Olympic, Iberia, and Swiss Air the A310. Can they possibly all be wrong?
I now come to Rolls-Royce and the Airbus Industries. Last year Sir Freddie Laker announced that he would buy A300s, but that he was not prepared to spend the £25 million to develop so that the Rolls-Royce engines could be fitted in his aeroplanes. To me £25 million seems to be a very small sum when compared with the potential market that the A300 and the A310 have. Do the Government realise that Pratt and Witney and General Electric from America are presently at each other's throats fighting to get their engines into these aircraft? Do any of your Lordships think that Pratt and Witney and General Electric are wrong as well? Why does not Rolls-Royce try to compete for the Airbus?
In November last year I wrote to the Prime Minister, President Giscard d'Estaing and Chancellor Schmidt, drawing their attention to the large market for an aircraft family of 130 to 180 seats. I
1554
appealed to the three Leaders that, in spite of the co-operation over the A300 and the A310, they should make a big effort to get this new aircraft family launched. I had three replies. The Prime Minister's Secretary said that he would show my letter to the Prime Minister but I have heard nothing; the French said "Thank you", and the Germans answered with a two-page letter stating that the market survey for a 130–180 seater was not sufficiently advanced, and that the A310 must therefore have preference, particularly as there was not the factory space available. That is completely understandable as production capacity at all Airbus plants will need to cope with much greater production rates when output rises from two aircraft a month at present possibly to eight a month by the end of this year.
It appears that the second stumbling block might be finance. However, that should not be a problem with the vast quantity of money which we successfully seem to pour down the throats of lame ducks in this country. Possibly a third argument that can be put up against it is that of the power plant. But that is not a problem, because we have the American engine, the CFM56, which already exists; the RB211–535 is under development; and on the sidelines, if some money was advanced to it, there is the RB432. There are two existing American engines, the Pratt and Witney JT1OD and the JT8D-209. Therefore, for the 130-seater there are three engines—two American and one English; for the 150-seater there are two American engines; and for the 180-seater there is one English and one American engine.
I should like to return to the problem of the lack of space in the factories, because if we cannot build the aircraft in France, we could certainly build it at Weybridge, Filton and Hurn. I am given to understand that at Weybridge and Filton the current workload is maintenance on United States Air Force F1–11s, certain parts for the British Aerospace 146, parts of the A310 wing, converting five Gulf Airways VC10s and four East African Super VC 10s to tankers and Universal Test Equipment orders. I agree that that work provides employment, but many British Aerospace employees are frustrated and their morale is low. Who can blame them if they leave for more

1555
salubrious climes where they can continue to design and build new aeroplanes as well as probably earn a lot more money? I am also given to understand that within the last 12 months about 165 designers have left British Aerospace.
I, for one, do not envy the task of the chairman of British Aerospace, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. He appears to get far less co-operation from both Ministries and the Treasury. British Aerospace seems the poor relation, coming after British Airways and Rolls-Royce. Maybe one reason is because Rolls-Royce has the NEB behind it. However, we now have quite a long history of Anglo-French-German co-operation and we have the Airbus. So we have European co-operation producing jobs and income, which is co-operation in its most practical sense. Therefore, if we allow that this Airbus family of a 130–180 seater aircraft must be launched, we must establish the foundation and principles immediately. This would also restore morale on the civil side of British Aerospace as well as provide encouragement and incentive, while simultaneously we would be taking, and at the same time sharing, the lead—unlike when we became a partner in Airbus Industrie, which was only after many difficulties.
We now have a chance to help our European partners so that the project is produced in time. We have to agree all the criteria with Airbus Industrie but we, in this country, have the space and the workforce. It would be a great money-earner for this country at the same time as continuing the success of Airbus Industrie. We should very soon find the Americans knocking on our door and wooing us. Let us not forget that in 1966 Boeing raised several hundred million dollars on the New York Stock Exchange because there was confidence in their ability to design, build and sell aeroplanes. I think that we should make this a target for European Aerospace. We must find the money, and I do not accept the Treasury's criticism the other day of our 20 per cent. in the A310, saying that it would have a negative cash flow by 1983. To quote the noble Lord, Lord Beswick:
"To criticise profitability on a three or four-year outturn is ridiculous".
1556
Incidentally, I have heard no Treasury criticism of the £1·5 billion—if that is the correct figure—spent on American aircraft.
Therefore, when the noble Lord, Lord Leonard, replies to my Question, I ask him: first, does he not agree with my assessment of the market need for a family of aircraft in the 130–180 seater category? Should he by chance say that there is no need, I would ask the noble Lord to go back to British Aerospace, the Department of Industry and the Treasury and ask them to rethink the project. However, should the Minister agree with me, perhaps he would give your Lordships some encouragement and show some determination that we, with the French and the Germans, can win a major part of what will be an incredibly lucrative market. I also wait with great interest to hear from my noble friend Lord Trefgarne the official policy of the Opposition. May I reiterate that time is running out for us. Finally, will Her Majesty's Government make a prodigious effort to try to get our three nationalised aerospace companies to co-operate with each other on a considerably larger scale than they do at the present? If the Government will do this, the sky is the limit.
7.10 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, it is customary on these occasions to extend thanks to the noble Lord who raises the matter, and I readily and gladly do that tonight. Having read the Question on the Order Paper I think at the outset I had better resist the temptation to try and answer it because that will be for the noble Lord, Lord Leonard, to do in a moment. Indeed, I sometimes wonder whether Parliamentary pressure on British Aerospace, or any nationalised concern, to produce this or that aeroplane, or to follow this or that policy in a matter of extreme technical complexity, is the right way to reach the answers we desire. Indeed, I have said in your Lordships' House on several occasions before tonight that the consideration of different aircraft types by British Airways, for example, is a difficult and technical matter, and it is not always wise for politicians, at least for Opposition politicians, to pronounce views too firmly, because for sure they do not have all the facts available to them.

1557
How much more difficult then is it to reach a decision as to which aircraft to develop or build, than it is to decide simply which aircraft to buy.
The difficulties can perhaps fall under three headings. First, the time-scale of an aircraft project is at least 20 years, sometimes 30 years. It follows, therefore, that decisions taken now will have effect at least until the end of the century. As we know, the sums of money involved in launching a new aircraft project are prodigious; so much so that nowadays we cannot afford, by and large, to launch major transport aircraft projects on our own, and we have to secure the co-operation and collaboration of our colleagues in Europe. It follows from these two points that the risks of failure are appalling, for, if we do fail, having committed vast sums of money and enormous resources of manpower and manufacturing facilities to these projects, the consequences really are grave indeed.
Having accepted the difficulty of reaching the correct decisions, perhaps I may indicate some of the considerations which British Aerospace must weigh in deciding upon their future programme. I do not pretend for a moment that the points that I want to talk about are exhaustive or complete, but they may help to indicate to your Lordships the difficulties of the problem. First of all, we have to decide what size of aeroplane the market requires. The noble Earl, in his Question, has suggested that we need a 130 to 180 seater. I fancy that that may be a bit on the small side, but that is simply a personal view. British Aerospace and their colleagues will conduct their researches and I trust arrive at the right conclusion.
We have to decide when replacements for existing aeroplanes will be required. The noble Earl touched on this when he was talking about the retirement of the so-called geriatric jets. Indeed, some people say that the existing generation of transport aircraft will have to be retired sooner rather than later because their structures are, in some cases, now suspect. There is the question of noise certification. I shall have more to say on that next Monday when we consider the Air Navigation Noise Certification Order. But sufficient for the moment to say, as the noble Earl reminded us, that by the mid-1980s most of the existing generation
1558
of so-called noisy aircraft will have to be compulsorily retired.
We need to decide how many of the new type of aircraft will be required. We shall need to consider in that context both the numbers of aircraft to be replaced and the growth of the industry generally so that we know how many additional planes over and above those we have at present will be needed. We have to decide and consider whether the new aircraft will have an adequate improvement over the operating costs of existing machines, with particular reference nowadays, of course, to fuel economy. We have to ensure that the new aircraft will meet all the future environmental considerations; not only the noise, to which I have referred already, but smoke and other emissions which are nowadays becoming less and less acceptable, and quite properly so.
I have referred to this before but I must mention it again. We shall have to decide how many seats the new aircraft has, precisely how many it needs, having regard not only to existing traffic but to the expected density growth in the future. We have to be sure that the new aircraft will be compatible with existing terminal facilities and ground equipment. If not, will it be possible for airlines and airport operators to afford any new facilities or equipment which will be required? We have to decide what sort of configuration we require for the new aircraft; whether we want all tourist seats to meet the boom in low fare traffic, or whether we want a mix of high density seating and first-class seating, and what sort of freight facilities we require. We have to decide—and this is most important—how the development of the aircraft will be financed. I have mentioned already that collaboration is inevitably essential, but how much money will British Aerospace be required to put into this project, and how much money will the British Government be required to put into the project? It will inevitably be a very substantial sum.
We have to decide also not only how to finance the development of the aircraft but how to finance the sales of the aircraft. I believe that this is one of the areas where the Concorde programme has fallen down. It has not proved possible on this side of the Atlantic to devise financing schemes of sufficient attraction, particularly to the smaller airlines, to enable them to acquire,

1559
or lease, or hire, the aircraft. This is in sharp distinction to the American industry, whose aircraft financing arrangements are way ahead of ours, and it is one of the reasons why they have been so successful in selling their aeroplanes to some of the smaller emergent nations.
I have covered just 10 points. I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and his colleagues in British Aerospace will be considering at least a thousand other points in reaching their decision, and quite right too. Are we therefore in a position to suggest, let alone dictate, to British Aerospace the details of their manufacturing problems? I should have thought, from this side of the House at least, that we are not. Of course the Government have to make judgments on these matters, but they are able to do so in possession of all the facts.
So your Lordships should I believe confine yourselves to consideration of the political, social, and strategic implications of these decisions. But the noble Earl has tabled his Question, and is entitled to hear my views at least on the specific points that he has raised, and I shall try to do that whatever the difficulties. I must confess that I am attracted to some extent to the noble Earl's arguments, and would agree that there may well be an important market for the sort of aircraft he describes. But, as I said earlier, I fancy that it ought to be a little bigger. As of this moment, I should think that British Aerospace would be better employed in applying its now considerable resources and energies to promoting its existing projects. One particular project which very nearly meets the requirements of the noble Earl is, of course, the A-310, in which British Aerospace is now a full partner. This is not a 180-seater, it is a 200-seater and thus meets my requirements, if not those of the noble Earl.
In that connection, I am unconvinced that British Airways were right to choose the 757, the American aircraft, instead of the A-310 which was offered to them. I have mentioned this matter before in your Lordships' House and I make no apology for raising it again: it was—indeed, still is—a matter of the greatest importance. British Airways were to be one of the two launch customers for the 757, and indeed they have ordered it.
1560
Unhappily, the other launch customer, Eastern Airlines, have not yet ordered it and there are rumours that they may not do so. Perhaps this is not the time to go into that matter in detail, but I was very concerned by that decision of British Airways and I remain so. The contract is now signed, at least so far as British Airways are concerned, and I hope it works out for British Airways, and we shall be watching carefully to see that it does. I wonder whether in future we should reassess the methods of launching new projects and endeavour somehow. if we can, to determine in advance the likelihood of major European orders before launching new collaborative or national projects.
Not for the first time we are in the noble Earl's debt for raising this subject. I wonder how far we should go in trying to influence what must be a commercial decision. Of course I lay myself open to the charge of inconsistency, in that I would seek to influence British Airways' so-called commercial decisions but not those of British Aerospace. However, I would answer that by saying that British Airways' record, even when left to their own devices in this matter, has not been uniformly successful. On the other hand, the aircraft manufacturers, once as individual companies and now jointly in British Aerospace, deserve at least to be given a chance. The technical skills are undoubted. Let us now watch their commercial skills with the closest attention.
7.22 p.m.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for giving us the opportunity to express our views on the important subject of the future of British civil airliner building. Whether we do so as a whole project or whether we participate as partners with another manufacturer is a matter for very careful thought, but there is no doubt that in the 1980s there will be a consistent and continuing demand for the type of 150 to 200-seater airliner that the noble Earl quotes broadly in his Question.
I recently paid a visit to the West Coast of America and spent some time with one of the leading aeroplane manufacturers in that area. They are planning to produce large quantities of two-engined and three-engined aircraft. Their planned rate of

1561
production is of a very high order indeed, something like 30 a month of one aeroplane model alone that falls into this category. It is the disparity in the rates of production between the American and European manufacturers which raises a peculiarly difficult situation for the United Kingdom aerospace industry.
The American aeroplane producers are perfectly willing to buy parts from Britain, but they want absolutely cast-iron assurances that delivery quantities and dates of delivery will be met for whatever components they order. Already there is a fair business being done by at least a few of Britain's leading aircraft component manufacturers; for instance, every Boeing delivered from Seattle contains British-made parts in the shape of flap actuators, power control system, windscreens, parts of the braking gear and other comparatively minor, though very important and expensive, components.
However, when it comes to getting orders from large American aeroplane manufacturers from this side of the Atlantic for substantial items such as undercarriages, nose wheels and of course, engines, then the financial commitments are fantastic. When I say that the investment in the machine tools for a comparatively simple component like a retractable nose wheel at the rate of production that is needed on one of these quantity produced and internationally popular aeroplanes is of the order of £45 million, it makes one think of a particularly large investment egg in a comparatively medium-sized British basket.
What is more, to achieve the guaranteed rate of production which is required would mean the recruitment of something like 250 skilled machinists in this country; and it is a sad commentary on our present state of industry that although there is very high unemployment, there is not the pool of skilled machinists, men or women, capable of operating tape controlled machines and sophisticated automatic or semi-automatic machine tools of the type necessary to achieve the accuracy and high degree of precision entailed for these components at the going price.
Price is important. Britain is no longer a low cost producer nor, due to the malaise of strikes that affect our industrial corpus, are we a reliable source of supply. That
1562
is because over the past couple or so decades we have not shaped our overall engineering facilities to encourage men or women to do this kind of work. High taxation is one of the disincentives; the industrial climate that encourages or even allows engineering shipbuilders, for instance, to do five hours work on an eight hours shift is completely out of balance, and we all know what has happened to the British motor industry. Once upon a time, more years ago than I care to remember, 40 per cent. of the orders for all cars sold in this country went across my desk at Cowley, Oxford. That lead has been eroded in no uncertain way. Coming back to aircraft, that very lesson makes the question asked by the noble Earl so vitally important.
The success of Concorde in operation shows that our aerodynamicists, designers and technicians have the skill to produce highly sophisticated aircraft. Concorde was achieved by Anglo-French or, if you like, European collaborative effort, and has proved there is no language barrier in high technology. So let us be wholly realistic too and pay tribute to the aircraft produced by Airbus Industrie. Anyone who has seen the lift-off performance of one of their aeroplanes with its British-made main wing cannot fail but to be impressed by its potential and its aerodynamical excellence. What it would do with a couple of new advanced technology Rolls-Royce RB-211 aero engines can readily be extrapolated both in terms of fuel economy, which is becoming more and more important as the years go on, and in the matter of cost and range per seat mile.
I take this opportunity strongly to suggest that the question of over-water flight limitation planning for twin-engined jet aircraft be re-studied and new parameters evolved. The question of long-range over-water flight planning is topically emphasised for aircraft operating to the Spanish, Iberian and Mediterranean areas from Britain by the strange behaviour of the French air traffic controllers. These gentlemen seem determined as a long-term policy to make airspace facilities and monitoring of aircraft flying from Britain over French airspace difficult, forcing them to flight-plan longer routes far out over the Atlantic Ocean before turning east to Europe to reach their destinations.

1563
This deplorable practice last summer cost all British airlines much money and much valuable time, and it created much passenger ill-will because of unpunctuality. It looks like being more of a nuisance this coming summer than it was last summer, and so a future Anglo-European built airliner design would have to have this factor allowed for in its basic parameters, not in terms of near-sonic speed, but in economical long-range cruise, and of course radio facilities.
May I repeat that for all round economy, advanced technology twin jet-engined aircraft produce optimum figures. The fewer engines you have on an airplane, the lower the maintenance cost. There has been sufficient experience already built up with both European and American built jet engines to prove that the ratio of shutdowns in the air for jet engines is only a fraction of what used to be accepted in the case of the piston engine; and so longer twin jet engine over-water allowances should be made.
Therefore there seems to be a logical case for a positive answer to be given to the noble Earl's Question. The United Kingdom should take the lead, under the auspices of Airbus Industrie, in which we already have a strong commercial connection with some components, to develop a limited series of civil airliners, some of which could certainly be fitted with British made engines. American civil airplane makers give a choice of power units. One can buy a 747 Jumbo with a set of two different American made engines, or with British Rolls-Royce engines. I suppose that I should disclose an interest here as the chairman of an airline that uses 25 American built jets; but I can say that if a European built 150–200 seater aircraft, with an enhanced over-water flight planning capability, and two advanced technology RB-211 jet engines was planned to be available in the mid, or even the late, 1980s, it would be studied very carefully indeed by a large number of seriously minded customers.
7.33 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I wish very briefly to support the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, and to thank him for initiating this interesting debate on Airbus Industrie, with particular regard
1564
to the 130–180 seater project. The noble Earl's enthusiasm for aviation and aviation matters never wanes, even if the influence of Government and of our industry on their future share of work in world markets becomes increasingly bound up with the European Airbus Industrie. I am sure that the House looks forward to the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Leonard —I think that it will be his maiden speech in an aviation debate—and I hope that it will be a good reply.
The noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, raises the question of what I am sure we all feel is a very important market. I hope that the noble Lord will confirm the actual figure, but if the figure of 3,000 aircraft replacements within the next five, 10 or 15 years, is correct, it shows that this is a very important market. I hope that, despite the enormous cost of becoming a partner with the Airbus Industrie, despite the difficulties of resources and of finding resources among partner countries, and despite the capacity problem that all those within Airbus Industrie now face (with the hoped for production of the A.300B and the A.310, and the commitments that British Aerospace have on the 146) the noble Lord will be able to say that the Airbus Industrie is at least looking at this market, and is perhaps considering some joint project with an American company. I believe that that would be the answer. I do not believe that the British Government would be very keen at this stage to pour more resources into a new project. I do not even know what such a project would cost, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Leonard, will be able to tell us.
Discussing the Airbus Industrie gives a chance to learn, even at this stage, how much work is now flowing into British factories from our having joined the Airbus Industrie, or how much work is expected in the next year, or two or three years. Perhaps we can also learn where the orders stand for the A.300B, and where the project of the A.310 stands. Perhaps at the same time we can learn what is the current position regarding the British 1–11 production. How much longer is the production likely to be in operation? Where do we stand now regarding Concorde? Has that project now finally closed?
Perhaps the greatest value that I see in British Aerospace joining Airbus Industrie

1565
is that it possibly takes us away from a plague which has afflicted the British air industry for 20, 25 or 30 years. It is the plague of the fickleness of politicians and the Treasury for cancelling projects, often at the very last moment before they are due to go into production. We have seen with Concorde where the determination of the French to see the project through was a great example to British politicians and indeed to the British Treasury. Similar remarks could apply to the DC.10, and the 3–11 was another example. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Leonard, will give us an encouraging reply to the noble Earl's question of whether the Airbus Industrie is examining this very large market.
7.37 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, a report says that 105 airliners are being considered for replacement by British Airways at the moment at a total cost of about £1,000 million. When one considers that the useful life of an airliner is reckoned to be about 14 years, one realises that the 707s and VC10s will be replaced, requiring at least a further 35 aircraft for British Airways and probably another 50 for Lufthansa and Air France, and more for the other airlines. According to one estimate by 1986 the number of people taking annual package holidays will have doubled, and, whereas at present about one in 18 people go abroad for the annual holiday, the ratio will change to about 1 in 9. In addition, whereas at the moment British Airways is carrying about 12 million passengers on short-haul passages, the figure will rise to about 27 million within 10 years. Furthermore, it is reported—I do not know whether it is correct—that IATA negotiated fares will be phased out. It has been said that the airlines,
"will be exposed to the icy blast of competition"
where the fares will be dictated by those airlines which are able to operate with the greatest efficiency—
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say where he obtained that information?
Lord GISBOROUGH: I got the information from one of a number of cuttings
1566
which I have, and I shall be delighted to show these to the noble Lord later.
OPEC has today put up the price of crude oil by 10 per cent; and fuel costs will be a growing proportion of airline costs in the future. It is estimated that the cost of fuel will have gone up by at least 20 per cent. by 1986. There will be an enormous number of replacements—not only replacement of aircraft which are becoming old, but also replacements to meet the very stringent noise regulations, as well as replacements for reasons of economy. The old technology aircraft which are used at the moment are having their engines up-dated and their bodies lengthened. New engines have been put on some types and are available now. The DC.9 has a new engine. I gather that it is very difficult to put a new engine, a quiet engine, on the 727 because of configuration of design; but, as has been mentioned, the 757 is on offer now, and so is the DC.9 with its new engine. But a very important fact is that fiddling about with old designs and putting new engines on them, and lengthening them, certainly achieves a lot, but the real answer, to get the greater effect, is to design a new airframe with the new engine all in one package. Therefore, there is an enormous opportunity for a new technology aircraft to be designed and built, and for there to be a large demand for it.
I was amused to read some interesting snippets about examples of computerised flight controls, whereby the speed could be held to within 1 knot through adjustments of height rather than throttle control. This alone, it was estimated, would save 2 to 3 per cent. of fuel on a flight to Bahrain from London, and return, and would save £200 on the trip. Also, improved technology would improve the maintenance and the speed of maintenance—even to the extent of such things as the galleys, which at the moment are often sited over electrical parts, so that fruit juice spilt from the galleys corrodes the electric wires, which are very difficult to get at. These sorts of things are all small things, but, obviously, there is scope for an enormous amount of new technology to improve the efficiency. There is a very large market, my Lords, and I believe that the United Kingdom should play a very large part in the production of this new generation of airliners.
7.42 p.m.
Lord LEONARD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, who has this evening provided us with a useful opportunity to look a little into the future. As regards the involvement of the United Kingdom in the civil aircraft industry, once again we are grateful to the noble Earl for drawing our attention to this industry. Other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate have posed some very interesting questions for the future. Only last July Lord Kimberley raised in this House the question of the future policy of the industry. At that time British Aerospace 146 had just been launched and important decisions regarding Airbus Industrie were still awaited. Then, almost as soon as the Airbus decisions had been announced in November, the noble Earl drew our attention to the truly international nature of the airline industry and the problems facing airline operators. Now this evening he has posed an important question on the JET type of aircraft. We have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, the noble Lords, Lord Trefgarne and Lord Thomas, and the other speakers, some of the options that are open to us. I am not sure that the market for such an aircraft is altogether as clearly defined as has been suggested. However, the Government are of course well aware of the market slot which appears to await a new European civil airliner. Indeed, the noble Earl reminded us of it in his recent Questions for Written Answer.
Before I turn to the Government's attitude on the JET proposals, I should say that at this stage the two questions raised by the noble Earl ought really to be addressed to British Aerospace because a major decision such as the launch of new aircraft with all the industrial and financial consequences that are entailed must first be evaluated at the industrial level. It would not be very practical for the Government to determine their position without first hearing what the manufacturers have to say.
Looking at the Question before us, as I am sure your Lordships are aware, studies have indeed been under way for a number of years regarding aircraft in the 120 to 190 seater range. A number of tentative proposals—we have even heard a few of them this evening—have been looked at in
1568
some detail by the manufacturers, but in the light of all the work that has been done—I want to make this perfectly clear —no definite conclusions have been reached by British Aerospace or other partners in Airbus Industrie regarding the single-aisle type of aircraft generally referred to as JET. So this is something which must be borne in mind by noble Lords when they are pressing suggestions for this because we have not had them from British Aerospace or any of their partners, and they, we must agree, are the technocrats who should first be consulted on a matter of this nature.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way for one moment? I think I said in my speech that if the noble Lord, Lord Leonard, could not give a satisfactory answer would he please go back to British Aerospace, the Department of Industry and the Treasury. So I am not putting the blame on his shoulders.
Lord LEONARD: My Lords, I see no reason why we should not go back to them—I would accept that—but I have a foreboding that if they were keen I would not have to go back to them; they would come to me or to the Government. But, as I said before, we have not heard from them as yet. Therefore, we must not rush the situation.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? Can he say whether the Government would in fact have the funds available if the industry came to the Government? Because this is one of the questions of course that the noble Earl has been addressing to the Government.
Lord LEONARD: I would certainly have to have notice of a question like that, my Lords. I could not just stand here and say that the Government have funds to put into a colossal investment of this nature without its first being decided, not only by the financial end of our Government; the technical side and many other things would have to be taken into consideration. I think we should remember that the airliner market is, I accept, a little uncertain in this sector, as has been shown.

1569
Many airlines are still reviewing their forward procurement policy. For example, I have no doubt that they wish to examine more closely the effect of discount fares, which we have heard about tonight; and when you talk about discount fares structures on their operations this, I would agree, will have a significant impact in the 1980s and the aircraft that eventually come forward will have to be designed with this in mind, as well as increases in fuel prices and many other factors. So there is also the obvious and important trend towards these matters, especially the fuel prices, and increasingly there are various forms of de-regulation of the market leading to increased competition between airlines. This in turn will call for alterations in the technical approach to single-aisle aircraft.
However, I believe there is one conclusion that can be reached from the investigations that have already been made. It seems clear that in the single-aisle category for aircraft with around 130 to 180 seats, the airlines would be getting an aircraft with an extremely good operating cost. This will require in turn the manufacturers to offer high standards of technology on which we are all agreed, and standards which are better than those of existing aircraft; and, more important, better than those of any competitor.
British Aerospace and their partners in the Airbus Industrie have therefore retained a great interest in the JET type of aircraft. They are presently engaged in the process of refining the previous project work on this sector in the market. They are, I understand, all the time taking account of the latest market intelligence from around the world.
Of course, the continuing market studies will have to take into account the timing of the airlines' requirements for new aircraft and the competition from other manufacturers. As we are all aware, the giants of this industry are on the other side of the Atlantic and, certainly, they will not be slow to enter the market place if the prospects seem right. Indeed, McDonnell-Douglas has already launched the DC.9-80 aircraft which, no doubt, will corner a useful slice of the market for itself from 1980 onwards, particularly among American operators. Boeing, too, have a competitor underway with their Rolls-Royce-engined 757. While this aircraft
1570
has a seating capacity slightly above the JET range, we must expect it to eat into some of the potential market for JET type aeroplanes. These points are integral features of the market studies which have been referred to and are well appreciated by the manufacturers. I can assure your Lordships that British Aerospace are well aware of the potential that may exist in the smaller civil airline sector of the market from the consultations with other manufacturers and airline operators that have already taken place.
But there are other factors to be taken into account before British Aerospace launch another aircraft project. The aerospace manufacturers around Europe are already heavily committed on existing aircraft and other programmes. This applies equally to British Aerospace. The work on the British Aerospace 146 feeder liner launched last July is now well under way. Now that British Aerospace has entered the Airbus Industrie consortium as a full and equal partner, they have additional work on the new smaller A310 Airbus. The existing A300 Airbus is now selling well with over 20 airline customers involved and orders and options are now approaching the 200 mark.
As your Lordships will no doubt be aware, the work on the existing A300 Airbus is now building up and further increases in production rates have been suggested. With the A310 programme getting under way and other projects—such as Tornado, the new Jetstream 31 and HS125—there will be a considerable load on British Aerospace's resources to deal with the matters already in hand. Obviously, any new proposals to draw further on these resources will and must need very close scrutiny. While many would like to be able to look forward to new smaller additions to the Airbus family, I think we must recognise that some careful family planning is called for in this matter.
For their part, the Government have been keeping in touch with developments as regards the JET project and we accept that, at the present time, the manufacturers must be allowed to continue their outline work on the JET concept, liaising with the airline operators as necessary. The aircraft partners in Airbus Industrie, and British Aerospace in particular, will want

1571
to establish for themselves that JET is a commercially viable project and that the market wants it at prices it can afford. These are the necessary steps for the manufacturers to take before proposals can be put to Governments. I said, "Governments". I am sure that all those concerned for the future of the aircraft industry in Europe would wish any new project to be subject to such procedures, and it is the intention of the Government that this should be so.
My Lords, with regard to some of the questions I have listened to tonight, in so far as the question about how the balance of payments has been affected by British Airways' purchase of the American aircraft, I have not got the exact figures; but if the noble Earl would like me to write to him I shall give him those figures and we shall be able to see; but I could not produce them at a minute's notice. There are many questions to be answered and there are many technical problems to be solved. All in all, we have had a useful opportunity for airing some of the considerations which surround a possible new aircraft project. Some of the points that have been made are applicable to any aircraft project and not just to JET itself. Some interesting and relevant points have been made and your Lordships may be assured that these matters will be taken into account during the further appraisals by British Aerospace, in association with its partners in Airbus Industrie.
I am not going into specific details on the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, to productivity. I think it is only fair to say this.
Several noble Lords: He is not here!
Lord LEONARD: The engines that fly the Jumbos across the Atlantic, the Rolls-Royce engines—they were very pleased to get them and they were delivered on time—are very acceptable to the British and the American public. On that note, if I have not answered all the questions, I shall endeavour to do so either by meeting noble Lords and talking to them or by writing to them.

FORESTRY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT SCALES
  SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT SCALES
  ALCOHOL: INCREASED CONSUMPTION
  ALCOHOL: INCREASED CONSUMPTION
  ALCOHOL: HEALTH WARNING IN ADVERTISEMENTS
  ALCOHOL: HEALTH WARNING IN ADVERTISEMENTS
  ALCOHOL: TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENTS
  ALCOHOL: TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENTS
  YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAMME
  YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAMME
  TEST CENSUS AND ETHNIC ORIGIN QUESTIONS
  TEST CENSUS AND ETHNIC ORIGIN QUESTIONS
  GASSING OF BADGER SETTS
  GASSING OF BADGER SETTS
  OIL POLLUTION AT SEA: OFF-LOADING
  OIL POLLUTION AT SEA: OFF-LOADING
  CHEMICAL POLLUTION AT SEA: OFF-LOADING
  CHEMICAL POLLUTION AT SEA: OFF-LOADING
  LNG AND LPG CARRIERS: POLLUTION AT SEA
  LNG AND LPG CARRIERS: POLLUTION AT SEA
  CHEMICAL POLLUTION AT SEA: RESOURCES AND RESEARCH
  CHEMICAL POLLUTION AT SEA: RESOURCES AND RESEARCH
  LNG/LPG RELEASE AT SEA: RESOURCES AND RESEARCH
  LNG/LPG RELEASE AT SEA: RESOURCES AND RESEARCH
  OAK WILT
  OAK WILT