Sitting of 3 December 1980

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  QUEEN 'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions
  Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

    North-South Summit
    Mr. Brocklebank-Fowlerasked the Lord Privy Seal if he received an invitation from the President of Mexico and the Austrian Federal Chancellor to attend the Vienna meeting of sponsors of the 1981 North-South Summit; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): No, Sir. This was a limited preparatory meeting of co-sponsors, which neither the United States no Japan nor the United Kingdom attended.
    Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Is my hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the statement by his right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary the Select Committee this morning to the effect that Britain intends to take part in the conference? Because of earlier remarks by the Government about the importance of adequate preparation for the conference, will my hon. Friend say how the British Government are to be involved in the preparation work, so that the summit can reach useful decisions on the Brandt Commission report and the North-South dialogue?
    Mr. Hurd: We are in close touch with the sponsors. My right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the matter with the President of Mexico fairly recently. We expect that there will be a summit of between 20 and 26 countries, possibly in June next year. We expect, and would be glad, to attend any such meeting.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does the Minister accept that the failure of the Government to produce an adequate response to the appeal by the Brandt Commission for a summit
    246
    conference, and for the issue of North-South relations to be placed at the top of the international agenda, is one of the greatest sources of disappointment in a Government who have disappointed most people on most issues?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not agree with that, and the evidence does not bear it out. We have always made it clear that we are ready to attend such a summit, provided that it is properly prepared. That preparation is now under way.
    Mr. Alan Clark: When my hon. Friend next has contact with the President of Mexico, will he carry at the back of his mind the universal reaction of the House yesterday to the proposals for concessions to the Argentine in respect of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is stretching things. Even with the good will that I have brought back with me, I cannot allow a different question from the one on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is there not a great danger that the discussion on the Brandt Commission will simply fall into a number of conferences in which there will be an endless series of discussions but little practical action? Would it not be a good idea to begin practical action by putting some money into the aims of the Southern African co-ordinating development committee?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development attended a conference on that subject, which I understand was useful. There is a great deal of practical work in that area taking place—more, perhaps, than has been appreciated so far. I shall be glad to send the hon. Gentleman details.
    Mr. Shore: Is the Minister aware that one of the reasons why he has not received an invitation, and one of the reasons why he may not receive an invitation, to attend the conference is the negative response that was published in the form of a Green Paper commenting on the Brandt Commission proposals? May I put it to the Minister that it would be of great service to the reputation of this country and would do something for the reputation of the Government if he introduced amended and more responsive proposals that the House could debate before such a conference took place?
    Mr. Hurd: I understand that there may be another debate on these matters before long. The statements of my right hon. and noble Friend and other Foreign Office Ministers throughout this period have shown that we want to make practical progress in these areas and that we support the many practical proposals which have been brought forward and which are making progress.

    Korea
    Mr. Newensasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on British relations with the Republic of Korea.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour): Relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Korea have traditionally been close and friendly. I hope that these relations will continue to develop in the same close and friendly manner.
    Mr. Newens: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the Korean authorities that the execution of Mr. Kim Dae Jung, the leader of the Korean Opposition, and

    247
    the implementation of sentences on other Korean dissidents after gross trial irregularities would be regarded as an outrage in Britain and that such an action would severely damage British relations with Korea?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I think that I have told the House before that we have several times told the Korean Government of our concern. The Korean Supreme Court will be considering the appeal in the near future. We are discussing with our partners in the Nine what further action might be appropriate if the sentence is upheld. We understand that the final decision in that event will rest with the president.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even Japan has threatened to break off economic cooperation agreements with Korea if the execution goes ahead? There is a letter in The Times today from the British Council of Churches which suggests that the Koreans are preparing public opinion by faking mass demonstrations for such an execution. What specifically will the Government tell the Korean authorities will happen to British-Korean relations of they carry on with the execution?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I am aware of what the Japanese Government have said. As I have tried to explain to the House before, I do not think that any further statement of intention by the Government at this time would be helpful. As I said to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), we are considering with the Nine what further action can be taken. We have made our views plain to the Korean Government.

    British North America Act
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the Government's attitude to a request from the Federal Parliament of Canada for patriation of the British North America Act.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): No request has been received. The matter is before a joint committee of both Houses of the Canadian Parliament. It is also being considered by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs of this House. This is, therefore, not the moment to make a statement.
    Mr. Foulkes: As there are now grave doubts about the constitutionality of that which will be proposed to us and as there are provinces pursuing this matter in the Canadian courts, would it not be helpful for the British Government to make a statement now to the effect that they want Mr. Trudeau to get agreement in Canada before bringing this matter before the United Kingdom Parliament?
    Mr. Ridley: It would be constitutionally improper for me to comment on the substance of any request that might be made or on any events that are taking place within Canada.
    Mr. McQuarrie: Surely my hon. Friend will be able to make a form of comment that will take away the fear in the Canadian provinces, especially those such as British Columbia where there is a tremendous British content. Is he aware that they fear a sell-out of their nationality or the relationship that they have had with Britain for so many years because the Canadian Prime Minister wants to try to change the constitution to suit himself when he has no electoral right to do so?
    Mr. Ridley: Any views of that sort should be kept within Canada. It would be wrong for me to respond to whatever may be said within a sovereign independent country.
    Mr. George: Will the Minister give assurances that if a Bill is to be introduced to the House it will not be a simple two-clause Bill with all the contentious stuff in the schedules? If he is not prepared to make a formal statement, can he not allow vibrations to emanate from his Department to supplement the vibrations emanating from this place to the effect that the issue should be tested in the Canadian Supreme Court first, and that we should proceed after that court has pronounced on the validity of the package that is to be ram-rodded through this place as well through Canada?
    Mr. Ridley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there are any amount of vibrations. However, I do not think that it would be right for me to comment on the views of the Canadian provinces. Nor would it be anything other than hypothetical to suggest that legal action in Canada might still be taking place if and when a request is made. If that situation arises, we shall have to consider it at the time.
    Mr. Wall: Can my hon. Friend give any reson why we should pull Prime Minister Trudeau's coals out of the fire for him? Is he aware that there is a supposition in Canada that what is really behind this issue is a desire on the part of the Prime Minister to declare a republic?
    Mr. Ridley: It would be wrong for me to comment on the substance of any request that is made. If a request for patriation were received from the Parliament of Canada, it would be in accordance with precedent for the United Kingdom Government introduce in Parliament, and for Parliament to enact, appropriate legislation in compliance with the request. That is the convention.
    Mr. Shore: Is the Minister aware that many of us would wish him to handle this matter with the utmost care and caution because we believe in maintaining the strongest possible relationships with our partners the Canadians? Has the joint consideration that I understand is taking place by the Canadian Parliament been completed? If not, when is it likely that the joint resolution—I think that I have the right form of words—will be submitted to the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Ridley: I gather that the issue is still before a Standing Committee of both Houses of the Canadian Parliament. The latest news is that it might be as much as two months before the consideration of the measure is completed by the Canadian Parliament.
    Mr. Speaker: We come next to question No. 4. It is due to a misprint in the Order Paper that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) appears to have tabled a question on Iraq and not the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). In fact, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet tabled a question on Afghanistan and the hon. Member for Wokingham tabled a question on Iraq.

    Afghanistan
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement about the latest information on Soviet troops occupying Afghanistan.
    Mr. Hurd: The Government's latest information is that there are 85,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan. In addition, we believe that up to 30,000 troops based in the Soviet Union in areas near the border are involved in support of military operations inside Afghanistan. Afghan resistance continues to be strong and fierce fighting is frequently reported.
    Mr. Chapman: I welcome the latest United Nations resolution and the general condemnation of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan at the Madrid conference, but does my hon. Friend agree that now is the time for a continuing and persistent diplomatic campaign against the imperialist Soviet aggressors, and that he should bear in mind that this should be done in concert with practically every other country outside the Iron Curtain, including the Third world and Islamic countries?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes. I entirely agree with that. It is notable and perhaps remarkable that the number of counties supporting the latest resolution of condemnation was greater this year than last. The resolution invited the Secretary-General of the United Nations to appoint a special representative to deal with the matter and we hope that he will do so.
    Mr. Marlow: Given the large amount of Soviet troops in Afghanistan, do the Soviets still have enough troops to enable them to invade Poland, and in which case what action would her Majesty's Government—
    Mr. Speaker: Order Tint is also another question.

    Iraq
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on United Kingdom current relations with Iraq.
    Mr. Hurd: We wish to build a sound and fruitful relationship with Iraq based on mutual understanding and co-operation. We believe that the Iraqi Government also are looking for improvement in relations. We hope that any outstanding problems will be resolved.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I welcome that reply, and does my hon. Friend feel encouraged, as many do, by the clemency shown to my constituent Mr. Ned Sparkes, who has now been released? Does that encourage my hon. Friend to hope that further clemency will be shown in respect of Mr. Smith, who is still, as I understand it, imprisoned in Iraq?
    Mr. Hurd: That is right. The two cases are not identical, but we hope that the Iraqi Government will feel ab1e to show clemency in the case of Mr. Smith so that he can be restored to his family.
    Mr. Newens: Bearing in mind the appalling treatment meted out by the Iraqi Government to their opponents over recent years., will the Minister find a way to indicate xo them that we will take a dim view of any action taken in this country by elements who support that Government against their opponents? The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are good reasons for asking the question.
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, Sir. It is a relevant question. We have trade our views clear to the Iraqi authorities on a number of occasions.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable concern in Iraq and other parts of the Arab
    250
    world about possible Western and United Kingdom Government policy towards Iran after the release of the American and British hostages? If those hostages are released, will the Government assist in the re-arming and re-equipping of Iran?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend will agree that that is a hypothetical question that will fall to be considered if, as we hope, the American hostages are released. There are no signs, I fear, that that release is imminent.

    Madrid Review Conference
    Mr. William Shelton: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the progress of the Madrid review conference.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Blaker): Her Majesty's Government welcomed the agreement on the agenda and procedures reached on 14 November, which enabled the main Madrid meeting to proceed as planned. The thorough review of implementation of the Helsinki Final Act now taking place will last until Christmas. We expect the meeting to end in March 1981.
    Mr. Shelton: Will my hon. Friend accept my warm congratulations on his determination, which, I understand, ensured the review of the Russian implementation or lack of implementation of the Helsinki agreement? Does he agree that Russian military intervention in Poland would be another clear and decisive breach of the Helsinki agreement, which would have serious repercussions in Madrid?
    Mr. Blaker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. The co-operation between the NATO countries when trying to resolve problems of procedure was remarkable and solid. There is no doubt that foreign interference in the internal affairs of Poland would be a flagrant breach of the Helsinki Final Act. It is difficult to see how the conference could survive in such circumstances.
    Mr. Hooley: When the self-righteous barrage of critimism of the Soviet Union comes to an end, what positive proposals to carry forward the process of detente in Europe will be made by the United Kingdom.?
    Mr. Blaker: I do not accept the description of the conference implied in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. One interesting thing about the conference is that it has been conducting a serious and practical review of what has happened since the previous conference at Belgrade. United Kingdom initiatives are the subject of the next question.
    Mr. Cormack: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said a moment ago, but could he be a little more robust? Will the Western Powers make it plain that there can he no question of continuing the conference for a minute if the Soviet Union invades Poland?
    Mr. Blaker: I do not need to add to what I have just said. I made that clear. The Soviet Union is in no doubt that interference in the internal affairs of Poland would be a flagrant breach of the Helsinki Final Act. If it appears to be necessary during the conference, we shall remind the Soviet Union of that.
    Mr. Winnick: Will the Minister accept that on Poland one should speak with clean hands? Is he aware that there

    251
    is no justification for Soviet intervention in Poland, and that those who have consistently campaigned against aggression, unlike a number of Conservative Members, would condemn any Russian aggression against Poland?
    Mr. Blaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming our views.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Lord Privy Seal what initiative the Government will take at Madrid towards East-West detente; and if he will make a statement on the conference.
    Mr. Blaker: The Government's first objective at Madrid is to have a thorough and frank review of the implementation of the Final Act by all signatory States. We shall be ready at the appropriate stage to put forward with our partners new proposals intended to achieve a substantial improvement in implementation of the Final Act, with particular reference to human rights, security, freedom of movement and freedom of infomation.
    Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister accept that, whatever our views about Russia, we have to live with her or die with her? Does he therefore agree that hostility to infringement of civil liberties in Russia must not be allowed to damage co-existence or detente, since war will help no one?
    Mr. Blaker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of avoiding war. However, one has to remember that the Soviet Union freely agreed at Helsinki in 1975 to all the clauses of the Final Act and to the fact that review conferences should take place every few years, during which we would consider to what extent the undertaking signed at Helsinki had been observed. That is what we are doing. There is no acrimony about the procedure. It is a practical review.
    Mr. Lawrence: In the context of human rights, can my hon. Friend assure the House that the deplorable position of the 2½ million Jews in Soviet Russia is being raised by our representatives at Madrid, particularly the breaches of international obligations that the Soviets are pursuing in suppressing cultural, religious and emigration rights?
    Mr. Blaker: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We have already raised the question of the many forms of blatant discrimination by the Soviet Union against Jews. We shall continue to do so as long as we consider it necessary. We have also referred to discrimination by the Soviet Union against other minorities.
    Mr. Edward Lyons: Will the Minister arrange for our representatives at Madrid to remind the Soviet Union of the terrible fate of Professor Orlov and other members of the committee in the Soviet Union that was monitoring the Soviet Union's failure to observe its undertaking at Helsinki? Will they further remind the Soviet Union that, if it wishes to have detente, the release of those people will be a great step forward?
    Mr. Blaker: We have already specifically taken up the case of Dr. Orlov and the fate of the people who have been trying to monitor the performance of the Soviet Government's obligations under the Helsinki agreement. We may well have proposals to put forward later.
    Mr. Amery: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we are all primarily concerned with averting a Soviet invasion of Poland, the sabre-rattling and the barrage of propaganda
    252
    already undertaken by the Soviet Union is reminiscent of the Nazi propaganda that preceded the Munich agreement? Does he agree that that is totally contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Helsinki agreement?
    Mr. Blaker: I entirely agree.
    Mr. Shore: Is the Minister aware that there are two matters in addition to our concern about human rights that we should pursue most vigorously? First, can he assure us that the first part of the Helsinki Final Act will be discussed and reviewed, and, above all, that the guiding and dominating principle that all the participating States will refrain from the use and threat of force in their relations with each other and with countries outside Europe will be emphasised? Secondly, in the general discussions of confidence building and East-West military easement, does he consider the Madrid conference an appropriate forum to take up the tremendously important question of the SS20 and other Soviet weapons being introduced into Eastern Europe?
    Mr. Blaker: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are other forums in which the question of the SS20 is being taken up. It would be a departure from the Helsinki process to discuss that aspect of disarmament and arms control in Madrid, although we shall have proposals to put forward at the apropriate time about confidence building measures. We have already vigorously made the point that the right hon. Gentleman first referred to. We have gone through the 10 principles in the first part of the Helsinki Final Act and made the point that it was expressly agreed at Helsinki that the signatory countries, in their relations with all States, not only the States of Europe, would observe the principles in the Final Act.

    Afghanistan
    Mr. Rentonasked the Lord Privy seal what new initiatives he is considering in order to facilitate the withdrawal of Russian troops from Afghanistan.
    Mr. Hurd: The Government supported the resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 20 November which called upon the Secretary-General to appoint a special representative with a view to promoting a political settlemant. The Government believe that a settlement must involve the withdrawal of Russian troops and the freedom of Afghanistan to live under a Government of its choice.
    Mr. Renton: Does my hon. Friend recall that Christmas Day marks the anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan, an anniversary which may now be celebrated by a Russian invasion of Poland? Does he think that all the talk about detente and the United Nations resolutions of the past 12 months have had any effect on Russia whatsoever? Does he agree the the West must take much more concerted action about export credits and bans on high technology and on grain sales if it is to have any influence over Russia?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with the spirit of what my hon. Friend said. As he knows, certain measures have been taken in the economic sphere. As he also knows, we would have wished these measures to have been more vigorous in some respects.
    Mr. Deakins: What has happened to the Foreign Secretary's proposal for a neutral non-aligned Afghanistan?
    Mr. Hurd: The proposal has been taken up not only by the European Nine but in a slightly different form by the Islamic Congress. I think that it now represents a consensus of view in the whole of the non-Communist world. We continue to believe that only in that direction can a satisfactory resolution be found.
    Mr. Whitney: Will my hon. Friend again consider consulting the rest of the international community on the possibility of seeking what I might call a Zimbabwe-type solution for Afghanistan so that we can have another form of Lancaster House talks, internationally monitored elections and the voice of the people of Afghanistan being given the same freedom of expression as was the voice of the people of Zimbabwe?
    Mr. Hurd: We are ready to consider proposals for a conference, but those proposals must be based on the stand taken by the United Nations, not on the bogus stand taken by the Soviet Union and its Afghan satellites in their proposals of May this year.

    Iran (British Subjects)
    Mr. Peter Fraserasked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has made to the Government of Iran over the continuing detention of Miss Jean Waddell and other British subjects without charges against them.
    Mr. Hurd: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) on 27 November. On 28 November my right hon. and noble Friend raised this matter with an Iranian Government delegation which was visiting London. It said that the authorities in Iran hoped to have the future of the detainees settled as soon as possible.
    Mr. Fraser: I am grateful for the strenuous efforts which have been made on behalf of my constituent and the other British prisoners. Will my hon. Friend confirm that it was made perfectly clear to the Iranian Government that Her Majesty's Government consider the allegations of spying against these prisoners to be wholly without foundation and quite absurd? In the meantime, will he continue to press for direct access to these prisoners and make it clear to the Iranian Government that we will not tolerate indirect access to them and second-hand reports about their well-being and whereabouts?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. We believe that these accusations are ludicrous and unfounded. They are based to so some extent on documents which anyone with any knowledge of the English language would at once see were forged.
    On the second point, there has been a little progress in twat Miss Waddell, my hon. Fiend's constituent, has been visited by others. It has also been possible for cur representative in the British interests section in Tehran to get some winter clothing to her. However, we regard as unacceptable the position not only of Miss Waddell but of the Colemans and Mr. Pyke. We have made it clear to the Iranians that they cannot hope to have rational and friendly relations with this country while they continue to treat British subjects in this way.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: We welcome the Minister's assurance, but will he make it clear that there is absolutely no question of a resumption of normal relations with Iran
    254
    until Jean Waddell and her colleagues are freed? Will he also insist that access be given in all circumstances as soon as possible?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes. These are their rights under international law, and we shall continue to insist on them.
    Mr. Squire: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if possible, the position of Dr. and Mrs. Coleman, the parents of a constituent of mine, is even worse in that the knowledge that we have of them is somewhat less than the scanty knowledge that we have of the other two unfortunate captives and that it becomes a matter of priority that we establish the health and welfare of these people?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon Friend is right. We have been trying to do this directly through the Iranians who were here and through the Swedish embassy which looks after our interests in Tehran and which includes a member of the British diplomatic service. I have been trying to find intermediaries who will take up this cause. We shall continue to press this matter in all these ways.
    Mr. Newens: Will the Minister make it clear that many of us who strongly opposed the Shah's regime for its abuses of human rights equally strongly oppose the manner in which the present Iranian authorities are treating British subjects and other political prisoners? We believe that there should be a change there which breaks completely with the abuses of human rights.
    Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. It is no use the Iranian Government sending delegations here and expecting to receive sympathy for their case in other matters if they treat our people in this way.
    Mr. Cormack: Can my hon. Friend not make something like a Don Pacifico speech? Why does he not tell where wretched Iranians that, unless they release these decent Christian people, we shall send back their students?
    Mr. Hurd: We are sending back their students, as my hon. Friend may have noticed.

    Palestine
    Mr. John Home Robertsonasked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made with the European initiative for a settlement of the Palestinian question.
    Dr. M. S. Millerasked the Lord Privy Seal what was the result of the meeting of the Heads of State of the European Economic Community countries in relation to the Middle East situation.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: The Heads of State and of Governments of the Nine reaffirmed in a statement at Luxembourg yesterday their belief that the Venice principles contain the elements for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace settlement. They agreed on a programme of action requiring new contacts with the parties concerned.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Minister aware that there is growing support both in the House and in the country for the principle that the Palestinian Arabs are every bit as entitled to a national home as their Jewish neighbours? The right hon. Gentleman will recall that Lord Balfour made a famous declaration on Jewish national rights. Does

    255
    he agree that the time has now come for perhaps a Gilmour declaration committing Europe to a stance in favour of Palestinian Arab national rights?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I do not think that would be appropriate. However, I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. There is a growing understanding of the rights of Palestinians. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, that is one of the two main principles of the Venice declaration.
    Mr. Walters: The prevailing surge of Arab disunity may give pleasure to Mr. Begin, but it is very bad news for the West. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the European Economic Community will persist with the utmost vigour in its initiative in trying to bring about a just solution of the Arab-Israeli dispute which continues to poison the whole area?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that whatever may be the other important disputes in the Middle East, the Arab-Israeli dispute has not lost its importance. As the declaration in Luxembourg yesterday made clear, Europe will continue with its efforts.
    Mr. Mikardo: In view of the flat rejection of the Venice communiqué by both the Israelis, which was predictable, and the Palestine Liberation Organisation, which I believe shook the right hon. Gentleman rigid, would it not be more practicable to go easy on the European initiative until the noble Lord has had a chance of consulting the new Americal Administration and assumes the chairmanship of the Council of Foreign Ministers in the middle of next year?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I was not shaken rigid or otherwise. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians agreed to see Mr. Thorn, who was the representative of the Nine on this occasion, and they had long and fruitful talks. The policies of the new American Administration will be of the greatest importance. We have always made it clear that we shall wish to consult closely our American allies. There is no question of rivalry or strife between us.
    Mr. Latham: But will my right hon. Friend confirm that any European diplomacy will be regarded as carrying forward the Camp David process rather than attempting to frustrate it? In that regard, obviously the perceptions of President-elect Reagan are immensely important.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that President Reagan's policies will be of the greatest importance. We have always made clear that we have no intention of cutting across the Camp David agreement. We wish it well. How it will work out, of course, remains to be seen.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Would not one of the best ways of carrying forward the negotiation be for each side to agree on the territorial integrity of the other, and certainly to accept the right to live in peace in that area?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. She has enunciated briefly the main principles of the Venice declaration.

    Namibia
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Lord Privy Seal what action the Five Power Group now proposes to take in the light of
    256
    the rejection by South Africa of the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia to which South Africa had previously agreed.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce): South Africa has not rejected the United Nations plan for Namibia. On the contrary, the Secretary-General's report of 24 November to the Security Council, issued after consultation with all concerned, including South Africa, envisages March 1981 as the target date for implementation, subject to agreement on the final arrangements for the United Nations plan at a pre-implementation meeting beginning on 7 January 1981. The Secretary-General has asked the five Western negotiating Powers to send observers. The Five will continue to use their influence to help achieve independence for Namibia.
    Mr. Hooley: Will the Minister say a little more about the pre-implementation meeting? Who will be invited to it, under what auspices will it be held, and where will it be held? Will that in any way hinder the implementation of full independence for Namibia in 1981?
    Mr. Luce: The purpose of the meeting is to try to reach a successful conclusion to the arrangements for the implementation of the United Nations plan. It is to be held on 7 January. The precise location has not yet been agreed. The United Nations will chair the meeting, and the principal participants will be the main parties to the dispute, that is to say, SWAPO, South Africa and the internal parties. The five Western Powers will act as observers.

  European Community

    United Kingdom Membership
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will list in the Official Report statistics outlining the advantages and disadvantages for the United Kingdom of membership of the European Economic Community.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: No, Sir. British membership of the Community is not just a matter of statistics.
    Mr. Roberts: I am sorry that the Minister feels unable to provide the statistics, but will he agree that any statistics on our relationship with the EEC are usually pretty disastrous? In view of this, and the fact that the next Labour Government will undoubtedly be committed to taking us out of the EEC, does he not feel that the British people should be given an opportunity to decide on our continued membership, as they may well feel at this stage that enough is enough, and that we should cut our losses and get out?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question was too long.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I did not say that I was unable to provide statistics. There are a great many. I merely said that they were not appropriate in this case. The position is that 42 per cent. of our exports go to the EEC, compared with 30 per cent. before we joined the EEC. Germany is our largest customer and there are many others. As to the next Labour Government—if we ever have one—taking this country out of the EEC, the hon. Gentleman should have a word with the shadow Foreign Secretary, who said something rather different last Monday. As for having a

    257
    referendum before anything happens, I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party's policy at Blackpool was to deny the British people a referendum.
    Mr. Hicks: Will my right hon. Friend clarify to the House what will be the effects of cutbacks in the level of Government expenditure by this Government upon the receipts received, particularly from the regional fund, in respect of infrastructure projects and other similar concepts?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: There will be no effect on the 30 May agreement, which is entirely firm. What has happened is that, as a result of the very large refunds that we secured, some Government expenditure cuts which might have been necessary have not taken place.
    Mr. Cryer: Is it not true that one of the disadvantages is the result of negotiations undertaken by the Prime Minister, under which the refund of our money from the EEC will be subject to decisions on specific projects by Brussels bureaucrats? Is not that one of the many disadvantages — including a massive and increasing balance of trade deficit with the EEC—that will produce a reversal of the policy at the next election?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: Everything that the hon. Gentleman said is wrong. There are not disadvantages in what the Prime Minister and the rest of us negotiated in getting the refunds. The procedures whereby our money will be gained are very clear, and they will not be subjected to Brussels bureaucrats.
    As to our trade deteriorating, the position is that our manufacturing performance in recent years has been poor with the whole world, but we have done better with the EEC than we have done elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman should remember that.
    Mr. Farr: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has considered one very worrying statistic that is difficult to explain away, namely, that our balance of trade with the Community countries has swung from a surplus of £200 million in 1970 to an ever-growing deficit of no less than £3,000 million last year? That is a worrying statistic to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Can he explain that?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I can. It is implicit in what I have just said. That statistic is worrying, but it reflects Britain's Door manufacturing performance throughout the 1970s. Between 1972 and 1979, our export-import ratio in trade with the Community in manufactured goods fell by 19 per cent. With the rest of the world it deteriorated by 23 per cent.
    Mr. Shore: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal to take this question rather more seriously than he is inclined to do? The country is entitled to some information about what the relative balance of advantage and disadvantage has been. Will he confirm that so far, during the period of our membership, we have paid into the Community, in budget contributions alone, over £2,000 million more than we have received?
    Will the Lord Privy Seal agree with his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that the cost to Britain, to the British housewives, of being a member of the CAP, as distinct from being able to buy at world prices, is running at £3,000 million a year? Does not the
    258
    Lord Privy Seal think that information of this kind would be useful and helpful to the British people at arriving at a judgment?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I take this question very seriously. The right hon. Gentleman objects to my answer because he does not agree with it and it happens to be inconvenient to him, but my figures are absolutely right. We have done better in manufacturing trade with the Community than we have with the rest of the world.
    With regard to the payment of our budget contribution, the previous Labour Government, when they were in power, achieved absolutely nothing, and it is fairly poor for the right hon. Gentleman to put on his old gramophone record, because he knows well that we achieved a very considerable success on 30 May, whereas the Labour Government achieved nothing at all.
    I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is correct in regard to the figure that he attributed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

    Heads of Government Meeting
    Mr. Spearingasked the Lord Privy Seal what items he expects to be included in the agenda of the next Heads of Government meeting of the European Economic Community.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: It is too soon to say.
    Mr. Spearing: Will the Lord Privy Seal agree that when the Heads of Government next meet, in Maastricht, on 23–24 March, the Community will be moving into a revenue crisis? Since the Heads of Government have already agreed that they will not increase the VAT levy, will he now tell the House that the Government will not agree to any proposals to put an import levy on oil?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: The same answer applies. It is too soon to say. Various proposals on energy have been put forward, one of which includes an import levy on oil. The matter will obviously have to be examined very carefully. It might be something that would not suit us at all well, or, on the other hand, it might suit us. Until proper definite proposals have been put forward, it is much too soon for us to make up our minds.
    Mr. Jim Spicer: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that Turkey and the future of Turkey is of the greatest importance to the Western world? Might he not consider suggesting that a discussion on Turkey—and, indeed, the presence of the Turkish President or Foreign Minister—would be appropriate at this very difficult time for that country?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: What happens in Turkey is of great importance to us all, but, as my hon. Friend knows well—none knows better—it is unprecedented for a Head of Government or a Head of State of a country which does not belong to the Community to attend the European Council.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider carefully the problem of the International Year of Disabled People? Is he aware that the European parliamentarians are most dissatisfied with the representation of the Community in this connection? Is he aware that everyone in this House is dissatisfied about it? Will he give an undertaking, as the Minister responsible, that the question will be given some sort of priority on the agenda in Europe?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I appreciate the importance of this matter, and we are considering what contribution we should make. I cannot give an undertaking about the next agenda of the European Council, because I do not control it, but I am sure that the matter will be discussed in Europe.
    Mr. Chapman: At the next meeting of European Heads of Government, will the question of the safety of EEC commissioners be discussed? Will my right hon. Friend make a statement at the earliest possible opportunity about the shooting of Mr. Christopher Tugendhat, which is worrying to all hon. Members?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: As many hon. Members will be aware, two shots were fired at Mr. Tugendhat in Brussels this morning when he was leaving his house. I am happy to say that neither he nor anyone else was hurt, and the matter is now in the hands of the Belgian authorities.

    Political Co-operation
    Mr. John Evansasked the Lord Privy Seal if he remains satisfied with the level of European Economic Community co-operation in foreign policy.
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Lord Privy Seal when next he expects to meet the President of the European Commission to discuss more effective machinery for European political co-operation.
    Mr. Knoxasked the Lord Privy Seal what further proposals he intends to place before his European Economic Community colleagues for the development of a Community foreign policy.
    Mr. David Huntasked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects to meet the foreign ministers of the European Economic Community to discuss closer political cooperation.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: The Government believe that the Nine should build on the recent achievements of political co-operation by strengthening its organisation and improving its procedures.
    My right hon. and noble Friend has made a number of suggestions — that there should be a greater political commitment to co-operation in foreign policy; some sort of permanent support staff; and an improved procedure for convening meetings in an emergency.
    Foreign Ministers have agreed that the organisation of political co-operation should be examined. The political directors will now prepare a report, and that will be considered by Foreign Ministers in due course.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I shall call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Lord Privy Seal confirm that despite the suggestions of the Foreign Secretary, no other country in the EEC has taken up any of the suggestions that he put forward regarding co-operation on foreign policy?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: That is implicit. I have already answered that question in my original reply. I said that we have agreed that the organisation of political co-operation should be examined, and that is one of the questions that will be considered.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my right hon. Friend explain to any of my hon. Friends who may have been misled by
    260
    the subtle charm of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that the objectives of the so-called European reform group are irreconcilable with the settled policies of this party and this Goverment, and that its activities cause grave damage to effective European political co-operation, at a time when such co-operation is desperately needed to dissuade the Russians from putting any pressure on Poland?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. But the charm of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) must indeed have been very subtle because the prospectus that the group put forward is not only at odds with the policies of this Government but is incompatible with our continued membership of the Community. It is, therefore, a dud prospectus. At present, political co-operation is vitally important.
    Mr. Knox: In view of the deepening world economic recession, does my right hon. Friend propose to take any initiatives with his counterparts in Europe in order to obtain a positive response from the EEC to the Brandt Commission report?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: As my hon. Friend said earlier, we are continuing discussions, and a number of conferences are taking place. We do not have an immediate initiative in mind within the EEC, but this is one of the matters that crops up continually.
    Mr. Hunt: What initiative is my right hon. Friend planning to take to strengthen political co-operation at a time when that is more necessary than it has ever been in view of the serious and dangerous trouble spots throughout the world, and when the Community has an oportunity to show to the new Reagan Administration the strength that it can achieve?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I have outlined some of the organisational matters that my right hon. and noble Friend has suggested. As to the immediate situation, which the whole House will agree is serious, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is about to make a statement on the Luxembourg declaration.
    Mr. Jay: Is the continuing sale of subsidised butter to the Soviet Union by the EEC one example of EEC foreign policy?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: No, it is not. That is an unfortunate example of trade policy which, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, is opposed by the British Government.
    Mr. Proctor: Will my right hon. Friend urge his Foreign Minister colleagues in the EEC to urge the Argentine to get its hands off the Falkland Islands?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: That is not a matter that is likely to come up quickly in our discussions on political co-operation.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is it not a fact that political cooperation can sometimes lead to absurd conclusions. Is not one such example the decision of the Government to support the evil Pol Pot regime as the representative of Cambodia in the United Nations? Should not the Government first change their mind, and then try to persuade their EEC partners to do so?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman knows that we do not support the Pol Pot regime. We made that clear a year ago, and we do not wish to see the return of that regime.
    Mr. Parris: With regard to the question of my lion. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), does not my right hon. Friend accept that there are some of us who feel that radical change is needed within the Community, and that we have not despaired of changing it?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. In fact, the so-called radical changes that were proposed in that document are incompatible with membership of the EEC.
    Mr. Deakins: Will the Lord Privy Seal confirm that European political co-operation has nothing to do with the European Commission, as was implied by the rather daft question of the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer)?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: It is true that it has little to do with the European Commission, although the President of the Commission and one or two other commissioners are occasionally present.

    Greece (Accession)
    Mr. Glimmerasked the Lord Privy Seal in what ways the Community intends to mark the effective date of accession of Greece and to welcome this further step towards greater unity in free Europe.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: I share my hon. Friend's satisfaction at the accession of Greece. We shall welcome the Greeks formally early in the new year. Greek observers are already participating in most Community business.
    Mr. Gummer: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this is the moment not only to welcome the accession of Greece to the EEC, but to point out how attractive the EEC is to other nations, in marked contrast with the Warsaw Pact?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: That is true. As the House and my hon. Friend know, not only Greece but Spain and Portugal are seeking to become members of the EEC. As far as I know, no country in Eastern Europe has ever voluntarily applied to join the Warsaw Pact.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does not the Lord Privy Seal accept that in view of the great economic problems of Greece, when it enters the EEC the availability of parts of the small social fund which are desperately needed to aid certain areas of Britain will be even more reduced?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the arrangements have been made. That is one of the subjects that will be most important in the restructuring exercise of the budget that will take place next year.
    Mr. Latham: Will my right hon. Gentleman confirm that no nationals of Greece or Spain will have better rights of admission to this country in future than the people of Gibraltar?
    Sir Ian Gilmour: That must almost certainly be right. Yes.

European Council (Luxembourg Meeting)
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I will, with permission, make a statement about the European Council meeting in Luxembourg, which, together with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, I attended on Monday and Tuesday. I have placed a copy of the Presidency's conclusion in the Library of the House.
We were glad that the Greek Prime Minister attended for the first time and we look forward to full Greek participation in the Community from 1 January.
The first matter that we discussed was the tragic earthquake which took place last week in southern Italy. We expressed our deep sympathy with the victims, and of course agreed that the Community would help financially with the formidable task of reconstruction.
The Council then turned to the economic problems facing the Community, foremost of which is the rapid increase in unemployment. We were all deeply concerned about the effect of higher oil prices on our own economies and on the economies and the economic situation of the world as a whole. We agreed that they are the main cause of world recession. We noted the particularly serious consequences which any further increase in oil prices would have on the non-oil-producing developing countries.
We agreed that within the Community reduction in inflation rates and improvement in competitiveness were the most appropriate ways of achieving growth and combating unemployment on a lasting basis. Europe must also have regard to the extent to which the Community has fallen behind in industrial development and innovation. The Council therefore agreed that the institutions of the Community should examine ways of improving incentives to innovation and of making the best use of the Community market. We welcomed the continued use of Community instruments to help reduce structural unemployment, and agreed that special efforts should be made with the training of young people and to assist them to find jobs.
We agreed to extend the present phase of the European monetary system.
We stressed the importance of the work being done by the independent international financial institutions in dealing with the problem created by higher oil prices.
We welcomed the decisions taken recently by the Council of Foreign Ministers on trading relations with Japan. These called for a wide-ranging dialogue between the Community and Japan, based on moderation in Japanese exports in certain sensitive sectors, on allowing the yen to reflect the fundamental strength of the Japanese economy and on improved access to the Japanese market, with the Community being treated no less favourably than other major trading partners.
I drew attention to the problems created for our chemical and other industries by current American policy on oil and gas prices.
I urged strongly that early decisions should be taken on continued access for New Zealand butter. I drew attention to the very slow progress being made on questions such as insurance and air fares where the community has yet to show its readiness to have freer competition in the service sector.
In discussion of future problems facing the Community, we recalled the mandate which would fall on
264
the new Commission to produce a report by next June on how the structure of the Community budget should be changed so as to ensure that unacceptable budgetary situations do not arise again for any member State. The United Kingdom, with Germany and France, emphasised that this will have to be done not only within the accepted principles of the Community, but within the 1 per cent. VAT ceiling.
The Council also discussed foreign policy questions, in particular East-West relations and the Middle East. We were all deeply concerned about developments in Eastern Europe and in particular about the position of Poland. We agreed that events there have given special significance to the language of the Helsinki Final Act about the right of every country to choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural system, free from any outside intervention. The Helsinki principles are applicable to all States in all circumstances.
The nine Heads of Government therefore called upon all the signatory States to abide by the Helsinki principles with regard to Poland and the Polish people. They emphasised that any other attitude would have very serious consequences for the future of international relations in Europe and throughout the world. They also expressed their willingness to meet, in so far as their resources allowed, the requests for economic aid which have been made to them by Poland.
On the Middle East, the Council took stock of the work done since the declaration which we issued in Venice in June. We decided that the Presidency—which from 1 January will be held by the Netherlands—should conduct the next round of contacts with the parties concerned, with the aim of giving more precision to the main questions at issue: withdrawal; self-determination; security and the future of Jerusalem. Our hope is that the sustained diplomatic activity on which the Nine are now engaged will contribute to a narrowing of the differences between the parties to the Arab-Israel dispute. Our objective is a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement based on the two principles stated at Venice: security for Israel, and recognition of the rights of the Palestinians.
In discussing these and other foreign policy issues in Luxembourg, the Council was conscious of the gravity of the various crises now facing the world. The Heads of Government of the Community are aware that they have both the opportunity and the duty to play a significant role in the search for solutions to these problems. To this end they expressed in their agreed conclusions their determination to ensure that the unity of Europe was strengthened and its voice heard.
Mr. Michael Foot: On the first matter referred to by the right hon. Lady in her report, may we say how eager we are to join in what she said on behalf of the British Government and what was said on behalf of the other Governments there about the appalling catastrophe that has befallen the people of Italy? Is she aware that we join fully in the sentiments that she has expressed on that subject?
It was natural that the shadow of Poland should fall across the Council meeting in Luxembourg, just as it has fallen during this period across the rest of Europe. The civilised world holds its breath to see what may happen after the heroic exertions of the Polish people to establish their just rights. Any attempt from outside to interfere with

265
the assertion of those rights and the right of those people to have free and independent trade unions along with other rights would be a tragedy and a crime against the world.
It is in that sense that the entire House approaches the matter. No ore should be in any doubt about the serious consequences if that assertion were to be breached. Therefore, I certainly agree with what the right hon. Lady said about the application of the Helsinki agreement—an agreement that was signed by all the parties concerned—in this case. I underline as strongly as I can how much we in the Opposition wish to see the people of Poland and all the other peoples of the world able to express themselves freely through their own institutions and in their own way
I turn to another item in the right hon. Lady's report—the Middle East. She refers to what was achieved at Venice. Many of us did not think that a great deal was achieved at Venice when Heads of Government met to discuss these matters. We are sorry that in the list of items which the right hon. Lady tabulated about the matters that were agreed there is no reference—not even a proposal for a study—to one subject to which we attach great importance, namely, the question of the supply of arms in that area. One of the most obscene aspects of the whole Middle East situation is the way in which the arms traffic is sustained and increased. I believe that the British Government, along with others, should be taking the initiative in that field to see whether something can be done to reduce the arms traffic and eventually to stop it.
I turn to the economic aspects of what the right hon. Lady has reported to us. I gather that there is a forecast of a very considerable increase in unemployment throughout the Community over the next 12 months, but we can see nothing in this communiqué that suggests any action that is to be taken to deal with it. The right hon. Lady suggests that the countries concerned expressed their deep concern about the unemployment, but in the communiqué there are no positive measures—indeed, no measures at all, as far as I can see—for tackling it. There is the statement that the increase in oil prices is the main cause of the recession, but there is no positive proposal for doing anything effective about it. There is not even the suggestion that the countries should meet to try to effect a common policy for trying to deal with this recession.
If so little is proposed and so little is carried out, as is suggested in this communiqué is it not a fact that when he right hon. Lady attends another meeting in Europe in six months or so the situation will still be getting worse and we shall still have the same old stale platitudes as are in this report, whim offer no prospect whatsoever for Europe escaping from the crisis?
The Opposition wish to see all the countries of the Western world, and, indeed, the countries of the world generally, taking, proper action to deal with their own unemployment and with their own economic crises. If they did that effectively, so much more effectively could we assist in protecting the freedom of countries such as Poland and the others that may be under threat.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the tragic earthquake in Italy. It was very heartening to see the quick way in which all members of the Community responded to the needs of one of them at a time of disaster. I am also grateful to him
266
for what he said about Poland. We are naturally all very pleased that there is unanimity in the House on this vitally important matter.
With regard to the Middle East, the supply of arms is usually dealt with by each country and is usually dealt with when any application for the supply of arms comes before the Government, and we deal with them on an individual basis. We do not discuss those matters with other countries. We deal with them ourselves. [Interruption.] That particular communiqué is trying to sort out some of the phrases about which we have been talking in connection with a solution to the Middle East problem for a long time, about withdrawal within the terms of resolution 242 of the United Nations, about self-'' determination and about security for all of the States in the area. We have been using these phrases for a very long time, and the next few months are to be spent in trying to give them a very much more precise meaning, in conjunction and discussion with all States and parties in the area.
With regard to the vital question of unemployment and growth and the future of world trade, the communiqué goes into these matters a little more deeply. There are only three possible solutions, and it is no good talking in generalisations, though as there were some magic formulae; there are not. What that communiqué did was totally to reject reflation as a method, because that would aggravate the problem. There are basically three methods, and they are set out to some extent in the larger communiqué.
There is the expansion of trade. The communiqué points out that the whole of Europe has fallen behind in its attitude to innovation and technological change, and that is why others have got the trade and we have not, and that is one of the reasons why we have more unemployment than they have.
There is the second measure of relief for existing unemployment, and that is dealt with by the Community instruments, particularly the social fund and the regional fund.
There is the third matter of seeing that we get a due and proper share of world trade on free and fair trade, and that we dealt with by some references to Japan.
The right hon. Gentleman gives the impression that there is a magic formula. [Horse MEMBERS: "You do."] It is precisely that attitude which has led to increasing unemployment and inflation over the years.
Mr. Foot: On the question of the possibility of arms control in relation to the Middle East, the right hon. Lady's answer is quite unsatisfactory. We do not think that it is satisfactory that this matter should be left entirely to the individual Governments. I have no doubt that the British Government exercise control, and I am sure that they try to exercise it in a responsible manner. But I believe that there ought to be some effort towards a common control, because many of the other countries concerned are not exercising the position at all. Indeed, some of the countries in Western Europe are engaged in an arms traffic of an obscene nature. The British Government should be taking the lead in trying to stop that.
As to the right hon. Lady's remarks about economics, no one is suggesting that there are magic formulae. There is certainly no charge against her of having applied any magic formulae. That is not part of the accusation at all. But she should save her simplistic sermons for her own

267
Cabinet, because quite a number of countries in Europe do not have unemployment on anything like the scale that we have it here. There are quite a number of countries in Europe—countries such as Austria and Norway—which are not applying the same kind of Hayek economics, or whatever the name is for the Friedmanite economics of the right hon. Lady, and which have managed to keep their unemployment much lower. They have done it partly by exactly the economics that the right hon. Lady has thrown out of her Downing Street window.
I say to the right hon. Lady: save those sermons for the Cabinet; do not bring them to us in the House of Commons.
The Prime Minister: With regard to the Middle East and arms control, I notice that the right hon. Gentleman puts forward solutions which he never practised while he was a member of the Labour Government. As he knows full well, in discussions of arms for the Middle East, the appropriate forum would not be Europe, where there are comparatively few people who supply arms or are in a position to supply arms — [Interruption.] I said that there are comparatively few; I did not say that we were the only ones. Therefore, any discussion would be more between the two of us, and where we had a situation suddenly developing, as we had with Iran, we dealt with it in a very much wider forum than that.
As regards unemployment in Europe, the countries which have the lowest unemployment are the countries which have concentrated on having the lowest inflation and have pursued the relevant monetary policies to that end.
Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister confirm the general impression given by the communiqué and by her report to the House that there is perhaps a greater degree of unity and cohesion among the Heads of Government than there has been for some little time? If so, that is to be warmly welcomed.
Perhaps I may take up one statement in the right hon. Lady's report, in which she talked about
"the problems created for our chemical and other industries by current American policy on oil and gas prices."
Has the right hon. Lady studied the CBI survey, published the other day, which shows that British industry is paying higher energy prices than our Community partners, and that the problem lies partly with British policy towards oil and gas prices and not just with American policy?
The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, yes, there was a greater degree of unanimity amongst the Heads of Government present in Luxembourg than I have seen in a long time.
We are particularly concerned about oil and gas prices because oil and gas are used as a chemical feedstock as well as a fuel, and prices have a very serious effect on our plastics and synthetic textiles industry. It is that to which I was paying particular regard in raising the problem. I have not yet seen the full CBI report. Comparatively few examples were given in the preliminary report. There were not many of them. We have a tax on oil that brings in quite a bit of revenue.
The difficulty in saying that a tax should be taken off is that we are already borrowing up to the hilt. If we take a tax off one place we have to substitute for it on another.
268
Even then, we prefer to get the borrowing requirement down. One of the problems on differences in energy prices between Europe and ourselves occurs in electricity prices for large-scale users in this country in energy-intensive industries. I must point out that one of the biggest costs in electricity is the price of coal. We generate 70 per cent. of our electricity from coal. It is therefore vital to have increased productivity and reduced costs in the pits here.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Now that we are starting questions from the Back Benches, I may indicate that I propose to allow questions to run until 4.15 pm. This will provide 25 minutes for Back Bench questions. It will not be sufficient time to enable all hon. Members who wish to put questions to do so. If questions are short, however, a great many will be possible.
Mr. Peter Tapsell: Should the House not bear continually in mind the fact that the brutal threat now facing Poland could be faced by other European countries, including our own? Does this not underline the overriding importance for us to give top priority to rebuilding our defences?
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend points out, that threat has been felt by other Eastern European countries in the past. That is one reason why we are now so concerned. Most of us recognise that if anything were to happen to Poland it would be even more significant. Poland, because of its history, has a unique place in Europe, and a unique place in our history and that of many other European nations. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that unless we keep up our defences we shall not be able to deter the strength of other nations. I hope that he will agree that increased priority to defence expenditure has been given under this Government.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the question of improved access to the Japanese markets mentioned by the Prime Minister, will she carry out a case study of what has happened over Rapier and the preference given to the Japanese Tansam missile, which is acknowledged to be inferior? Surely what is protective sauce for the goose of the Japanese infant arms industry is also protective sauce for the gander of the British motor industry.
The Prime Minister: I am not certain to which case the hon. Gentleman is referring. We always make specific decisions on arms sales. We were concerned in the communiqué to endorse the decision previously reached by the Foreign Ministers that because Japan finds free trade and open barriers in the rest of the world, certainly in much of Europe and in the United States, we should have equal access to her markets.
Mr. Julian Amery: Will my right hon. Friend agree that no European initiative on the Arab-Israel problem is likely to make much progress until the problems connected with the Iran-Iraq war and the Syrian-Jordanian confrontation have been resolved? Will she further agree that the PLO boycott of the Arab summit and its identification with the pro-Soviet Syrian regime makes it an even less attractive negotiating partner than it may have appeared at the time of the Venice meeting? Will my right hon. Friend turn her mind to promoting a settlement between Israel and Jordan and leave the Jordanian

269
Government to decide at what level and to what extent, if at all, the PLO, should be associated with the negotiations?
The Prime Minister: In regard to my right hon. Friend's first point, I think that we can make some progress in elucidating some of these phrases, which have been used for a long time. We have talked of security behind certain well-established borders. We have talked about withdrawal. We have talked about self-determination. No one has worked out precisely how these could come about if we were to get agreement. That work can be done by contact between the parties in the next few months. That was our objective. This will mean that we no longer talk in generalisations but know how the things that we are talking about could be brought into effect.
With regard to the summit: in Amman, I am aware that there is considerable disappointment that it was perhaps not attended by as many people as had been hoped. In the Venice statement, we said that there should also be contacts with the PLO as it was one of the factors in the settlement and, ultimately, if any settlement was to stick, the PLO would have to be associated with it. I believe that this still maker good sense. We want a full, complete settlement in the Middle East. We must therefore work towards one which would provide a satisfactory solution for the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. None of us would recognise the PLO as the sole representative of those people.
Mr. Douglas Jay: Does the Prime Minister agree with the recent speech of the Minister of Agriculture in which he said that there was no need for major reform of the common agricultural policy?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend makes quite a lot of speeches. I think that I recognise the one to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. We are out for reform of the common agricultural policy within the principles laid down hi the treaty. It is possible to reform it well within those principles.
Sir Hugh Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend go further in regard to the Middle East initiative? One might have hoped that it had been sunk without trace because of other matters, but the gondola seems to be still floating from Venice. Will my right hon. Friend explain how it is possible to negotiate with the PLO when the PLO says that in no circumstances will it regard Israel as a State that should exist and is determined on its destruction? What my right hon. Friend has said only adds o the confusion about the initiative. This would be better undertaken if the Western European Powers were to be involved in some limitation of arms supplies to the Middle East, which Sir Anthony Eden and others did with some success 15 years ago. That would be a really worthwhile initiative.
The Prime Minister: As we pointed out in the Venice communiqué, there can be no settlement at all unless each side recognises the other's rights — unless the Palestinians and the PLO recognise the right of Israel to exist behind secure boundaries, and, unless the Israelis recognise the legitimate rights of the Palestinian peoples. We have been talking in those generalisations without trying to work out the steps that would lead to a solution. We believe that we can do a good task in working them out.
Mr. John Grant: I hope that the Prime Minister did not talk down to the Heads of Government as she did to the unemployed in her broadcast at the weekend. Is she aware that several hundred members of the EETPU are lobbying Members this afternoon because they fear for their jobs in a technologically-based industry, namely, consumer electronics? They are asking for temporary import controls on a Community basis. Did the right hon. Lady raise this question with the Heads of Government in her discussions about imports? If not, will she give an assurance that she will raise it in the future?
The Prime Minister: The question of Europe's falling behind on electronics and engineering products was raised and discussed at some length. It was pointed out that Europe, which used to export far more electronics than it imported, now only breaks even whereas Japan exports nine times as many electronics as she imports. We were very much aware that we have not had the right approach to innovation and to tehnological change. One of the factors that we discussed was the attitude of unions towards innovation and technological change. The hon. Gentleman is asking what we discussed. I am replying to his question and telling him. Unless he accepts that we must have a new approach to innovation and technological change and compete with the Japanese and others, and newly developed counties, we shall not get the products or the jobs.
Mr. Terence Higgins: In view of the importance of deterring Russian aggression and cutting public expenditure, will my right hon. Friend say whether there was any discussion of the absurdity of continuing to offer the Russians subsidised export credits? If not, will my right hon. Friend set an example by stopping it and, in that way, make sure that we improve the public sector borrowing requirement?
The Prime Minister: We always make our views known on this. As my right hon. Friend knows, we are absolutely against subsidised exports to Russia from the intervention stocks in Europe. The matter is dealt with in a management committee on which the veto does not apply. I am afraid that we are in a minority on this matter in Europe. But we shall continue to make our views felt.
Mr. Dick Douglas: If the right hon. Lady looks back over the speeches which she has made in this House on returning from summit conferences she will note that repeatedly reference is made to oil and oil prices and that the Community has done nothing to embark upon a dialogue with the OPEC nations. Would she consider sending the speech of her right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) to the members of the Commission and her other European associates, because in that speech the right hon. Gentleman indicated a framework of reference whereby this dialogue could commence?
How does the right hon. Lady expect to get technological innovation in this country when she is carrying out policies which deepen and widen the recession?
The Prime Minister: First, there have been attempts to get a Euro-OPEC dialogue going. Those countries do not want a dialogue on oil prices, and that is the fact of the matter. Therefore, we make most of our contacts through bilateral means and hope to influence our many contacts in the OPEC countries. However, there are a

271
number of countries in OPEC which have done their level best to keep down oil prices because they know the effect that they have on world recession and on the newly developed countries.
Mr. Churchill: Does not the mobilisation and massing of many Soviet divisions along the Polish border constitute a prima facie threat to peace which should be raised as soon as possible at the United Nations? Will not my right hon. Friend agree that it is now time for Britain to embark on a major programme of rearmament to safeguard the peace while time remains?
The Prime Minister: At the moment, along the East German-Polish border there has been declared a temporarily restricted area. This is not a new development. It is unusual, however, to have a temporarily restricted area of such a size at this time of the year, although they are otherwise known and exercises connected with them are known. Of course, if there were any movement across the border it would be a totally different matter. At the moment, we wait to see what further developments, if any, there will be and hope that there will be nothing beyond that temporarily restricted area and that it will soon come to an end.
With regard to our defence policies, last year we increased our defence spending by 3 per cent. It will probably come to almost 3 per cent. this year, and it will be increased next year. We must have regard to our resources. Within our resources, we have given top priority to defence.
Mr. Robert Parry: The Prime Minister mentioned youth unemployment in Europe. Is she aware that over the weekend in Liverpool tens of thousands of young people marched for the right to work? Is she further aware that in Merseyside, of 102,000 people unemployed more than 30,000 are under the age of 20? What plans do her Government have for reducing this figure?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced certain relief measures for helping young people and also for improved training. At our Council meeting, we were very conscious of what I call the three factors. We have to get an expansion in world trade if we are to solve the unemployment problem. We also have to have relief, and relief against structural change in the meantime and some assistance to youth. In that connection, this country has an allocation from the European social fund for 1980 of £135 million and from the regional fund of some £170 million. So both we and Europe are playing constructive parts in trying to relieve the unemployment that exists right across Europe.
Mr. Raymond Whitney: Will my right hon. Friend and her colleagues take every opportunity to publicise the important conclusions of the European Council on the very damaging effect of oil price increases on the economies of non-oil-producing developing countries? This is an issue which the Brandt report, whatever may be its other merits, dealt with in a singularly inadequate manner.
The Prime Minister: Yes. I shall certainly do that. We had a long discussion about it. It is quite clear that,
272
whereas there was a good deal of recycling done from the first oil price increase through the banks, we are now in a position where the underdeveloped countries cannot possibly borrow any more money, because they have not the finances to service that money. What they really need now is aid. That is a state of affairs of which we are very conscious. It has to be done partly throuth the international financial institutions and partly through bilateral measures, but also through bringing the matter very much to the attention of the OPEC countries themselves.
Mr. Kenneth Marks: With reference to the Italian earthquake disaster, we all strongly support the expressions of sympathy and the offers of finance for rehabilitation, but is the Prime Minister really satisfied that the Community and its member Governments acted urgently enough and strongly enough after the disaster? Were not they put to shame by the voluntary organisations?
The Prime Minister: On the contrary. I was in Italy at the time of the earthquake. We offered immediate help, but for the first two days the Italian Government did not require the help that we offered. After all, they can mobilise a good deal of their own resources. The moment that they asked us for blankets and tents, plane loads were sent. The difficulty is not merely in getting help there. It is in seeing that there is an organisation properly to distribute it. In Europe, we were concerned not only with immediate help. I think that almost every country has given immediate help, and there have been some resources—nearly £1 million—from the Community as well. We were concerned with help for long-term reconstruction, because that will be both a long and an expensive job. We were concerned to offer loans at very favourable rates of interest.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Ought not the economic burden resulting from the failure of Socialism in Poland to fall upon Soviet Russia, which imposed that system on the Polish people, and not upon the free world, which needs to devote its own scarce resources to its own people and to the Third world covered by the Brandt report?
The Prime Minister: I agree entirely that the economic system of Socialism in the Warsaw Pact countries has failed totally to produce not only freedom and dignity but any reasonable standard of living. There is an argument for saying that the burden should fall on the Soviet Union, but that again is a Socialist country, and that, too, does not produce a reasonably prosperous standard of living for its people.
Mr. Foot: It is not Socialist.
The Prime Minister: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Mr. Foot: It is still not Socialist.
The Prime Minister: Marxism is the logical end of Socialism, as the right hon. Gentleman knows and is painfully aware. In the present circumstances, we feel that we might help Poland by offering economic aid, and we are considering that both as individual countries and as a Community.
Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens): Is the Prime Minister aware that, despite her report about the discussion held by

273
the Nine on the increased cost of oil and its effect on the economy and on unemployment, she has the power in her own hands to supply British industry with cheaper oil all round and thereby help to gel down mass unemployment? That is within her power. Why does she not do it?
The Prime Minister: For a start, because it is not wholly within our power. The only fact that is within cur power is the small tax on oil which is imposed by the Exchequer and which brings in about £300 million a year. Certainly that makes oil slightly more highly priced than in some places in Europe, and the hon. Gentleman may argue that that should be taken off. But I am also worried about the extent to which we are already borrowing, and substituting that tax by another. Beyond that, the system that we were left with is that North sea oil must be bought by the British Government at current world prices. Those are the terms upon which exploration and production were done, so that it is not in our hands just to cancel that system. Moreover, as we belong to Europe we cannot have preferentially low prices for oil in this country. That would be contrary to the European Treaty.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend has stood up strongly for British interests within the EEC. Does she still agree that we are making too big a contribution to the EEC budget? If she does, can she tell me and he House which countries will pay for the accession of Greece and the other countries—Spain and Portugal—which are shortly to join? What action is the EEC likely to take should the worst come about and the Soviet Union occupy Poland?
The Prime Minister: The answer to my hon. Friend's first point is that in respect of our contributions this year we are having a return of about £710 million to this country. That certainly is not the whole of the contribution, but it is far more than anyone has ever managed to get for Britain before.
There are at present three net contributors to Europe—Germany, by far the biggest net contributor; next, ourselves, a long way behind; and then France. They feel very strongly that they are contributing to some other countries whose income per head is higher than theirs. That is one reason why we are going for restructuring the budget. A major report is due next June, and we shall consider it later.
With regard to movement on Poland, I think that we should have to impose both political and economic measures. It would, of course, be the end of detente, and I should think that we could not possibly carry on with—for example—the conference in Madrid.
Mr. Bob Cryer: The Prime Minister mentioned Greek participation in the EEC from 1 January. What particular measures, such as emergency action, has she discussed, to be taken should Greek accession severely damage the already ailing textile industry?
Secondly, the right hon. Lady mentioned support for free trade unions in Poland. Does riot she accept that her view on that matter would have considerably more credibility if she were not busy attacking trade unions in this country, binding them with legal shackles and trying to deprive trade unionists' dependants of supplementary benefit payments?
The Prime Minister: In his latter point the hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. I do not find that unusual.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend tell us more about the discussion that she had about the plight of the European motor industry, brought about by the Japanese car industry not keeping its word over its quotas? Does she agree that there are well-founded rumours that the Germans and the French are considering—in my view quite rightly— unilateral action to make sure that the Japanese keep their word? Has my right hon. Friend seen the report which shows that, if the situation is allowed to continue, by 1985 another 560,000 jobs in Europe will be lost directly because of the Japanese encroachment on the British and European motor car industries?
The Prime Minister: Because several countries of the Community are in a different position with regard to Japanese imports, we felt that the Community countries together should take action—that they should approach Japan as a Community. Apart from that, Japan has been dealing with the European countries on an individual basis. Indeed, our motor industry has been dealing with the Japanese motor industry; I believe that the director of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders is in negotiation at present.
My hon. Friend is right. Under the voluntary agreement, which has lasted for several years, the Japanese penetration of our car market varies between 9 per cent. and 11 per cent. a year. The Japanese have adhered to that agreement, but the percentage will be exceeded this year, rising to about 12 per cent. and possibly more. The motor industry is in consultation with the Japanese now.
The penetration into Germany is also considerable. It is not so big into Italy, which had a pre-accession agreement. France seems to have ways of keeping out these imports. We believe that the matter should now be dealt with on a European basis.
Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was here when I said that I would let questions on the statement run until a quarter-past four. If he was, he knows that he is taking time out.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Does the Prime Minister accept, and did she urge upon her European colleagues, that the pro-Western regimes of the Gulf and Saudi Arabia are becoming increasingly impatient over the lack of real progress in the European initiative, a fact which all those of us who keep close contact with the representatives of those countries, and who occasionally visit the area, can well attest? Will she urge her European colleagues to agree that progress must be made on the Palestinian issue, particularly as regards recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, without waiting for President-elect Reagan to settle into the saddle?
The Prime Minister: The Nine countries assembled in Luxembourg felt very strongly that we must continue the diplomatic activity and contacts that we started in Venice, and that we could best continue them along the lines that I have indicated. We were also very much aware that there would have been a very sharp reaction in some of the countries of the Gulf had we decided to terminate that initiative. We all believe that we shall not secure a permanent settlement in that region until the Palestinian

275
problem is settled. We are very much aware that the Palestinian people must also accept the right of Israel to exist behind secure borders.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Having watched at first hand the Soviet Army putting down a workers' revolt in Budapest and then in Prague, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether she accepts that those who make the decisions in the Kremlin are far less likely to be impressed by the words, however strong, from the EEC summit than they are by NATO action. We decided to do many things over Afghanistan—the grain embargo, the trade and credit embargo, and the rest—but, in the event, for the most part we have not done them. Therefore, does not my right hon. Friend feel that actions are more likely than words to prevent the over-running of Poland?
The Prime Minister: It is for that reason that we gave defence the first priority in our expenditure. When we had to economise on a number of other expenditures we increased defence expenditures, although we faced a very difficult economic situation.
With regard to action, not words, I feel that a combination of words and action taken over Afghanistan had an effect on the people in the Kremlin. When there was a massive vote against them in the United Nations, twice—104 the first time and 111 the second time—they recognised that the mobilisation of the opinion of a large proportion of the world against them undermined their position throughout the non-aligned countries. That was the first time that they had had such an adverse reaction. I agree; we need action, but opinion on that massive scale also has an impact in the Kremlin.
Later—
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard me put two questions to the Prime Minister. The right hon. Lady failed to answer the first question, about the textile industry. I know that you are not responsible for Ministers' answers, but surely there is a degree of accountability to the House, even for Prime Ministers. I should have thought that it was in order for us to draw the conclusion that the Prime Minister could not give a damn about the textile industry—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) was a little acid in the second half of his question and I quite forgot the first half. With permission, may I answer now?
Mr. Speaker: I think not. With respect to the Prime Minister and to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), we have moved on. I think that I gave a good run this afternoon for any Minister who had to answer such questions.

Select Committees (Evidence)
Sir Albert Costain: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As this is the second time in 21 years that I have raised a point of order, I hope that you will accept that I do not raise points of order lightly. I apologise for not giving you notice, Mr. Speaker, but the
276
incident to which I wish to refer happened only this afternoon. It could have long-term consequences for the procedure of the House.
In his supplementary question on question No. 1, my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) referred to evidence given this morning in a Select Committee. I have always been under the impression that evidence given to Select Committees should not be referred to in the House before the Committee has reported to the House. The point that I raise is no reflection on my hon. Friend, but I think that the House needs a ruling on it.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As it is his second in 21 years, I hope that he is not making a habit of raising points of order.
We must guard our customs and traditions, but the House decided on 31 October
"That, notwithstanding the Resolution the House will not entertain any complaint of contempt of the House or breach of privilege in respect of the publication of reports of evidence given by witnesses before select committees meeting in public before such evidence shall have been reported to the House."—[Official Report, 31 October 1980, Vol. 991, c. 922.]
I presume, therefore, that we now work on the basis that if we do not take action against anyone outside we shall not take action against any hon. Member inside the House. However, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing the matter to the attention of the House.

Unemployment (Merseyside)
Mr. Robert Parry: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the critical level of unemployment in the inner city of Liverpool, namely, in my constituency, Liverpool, Scotland Exchange."
We had a debate on unemployment last week. I sat throughout the debate for five and a half hours and intervened twice. Incidentally, neither of the Liverpool Tories was present. That shows how interested they are—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make a speech on the general issue. He must, as I know that he will, say why the matter is important, urgent and specific.
Mr. Parry: Last Thursday I received a written reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Employment. I asked how many people were unemployed in the Liverpool, Scotland Exchange constituency. My constituency is small, with fewer than 32,000 electors. I was staggered by the Under-Secretary of State's reply. He said that nearly 20,000 people were registered as unemployed in my constituency—a staggering 65 per cent.
When I tried to raise the issue on Thursday during the economic debate, Government Members, particularly the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), started to laugh and joke. If the hon. Gentleman tries to make a joke of this again, he will have to answer to me outside the Chamber.
On Merseyside, 30,000 young people under the age of 20 are unemployed. The problem is particularly serious among coloured youths. Discussions have taken place

277
between the Commission for Racial Equality and the chief constable about tensions in Liverpool. We should have a debate on the matter, because it is critical arid there could be trouble on our streets.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) gave me notice before 12 o'clock today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely, the fact that in his constituency of fewer than 32,000 electors there are 20,000 unemployed, amounting to more than 65 per cent. of the total.
No one in the House can have failed to listen with anxiety and concern to the hon. Gentleman. As he and the House know, I do not decide whether the matter should be debated. I merely decide whether there should be an emergency debate tonight or tomorrow.
The House knows that under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision.
I do not underestimate the seriousness of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I must rule that has submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Allan Roberts: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision of the management of the National Girobank to move jobs in Giro from Merseyside to Birmingham and establish a new centre for Giro in Birmingham."
The matter is urgent and requires an emergency debate. The proposals by the Giro management are being consummated today. The management has stated that today a commitment will be made to a lease on property in Birmingham.
There is an emergency because the proposals could mark the beginning of the end of Giro in Bootle. When a company opens a centre outside Merseyside, recent history shows that Merseyside's activities are closed and centralised elsewhere. For example, that has happened with Dunlop and Lucas Aerospace. If Giro's future expansion takes place outside Bootle, the future of Bootle itself will be jeopardised because, after the local authorities, Giro is the largest single employer of labour in the area.
278
The matter is urgent because the decision marks a sudden change of policy—from proposing a second Giro centre in Merseyside and regionalisation of the service by setting up a sales and marketing service in up to seven regions, to a new policy involving a second centre outside Merseyside. That will take not only sales and marketing services away from Bootle but customer credit, account openings, personal loans and accounts management divisions and the jobs that go with them. That will enable management to abandon regionalisation.
The matter is urgent and should be debated, now because the proposals could lead to industrial action by the unions. The unions passionately wish to avoid such action. They do not wish to harm Giro or its image. They are looking to democracy in this House and the efforts of right hon. and hon. Members to avoid the need for any such industrial action. We should not let them down.
The issue is urgent and should be debated, as moving any jobs from Merseyside, where unemployment has reached astronomical levels, is an emergency. The action by Giro's management symbolises Merseyside's total crisis. The area is treated with contempt, as if it is dispensable. Merseyside is already overburdened by hardship and human suffering. Anything which will add to the crisis must be an emergency.
Giro and Bootle are synonymous. I beg the House to enable us to keep it that way.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) gave me notice before 12 o'clock today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision of the management of the National Girobank to move jobs in Giro from Merseyside to Birmingham and establish a new centre for Giro in Birmingham."
I listened with concern to the hon. Gentleman. He will know that no question of sympathy or otherwise on my part or the serious argument that he advances is involved in my decision. I have to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision.
I listened with great care to the hon. Gentleman, but must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Orders of the Day

  European Assembly Elections Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I have not selected either of the amendments.
  4.27 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a short and concise Bill in one substantive clause. It amends the provisions of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978 so that Parliament would have to approve Orders in Council establishing new constituency boundaries for elections to this House before the Boundary Commissions can commence their reviews of the consequential new boundaries for elections to the European Parliament. It relieves the Boundary Commissions of the obligation imposed on them in a schedule to the 1978 Act, introduced by the last Administration, to submit simultaneous reports on the European parliamentary constituencies with their reports on constituencies for this House. The consideration of European parliamentary constituency boundaries will now be a separate task, more firmly based on completed work on our own parliamentary boundaries. In deciding to bring forward the Bill, I believe that it will provide a more logical and acceptable basis for the future work of the Boundary Commissions. The Boundary Commissions themselves take that view, and I hope that their view will ultimately commend itself to Parliament.
  It may be of assistance to the House if I describe more fully the background to the present procedures and if in particular I describe the rules for the redistribution of Westminster and European parliamentary constituencies. I am aware that this is a matter which causes a good deal of concern and speculation in the House and elsewhere. I think it is important that the facts should be clearly set on the record.
  The procedures under which the Boundary Commissions operate in their reviews of constituencies for this House are set out in the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949—a consolidating Act—and the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1958. As far as their periodical general reviews are concerned, the commissions are required to submit reports on the distribution of parliamentary constituencies at statutorily regulated intervals. Under the 1949 Act this interval was fixed at not less than two years and not more than seven years, but this was found by common consent to be far too short and the period was amended by section 2(1) of the 1958 Act so that the commissions are required to report at intervals of between 10 and 15 years. Accordingly, the present position is that all four commissions, having reported last in 1969, are all required to report on their present general reviews by the late spring of 1984: in the case of the English commission by April 1984, the Scottish commission by April 1984, the Welsh commission by May 1984 and the Northern Ireland commission by June 1984.
  There is, of course, nothing in the Bill which changes that statutory interval, nor, indeed, anything which
  280
  changes any aspect of the work of the parliamentary Boundary Commissions in relation to the conduct of their work on Westminster constituencies. The rules under which they operate in relation to such matters as the criteria for redistribution and the degree to which they may balance such considerations as the importance of maintaining local ties compared with the need for equality in electorate will, of course, remain as set out in schedule 2 to the 1949 Act and section 2 of the 1958 Act. In no sense does the bill change the "rules of the game" as far as the general review of parliamentary boundaries is concerned.
  As the House knows, the Boundary Commissions are at this moment in the process of conducting general reviews of Westminster constituencies. It may assist the House to know the latest position on these reviews. In England, so far, the commission has published recommendations for 261 constituencies in 30 counties and for 84 constituencies in 32 London boroughs. It has held local inquiries into seats for 14 counties and for 27 London boroughs. The commission seems to be on course to complete publication of all its initial recommendations by the summer of next year. No doubt there will be further local inquiries to be held. It would then be possible, during 1982, for the commission to decide on its final recommendations for seats in England.
  In Scotland, the parliamentary Boundary Commission published its proposals for 39 constituencies in the regions—other than Strathclyde—and the islands earlier this year. It hopes to publish proposals for the remaining 32 constituencies in Strathclyde in the late spring of next year.
  In Wales, it is expected that the parliamentary Boundary Commission will issue notice of intention to make a report on the 36 constituencies shortly.
  In Northern Ireland, the Boundary Commission is about to hold four local inquiries into its revised provisional proposals for the 17 constituencies established in the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1979.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The right hon. Gentleman added to his note on the progress of the England commission an indication of the prospective term of the completion of its work. I wonder whether he is in a position to give a comparable indication with regard to the other three countries.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I have given the best indication that I can in relation to Scotland. In Wales, the commission has just begun its work, so I could not give that indication. In Northern Ireland, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will know, as I do, the particular position of that review. I could not give an answer as to the exact date when that will be completed.
  I have set out the position for each commission, country by country, in detail because in the context of the Bill I believe that we must ask ourselves this question: without the Bill, what will happen to the final recommendations of each of the commissions when they are completed?
  As right hon. and hon. Members know, the proposals of the Boundary Commissions are not made lightly. They are certainly not made at random, nor, at the other end of the scale, are they made on the basis of mechanical logic and distribution according to mathematical formulae.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that there is nothing in the Bill that changes the criteria laid down in the 1949 Act. Have

  281
  the Government any proposals for a review of those criteria? Many people think that the Boundary Commissions pay far too much attention to the numbers game and not enough attention to communities.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Boundary Commissions have an extremely difficult task. I believe profoundly in the importance of their independence in the judgments that they make, and I should always seek to uphold their independent judgment to the utmost of my capacity, because I believe that that is in the finest traditions of the House. They, of course, will pay attention to the kind of comments that the hon. Gentleman has made, but they have a difficult task in balancing the different criteria. Their recommendations, subject to the criteria laid down by Parliament, are arrived at after the mist vigorous scrutiny—I think that this answers the hon. Gentleman to some extent—and in most cases only after they have been subjected to the rigours of one or more local inquiries conducted by an assistant commissioner — a sheriff in Scotland — appointed by the Secretary of State for that purpose.
  When a report has been submitted to the Secretary State, he is required to lay it before Parliament together, except in a case where the report states that no alteration is required to be made, with the draft of an Order in Council to give effect to the recommendations, with or without modifications. If modifications are proposed, reasons must be given. The draft Order in Council requires the affirmative resolution of approval of each House of Parliament before submission to Her Majesty in Council.
  The Act specifies that the Secretary of State must lay these reports be fore Parliament
  'as soon as may be".
  In other words, the Secretary of State is not permitted to delay the process of translating the proposals of the Commission into the reality of new constituencies. The law envisaged that there should be no delay, so as to prevent politically motivated interference by the Executive in the implementation of the changes proposed by the commissions. Of course, right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches need no reminding of the temptation to interfere in this way, but I can say categorically that this Government intend to respect the independence of the commissions as one of the keystones of our democratic system and to lay their reports before Parliament in accordance with the statutory requirements as soon as practicable—without delay.
  We should like to do this as soon as the parliamentary Boundary Commissions have determined their final reports on parliamentary constituencies. But I have to tell the House that, as the law stands, we are not permitted to do this. As a result of legislation introduced to honour an international obligation — the European Assembly Elections Act 1978—the rules were changed, after the commissions had begun their reviews, so that there is now a quite unnecessary delay in reports on parliamentary constituency boundaries reaching the Secretary of State's desk. The reports of the Boundary Commissions with regard to constituencies for this House cannot be presented to the Secretaries of State who then, as I have indicated, present them to Parliament until the commissions complete their reviews of the constituencies of an entirely separate body—the European Parliament.
  Thus, an impediment has been introduced—quite unnecessarily and unjustifiably, in my view—to the
  282
  implementation of the final recommendations of the Boundary Commissions and to the correction of the gross disparities between constituencies which must inevitably arise as a result of quite normal shifts in population. It is that impediment which we seek to remove in the Bill before the House today.
  The best estimate is that this additional procedure could, in the case of England, impose a 15-month delay between the completion of work on the parliamentary boundaries, its submission to the Secretary of State and submission by him to the House. Such a procedure could be justified only if it were thought that there was an overwhelming need to interlink recommendations made for parliamentary and European Parliament constituencies, so that the boundaries were permanently coterminous. But there is no such need, and it is illogical to believe, as some people apparently do, that the construction of European parliamentary constituencies must have an impact on the construction of those Westminster constituencies. There is no evidence to suggest that at all, and there are no circumstances in which that can be conceived.
  The effect of this new procedure was that, while the reporting date of the commissions was unchanged, their final recommendations on the composition of parliamentary constituencies would inevitably be held back pending completion of work on European Parliament constituencies. The work on the two reviews is, of course, consequential, not simultaneous. The European Parliament constituencies must by law be made up of whole Westminster constituencies. They are the essential building blocks. The commissions cannot sensibly proceed with their Euro constituency work until they know the final form of those building blocks.
  Yet the European Assembly Elections Act required that the Boundary Commissions should proceed with the European reviews on the basis of provisional recommendations for Westminster constituencies which Parliament had not approved. They are required to publish provisional recommendations for European Parliament constituencies, hold inquiries, consider representations and generally put people involved in the political processes to a great deal of time and trouble to comment on proposals which could eventually turn out to be unacceptable to Parliament. I hope that that will not be the case, but it is a matter of concern that that possibilty exists. In short, the present procedure seems to be neither sensible nor necessary.
  I therefore asked the parliamentary Boundary Commission for England for its view on the proposal to break this link and to revert to the procedure as it would have been before the direct elections legislation. The deputy chairman, Sir Raymond Walton, told me that such severance would be very welcome to both the commission and its staff. Aside from the fact that this would ensure that the submission of the complete reviews on parliamentary constituencies were not artificially delayed, Sir Raymond told me that he could foresee a number of practical benefits. It would, for instance, make the consideration of representations a simpler matter.
  Representations received about the commissions' proposals for European Parliament constituencies could not be confused with representations about the Westminster constituencies, and vice versa. The premature disclosure of the recommended Westminster constituencies, which would be inevitable when the

  283
  commissions published their provisional recommendations for European Parliament constituencies, before they are submitted to the Secretary of State and to Parliament would be wholly averted. I am glad to say that the Bill fully accords with the views of the English and Scottish Boundary Commissions on this matter.
  Mr. W. Benyon: Perhaps my right hon. Friend can clear up something that is worrying a number of us. At the moment, the Boundary Commissions are working on the basis of the electorate for 1976. Therefore, if they run to the 1984 date the electorate will be eight years out of date. Does the Bill allow the Boundary Commissions — from the remarks that my right hon. Friend has made, it appears that they are very much in favour of it — to consider the European seats on the basis of a fresh electorate?
  Mr. Whitelaw: It will allow the Boundary Commissions to consider the European seats after this House has pronounced its view on the Westminster constituencies — assuming that the Bill is passed. I believe that that must be right, because the European constituencies must be built on the Westminster constituencies. Therefore, this House should pronounce its view on the Westminster constituencies before the Boundary Commissions proceed to discuss the European constituencies. The time that has elapsed since the various considerations of constituencies have taken place is already causing the gravest possible disparities and difficulties. We ought to recognise that fact as well.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: It is a long time since we heard the Home Secretary put forward a Government measure with such verve and conviction. Therefore, I am sorry to interrupt him. Can he explain the coterminous issue? In one breath the right hon. Gentleman says "Ah, these constituencies are built on the bricks of Westminster constituencies", but earlier in his speech, unless I misunderstood him, he told us with tremendous enthusiasm that there was no need for the European and Westminster constituencies to be coterminous. Doubtless there is an explanation, and it would be interesting to have it.
  Mr. Whitelaw: It is a considerable time since I introduced any Government measure at all. Therefore, I do not know what the hon. Gentleman was talking about in the first part of his intervention. I cannot introduce Government measures with verve when I am not introducing them. I do not quite see what the point was.
  As to the other point, if I have not explained it correctly, it is my fault. I believe that if we are to build — and I think that it is inevitable — the European constituencies on the Westminster constituencies, it makes a great deal of sense first to decide in this House what the Westminster constituencies will be. Having done that, we can then let the commissions look at the European constituencies that will be built on those Westminster constituencies. I must honestly tell the hon. Gentleman that I can see nothing other than a logical development in that procedure.
  Mr. George Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman voted the other way in 1978.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I do not see that that invalidates my argument. Having regard to what we did then, we now intend to produce a proposal that will make a great deal more sense now. If the House were unable to produce something that made more sense, it would be an extremely poor place indeed. That is what we are trying to do.
  I have explained how it was that the procedure provided in the redistribution Acts came to be changed after the reviews by the Boundary Commissions had begun and why the Government believe that change to be wrong, causing unnecessary delay to the work of redrawing parliamentary boundaries. I shall now explain the procedure which the Bill puts in its place.
  The substantive provisions of the Bill are contained in clause 1 (1), (2) and (3). These remove the redundant provisions of the 1978 Act which provided for the setting up of the initial European Parliament constituencies in Great Britain under a truncated procedure. They amend the other provisions of schedule 2 to the 1978 Act so as to provide that each Boundary Commission in Great Britain will not make recommendations as to the composition of European Parliament constituencies at the same time as it makes recommendations on the composition of the parliamentary constituencies contained therein. Henceforth, each Boundary Commission will review the composition of European constituencies only after the making of an Order in Council giving effect, with or without modifications, to its recommendations in respect of the parliamentary constituencies contained in those European Parliament constituencies. That provides the firm basis on which the Boundary Commissions wish to act. I was glad to accept the suggestion on the timing of the commencement of European Parliament reviews put to me by the deputy chairman of the English Boundary Commission.
  Furthermore, there is a widespread feeling, both in the House and in the country generally, that the present gross inequalities of electoral boundaries have reached such a stage that they cannot be allowed to continue for one day longer than is necessary, allowing, of course, for full and careful compliance with all the appropriate statutory procedures for redistribution. The Boundary Commission for England gave notice of its intention to commence its review in 1976. In the commissions' memorandum of evidence to the Select Committee on direct elections in July 1976, the English commission said that it aimed to report in 1979. That has clearly not been achieved, partly because of the unsuccessful court proceedings brought in 1978 with respect to the report of the local government Boundary Commission for the London borough of Enfield. That brought the work of the parliamentary commission to a virtual standstill for several months.
  Thus, the procedures for redrawing parliamentary boundaries have already been elongated, but I must stress that we have not the slightest wish to intervene in any way in the conduct of the commission's reviews. After all, it was not this Government who imposed on the commission a new obligation which had the effect of delaying the submission of its reports on parliamentary constituencies, after it had embarked on its reviews. We have always abided by the procedures. But we cannot accept that the results of the reviews should quite unnecessarily lie dormant as a result of the 1978 Act.
  I draw the attention of the House to a set of statistics, freely available in the Library of the House, published as OPCS Monitor, EL 80/2, issued on 20 May. That gives

  285
  the number of parliamentary electors on the 1980 register of electors in each of the 635 parliamentary constituencies within the United Kingdom The monitor to which I refer shows that in England alone there are 58 constituencies where the number of electors on the register exceeds the electoral quota — the average number of electors per constituency—by more than 30 per cent. Of these, there are 28 constituencies where the difference between the actual number of electors and the electoral quota is more than 40 per cent. and 10 in which it is more than 50 per cent. At the other end of the scale, there are 38 constituencies in England in which the number of electors on the register is more than 30 per cent. below the electoral quota. In 14 of these it is more than 40 per cent below, and in five the electorate is less than half the electoral quota.
  Let me illustrate those discrepancies in another way. The latest available figures for electorates reveal that in 1980 there are 11 constituencies containing more than 100,000 electors and 14 constituencies containing fewer than 40,000. As hon. Members know, there is one constituency w lit fewer than 25,000 electors. I challenge any right hon. or hon. Member to justify that position.
  Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Has my right hon. Friend realised that the effect of that means that, in general, it takes twice as many electors in a rural constituency to elect a Member of Parliament as it does in an urban constituency?
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: They are not as good.
  Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) says that Members in rural constituencies are not as good as those in urban constituencies. I take that point. I stand up as a very large figure in a very large rural constituency. What is more, I have been there for an awfully long time, and I do not intend to leave it.
  Mr. John Cartwright: Has the Home Secretary included places with special geographical positions, such as the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, in the figures that he has given to the House?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I was very careful, for a very special reason, to begin my reference with the words "in England alone". I did that deliberately because of the different position that applies in Scotland.
  If new constituency boundaries are not in effect in time for the next general election and we must await the parliamentary general election after that, it may be that new boundaries will not be in effect until a general election almost 10 years from now. I challenge any democrat, or anyone who has the best interests of the House at heart, to say that such a situation should be permitted. The Bill, without in any way interfering in the conduct of work by statutorily independent commissions, will at least assist in ensuring that the chance of fairer boundaries for our parliamentary constituencies is not delayed by wholly unnecessary provisions made in the schedule to a Bill dealing with another matter.
  4.56 pm
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I wish to take up the point that the Home Secretary has just made. He made a case for much shorter reviews. The 15-year period allows changes in population to accrue. Conservative Governments lengthened the period over which reviews
  286
  should take place. The right hon. Gentleman excused himself when referring to the size of seats in England. I understand the special position of Scotland in the Highlands and Islands. I understand that some of the recommendations of the Boundary Commission would create two seats in Scotland of less than 40,000, not five yards from the English border. In fact, one seat is nearer 30,000. In terms of size, we might have some funny results coming out from the Boundary Commission—I can only assume for very good reasons.
  The Bill to amend the 1978 Act is, as the Home Secretary said, almost entirely concerned with one part of the Act. There are some spent provisions. When the original legislation was passed, many wider implications had to be considered. I suggest that there are wider considerations within the rules of order—because they are not dealt with in the Bill—that we should consider this afternoon. The House decided three years ago to have elected Members for Europe. We have not heard anything this afternoon about the next steps.
  'There are two aspects, as well as the narrower aspect of the Bill, that we should consider this afternoon. It is on those two bases that I shall address the House. In 1978 the House decided that the method of voting for the European Assembly should be by first past the post and that, consequently, there should be created one-Member, large constituencies based on those for the United Kingdom Parliament. Once the United Kingdom constituencies are available — and I am begging the special position of Northern Ireland, to which I shall return later—they will be the bricks on which the Euro constituencies are built. Obviously, the Boundary Commissions for the four parts of the United Kingdom would put the bricks together and report to the House. In 1978 it was decided that the recommendations should be made at the same time, and schedule 2 laid down the procedures until such time as the next steps in the European election procedure were taken.
  The Home Secretary, as I thought he would, went back to 1969. I shall he glad when the papers for that period are made available. When the Labour Administration were in Government, the moment that we interfered in the process of the Boundary Commissions the cry was "Gerrymandering". The 1974 election was the first time that the new boundaries applied, and the Conservative Party lost.
  If the cry of gerrymandering could be applied purely on the basis of interference in 1969, I can use exactly the same word now. I shall seek to explain why that is so.
  Mr. Gummer rose—
  Mr. Peter Bottomley Mr. Peter Bottomley (Woolwich, West) rose—
  Mr. Rees: I am surprised that the Conservatives, who were then in Opposition and who made such an outcry on that occasion, are now doing exactly the same thing when in Government. They are interfering in the processes that were laid down and for which they voted two years ago.
  Mr. Gummer: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a total difference between suggesting that two separate operations should be done separately and bringing before the House, after a law case forced the then Government to do so, a series of orders that was recommended to be voted down? Surely, that was an example of gerrymandering unequalled in the history of this constitution.
  Mr. Rees: I do not accept the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. The Conservative Party has an advantage. It was the House of Lords that rejected the proposals of this place on a previous occasion. Whatever the justice of the case that is advanced from the Labour Benches in this place, the House of Lords will not support it.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I think that it should be a Conservative Member who first says in this debate that it is clear that the result of the changes that are proposed in the Bill will be one that is likely to help the Conservative Party in the same way as the results of the 1969 decision helped the Labour Party in the 1970 election rather than the 1974 election.
  Mr. Rees: There is a great deal of talk about the effect of redistribution—
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: From where does it come?
  Mr. Rees: It comes from some political commentators in some party offices. They speak of it with the certainty of the law of the Medes and Persians. There is talk of an advantage of 40 seats. I noticed that the press last week was suggesting a 20-seat advantage. It is far too early to be certain. It seems that the effects will be felt most by inner city constituencies, and that will have an adverse effect on the Labour Party. Whatever the inequity in a particular area, whether an inner city constituency or otherwise, it is proper for the Boundary Commission to correct it.
  My argument is that the Government have stepped in to speed up the process because it is to their political advantage to do so. I have noticed that Lowestoft, for example, might well be a Labour seat as a result of change, as might Worcester. That makes me think that the Prime Minister is trying to speed up the process so as to make life a good deal easier within the Cabinet. The Government are making a mistake in moving in this way. The same argument applies now as in 1969.
  The Home Secretary has given dates. He did so in the context of what is in the statute. What timetable do the Government have in mind for the separate United Kingdom and European elections? The United Kingdom elections, whatever the niceties of the constitution, will take place, approximately, in May 1984. The European elections will take place in June 1984. There will be only a month between the two. I accept that one is a fixed-term election and that the other is not. The timing of the United Kingdom elections is properly, given our constitution, within the command of the Prime Minister. As I have said, there is on the face of it only a month between the two elections.
  The commissions do not have to submit their reports until April-May-June. The Home Secretary has given us some additional information. I had not realised that there could be the difference of a month or two. The relevant words are "not later than". Those words were not put in the statute to suit the needs of a particular party. The election was held in 1979—not 1978 or 1977—and the statute is not designed to make life awkward for a Prime Minister when he or she comes to choose the date of an election. In my view, the Government could meet both elections by 1984. There is only a month between the two elections, and these are matters that should be left alone.
  288
  The Home Secretary informed us that the Welsh redistribution has not yet been undertaken. That is because of what happened in Enfield and not for other reasons. The Welsh will have their first meeting in February 1981. It has been suggested that the Welsh Boundary Commission will find it extremely difficult to conclude its considerations and to submit its report in time. I hope that the Government will not be saying to the House "The Welsh Boundary Commission is not yet able to report, and we shall go into the next general election with only three Boundary Commission reports before the House and not "four." I shall be interested to hear from the Minister of State what the Welsh Boundary Commission has advised.
  On the basis of the interference in the processes laid down two years ago, I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Bill. However, there are other aspects that the Home Secretary or the Minister of State should explain to the House. It is suspected that there are other reasons why the Bill has been presented now. If the two elections are unhooked, the Government will not have to reveal their intentions about the next election for Europe. What is the Government's aim? Are we to move to a common basis for the next European elections in June?
  When these matters were discussed on an earlier occasion, a commitment was given by a Front Bench spokesman for the then Opposition that the next European elections would be held under a common system. We have heard nothing about that. We shall have to know during 1981 whether that is the commitment. If we do not know by that time, we shall not be able to take steps to deal with it. If the Government had not introduced the Bill, it would have been necessary for a statement to be made fairly soon.
  I am advised that the political committee of the European Parliament has been discussing what the steps shall be for the commonality of the elections for Europe next time round. I hear that the chairman of the committee has suggested that, instead of having a proportional representation system that is the same throughout the Nine or the Ten, there should be PR in each member State and that as long as there is PR under any heading that will be good enough for Europe. I understand that the committee is discussing the additional member system of PR that the Germans follow, to the pitch of either a quarter or three-quarters of the total members.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: The system that the Germans used for their domestic elections was not used for the European elections.
  Mr. Rees: I understand that the additional member system is being discussed as a possible method of PR that could be used by some countries if they wished to do so. Unless a decision is taken in 1981 that there will be commonality, we shall be using the first-past-the-post system next time round whether or not that is under amended legislation.
  Viscount Cranborne: Will the Labour Party be in favour of a common system?
  Mr. Rees: We shall be against the common system. However, the Conservative Opposition said that they were in favour of a common system.
  The Home Secretary has told us that the Government's fresh consideration of the 1978 legislation led to this measure. Does that mean that they have considered afresh

  289
  the commonality idea and that we are not to go into the elections of June 1984 with a common system? The purpose of this legislation is to speed up the process by which we get the United Kingdom elections. I presume that that applies also to setting down the rules for the June elections. I refer to "rules" loosely because I do not want to become involved in Treaty obligations as on a previous occasion.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I was disturbed to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the Opposition would be opposed to a common system, particularly since the 1976 Council of Ministers, which occurred during a Labour Govenment, agreed that a common system would be established in 1984.
  Mr. Rees: I accept that. However, we have debated the matter in the blouse. I put forward in the White Paper a regional list system. That was defeated. That is the end of the road on that matter for the moment. It does not matter what the Opposition say. The Conservatives in Opposition said that they were in favour of a commonality system Next time round. The Government appear to be taking the decision that it should be first past the post for super Euro constituencies. Is that a temporary decision? Is that why they have unhooked the constituencies? We should be told whether we shall move to PR next time round.
  I believe that there should be a different system for Northern Ireland. However, we are not in Government. When we put that to the House in 1978, the Conservative Opposition voted with the Unionists in Northern Ireland in favour of a common system. There is not a word about that this time. This is where the alteration could take place. We do not know where the Government stand over a common system for Northern Ireland.
  I can only deduce that the Government have decided that next time round in Europe it is first past the post for the United Kingdom constituencies. The Minister should tell us that. The Home Secretary gave us a great deal of information, bat we heard nothing about the overlying policies of the Government. We should hear more about those.
  When the 1978 Act was before Parliament, there was wide discussion on the nature of the Assembly. The Bill is amending that Act. We discussed then the dual system, the purpose of the Assembly and whether it was an advisory body, whether it would have more powers and so on. Two years have passed since Members were elected to the Assembly. What are the Government's views? Are the powers of the Assembly becoming greater? What are the implications of the addition of Greece and, later, other countries? Do the election procedures work? I ask the Home Secretary this not because of any clever thought beforehand.
  In the previous legislation, we had a system of inquiry for the big European constituenceis that was different from that for the United Kingdom constituencies. One reason was that we needed more time. A stronger reason was that, once we had the United Kingdom constituencies, with inquiries about local attachments rather than numbers, building the bricks of the larger constituencies raised other questions. Has the Home Secretary considered a different system of inquiry for the European constituencies?
  Are the large constituencies manageable? On the first-past-the-post system, there will be a large number of Conservative Members in Europe. Is the system working
  290
  well? Do people know who the Euro Members are? The House decided the system. We should have a report back on a number of these matters. I read in the newspapers that one Euro Member is selling the information that he gets from Europe within his large constituency. That is a strange way of operating, but that may be the only way to disseminate the information.
  We need more information about the European Assembly. How is it working and how are the big constituencies working? What are the Government's intentions next time? I am assuming that the system will be first past the post. I do not believe that they will opt for PR on any basis. They have decided to unhook the constituencies, which, alternatively, could mean that we shall have had PR next time. It could indicate a move in, either direction.
  The short title of the Bill is unusually short. It is a short Bill. It is a Tory Central Office Bill for the advantage of the Conservative Party. I recommend that we vote against it.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. W. Benyon: It is arrant nonsense to compare what happened in 1969 with what my right hon. Friend is doing in the Bill. It was totally different. What happened then interfered with the recommendation of the Boundary Commission. Hon. Members were asked to vote accordingly. The Bill does not interfere with the operations of the Boundary Commission. It will simply enable the gross inequalities—these absurdities that we are suffering — to be rectified earlier than otherwise. One could assume from what the Opposition are saying that they will vote against the Bill because they want to perpetuate these inequalites.
  Party advantage has already been mentioned. I have seen endless different calculations, which vary from five to 40, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said. It is extremely difficult to assess what the new constituencies will be like. It is difficult to say what the swings will be in new constituencies. I have fought a constituency on four occasions where there has been a rapid increase in new population, and I can vouch for that. However, can anyone defend on a democratic basis, or wish to continue, the present situation with these gross discrepancies?
  I have a vested interest. If one leaves out Northern Ireland, where special conditions apply and where the situation will be rectified as a result of the Speaker's Conference, I represent the largest constituency in the United Kingdom. I am proud to do so. I sometimes wish that hon. Members' remuneration was decided on a headage basis, like the farmers. I have 110,000 people in my constituency at the moment. The lists have just been published for next February, which will add a further 7,000. If the delay that I questioned my right hon. Friend about is the maximum—1984—my electorate will then be in the region of 140,000 at the next general election.
  At present, we are 63 per cent. above the mean figure for England. At the other end of the scale, Newcastle upon Tyne, Central and Glasgow, Central are 63 per cent. below the mean. That is a ridiculous situation. As I say, I am proud to represent a large electorate in a prosperous and enterprising constituency. However, it is unfair that my constituents' vote is worth one-sixth of a constituent's vote in Newcastle upon Tyne, Central and Glasgow, Central. It does not make sense.

  291
  The law requires the Boundary Commission to report between June 1979 and June 1984. Because of its current difficulties, it will probably be much nearer the latter date than the former. Twelve other seats in the country, including Scotland but leaving out Northern Ireland, have an electorate above 100,000. At the other end of the scale, there are the examples of Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, with 24,000, and Islington, South and Finsbury, with 39,000.
  Many of the small constituencies are in the various boroughs. I mention this matter because I think that it is wrong, as was suggested from the Government Benches during my right hon. Friend's speech, that this happens only in rural constituencies. It does not. Not all the smallest constituencies are in rural areas.
  In one sense, this is a ludicrous situation. For instance, one can hear foreigners saying that only the British, the oldest democratic society in the world, would allow themselves to be governed in such an undemocratic fashion.
  The situation holds great dangers. There is a widespread feeling—much of it unexpressed—that is critical of our present system. I should be ruled out of order if I went into the question of proportional representation versus first past the post, because that is not covered by the Bill. I am a firm supporter of a change in the electoral system. I expect to see it in my lifetime if I am allowed man's normal span, but I do not expect to see it in my political lifetime.
  The argument for the present system is that people can understand it and vote accordingly. If so, its deficiencies must be as plain as its advantages. People appreciate that there must be a certain variance for social and geographical reasons, but they find it difficult to understand why one Member of Parliament is elected by 24,000 electors and another by 100,000 electors.
  This matter is governed by the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 as amended by the 1958 Act. The main change made by the 1958 Act was to lengthen the intervals between general reviews of constituencies. I understand that the reaction of hon. Members at that time was that the previous arrangement was too frequent and dislocated the system too much. But they did not appreciate the kind of population movements that we have witnessed in the South of England, where very large numbers have moved from urban areas to new towns and elsewhere.
  The period of 15 years is at the bottom of the difficulty. An average increase of between 5,000 and 10,000 people a year in Buckingham has created more than one seat in 15 years. The point that I raised with my right hon. Friend is particularly valid in this instance. The Boundary Commission is dealing with a 1976 electorate and we are now in 1980. Buckingham has had an increase in population of approximately 24,000 since 1976.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, even on the proposals so far recommended by the Boundary Commission, the variation in constituency sizes is between 30,000 and 100,000—for example, the Isle of Wight? There may be anomalies now, but there will be just as many anomalies in the new system.
  Mr. Benyon: I accept that. I have already touched on that problem. The Borders area has been mentioned. I
  292
  think that it would be difficult to divide the Isle of Wight into two constituencies. There are bound to be discrepancies. But there is not much difference between constituencies in central London, central Birmingham and central Manchester. Likewise, most rural constituencies have similar conditions. The distances are not greatly different. The situation is a little different in the north of Scotland and on the Borders.
  The situation in Buckingham has been envisaged for many years. The plan was produced in 1967. During the past five years I have made three approaches to successive Home Secretaries to allow the Boundary Commission to conduct an interim review. But each time I have had the same reply: that it will be too complicated, that it will disturb the total review that is taking place and that it cannot be done for one area as opposed to another.
  I can appreciate the Boundary Commission's problem. Scotland has to have 71 seats and Wales 35 seats, but in England there is discretion. The Boundary Commission may feel that there will be a knock-on effect if it takes one area and not the rest. Therefore, there may be an intrinsic difficulty for the Boundary Commission in making an interim recommendation.
  I suggest that a simple amendment could be made regarding European seats. I understand that I can move an amendment to that effect under the long title, but I cannot amend the Bill as it affects the operations of the Boundary Commission without altering the long title. I doubt whether I shall be successful in doing that. I believe that there should be a statutory duty on the Boundary Commission that, when a county or metropolitan area varies either up or down by the mean of the country—67,000 for England — it should re-examine the area concerned. For example, if Buckinghamshire's population increased by 67,000 there would be a mandatory duty on the Boundary Commission to re-examine the seats in Buckinghamshire. The same would apply in reverse. If the electorate in London, for example, decreased by 67,000, the Boundary Commission would have to carry out an interim revision.
  I appreciate that such an arrangement could cause a small fluctuation in the number of Members in the House, but, by and large, the swings would equal the roundabouts. Although there would be increases in some areas, there would be compensating decreases in others. I see no sign that the rapid population movements that we have experienced in the past will not continue in future. Unless something like that is done, we shall get ourselves into a worse situation. I have already pointed out that we are four years out of date. In fact, the 1976 figures are one year out of date. It will be another two or three years before the recommendation is made. During that time, population movements will be taking place. Therefore, when we start the next 10-year to 15-year cycle the situation will be even worse. Unless we make a change, the inequalities and difficulties of the present situation will become even more apparent.
  If we are not to change the electoral system to what I believe to be a fairer, more logical and sensible system, we must make the first-past-the-post system as fair and straightforward as we possibly can.
  We are all proud to be Members of the House. We are sent here by the electorate to do a job. It is essential that the system should be seen to be fair and just. I can only describe the present situation as a democratic scandal; there is no other word for it. It must be put right quickly.

  293
  Therefore, I welcome the fact that the Government are taking this step to make the decision quicker than it would otherwise be made.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Bill removes a smell blemish from the European Assembly Elections Act 1978. It does so in a way which can be logically argued, which commends itself, so the House has been informed, to the deputy chairman of the English Boundary Commission; and the blemish which it removes is one which, so far as I am aware, was not observed in the exhaustive debates that took place in two Sessions, 1977 and 1978, upon the Bill underlying the original Act.
  Of course, there is no question of any electoral advantage being sought by the selection of this particular blemish for earlier removal by a Bill exclusively dedicated to that purpose To take a phrase from the mouth of the Home Secretary, I do not need to remind right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches that never, either in legislation or in administration, has the Conservative Party been in the least degree influenced by considerations of electoral advantage or the outcome of the next general election.
  Yet there is a strange anomaly in our proceeding this afternoon; for the blemish, if so it be — and it is arguable that it is in fact a blemish and an inconvenience—with which the Bill deals is not the only blemish upon the face of the 1978 Act. I do not refer to the fact that in the view of many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen—a number which is increasing—the very existence of such an Act upon the statute book is a blemish to the statute hook. I am not seeking to go so wide, but the Act itself contains at least one very grave blemish. It established elections whereby the United Kingdom as a whole would be represented in a particular body, the. European Assembly, and t did a thing totally unprecedented which most hon. Members would have regarded as unthinkable, namely, it laid down for different parts of the kingdom different methods whereby those elections should be conducted.
  Whatever may be the merits or demerits—they are not germane to this afternoon's debate—of one method of election or another, one proposition should surely be acceptable. That is that when the United Kingdom has a general election for representation either in this House or in some other body, that general election should be conducted upon principles uniform for the kingdom as a whole. Indeed, under the Treaty of Rome. Which purports to be, but is not actually, the basis of the 1978 Act—the House will recall that a separate treaty had to made to authorise the mode of election embodied in the 1978 Act — it is treated as a foregone conclusion that any elections to the European Assembly would be conducted upon a uniform system. However, even if that were not so, one would not have supposed that in a House where the equality of rights, the equality of status, between one hon. Member and another is taken for granted as one of the underlying principles of the institution it would have been overturned in respest of one part of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that that is in no way a precedent to be taken for granted in this House, in that university Members of Parliament, when they existed, were elected on a completely different basis from other Members of the House?
  Mr. Powell: Yes, that is fair enough, and perhaps I might observe that once one has broken through the principle of commonality of basis of election there is no limit to the possible applications which can present themselves as years go by. Indeed, one of the grounds on which hon. Members of this House support one another in maintaining our equality of rights and the identical basis of our presence here is that once the principle is breached in respect of one part of the Kingdom, special reasons can always be found in respect of some other.
  So the 1978 Act contained this blemish. It is a blemish which should, I submit, be regarded as such by the House of Commons as a whole as offending against its essential principle but which has, not unnaturally, been particularly felt and resented in the part of the United Kingdom which was treated differently.
  In the debates which we had—both the debate on the first abortive Bill of 1977 and that on the Bill which became the Act of 1978—considerable discussion on this very point took place. In the longest and most exhaustive of those debates which took place upon this point on a series of amendments—it was long not only in its actual duration but because it was interrupted in order to insert a guillotine motion, so that it ran in two parts, on 12 January and on 2 February 1978—the point of view put forward by my hon. Friends and myself, and supported on each side of the House by other hon. Members who took part in the debate, was accepted on behalf of the official Opposition by the spokesman who replied to that debate in both its parts.
  What was the delight of my hon. Friends and myself when, recollecting that debate and recollecting the part taken in it by the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd), we discerned him on the Front Bench, a distinguished ornament of the Foreign Office—a Department of State with which we have much acquaintance in Northern Ireland, perhaps more acquaintance than we would like to have—but undoubtedly in a position of influence and one not without relevance to elections to the European Assembly.
  That debate, however, though it was the longest, was not the only debate on this subject which took place during the gestation of the 1978 Act. There was an earlier debate, in April 1977, upon the abortive first Bill. In that debate, the position which my hon. Friends and I took up was supported in the most vigorous terms by none other than the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Home Secretary. I will not trouble him or the House with full quotation of his argument on that occasion; but he based his support for us on two grounds.
  The first was that which I have already mentioned, that
  "it breaches the principle that any election involving the whole of the United Kingdom at the same time should be held on the same basis throughout the United Kingdom."
  But he added a second ground, which has been verified in the event. He said that bound up with the question of the separate and different treatment—the sore thumb treatment—of Northern Ireland in the Bill was the whole question of the sincerity of this House and of a series of Governments in their assertion that Northern Ireland would remain an integral part of a parliamentarly union until it was clearly the overwhelming wish of its inhabitants that that status should be changed.
  The right hon. Gentleman, with his experience as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, knew that, in Northern Ireland, doubt cast upon that propostion was

  295
  not just a matter of political dispute. That doubt can and does cost lives. With the authority of his experience, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that though it would be wrong to suggest that the pledge of successive Governments and of the House was not sincere,
  "the overriding importance of this commitment is so ingrained in my mind that I am loth to give even the smallest indication of breaking it."
  It was this anomaly deliberately imposed upon the particularly threatened part of the United Kingdom that clinched the matter for the right hon. Gentleman.
  He went on to make clear that it was not simply his personal point of view. It is unusual for a right hon. Member, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, to go to the trouble of saying what he said, and we are therefore entitled to attach importance to the fact that he specifically associated with himself his right hon. Friends and the whole of the Shadow Cabinet. He said to the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees):
  "I shall tell him that what I have said represents my view and the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Shadow Cabinet."—[Official Report, 25 April 1977; Vol. 930, c. 945.]
  With our recollection of that speech, my hon. Friends and I felt even more satisfaction when we saw the right hon. Gentleman on the Government Front Bench in the key position on legislation of this sort.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Like the firemen?
  Mr. Powell: I hope that hon. Members will not in any way spoil the grounds for the conviction which my hon. Friends and I in this House and also the people of Northern Ireland would wish to maintain intact of the good faith of the Government regarding Northern Ireland and its position in the United Kingdom.
  Finally, we recalled that the view of the then Opposition was carried to a Division and that the present Prime Minister herself voted in support of the proposition that Northern Ireland's representation in the European Assembly should be on the same basis as that of any other part of the United Kingdom.
  The Bill, then, which remedies a minor blemish, still leaves in the Act the very blemish which the Government, on the assurance of some of their principal Members, regard as unacceptable. Are we not justified in assuming that before there is an election to the European Assembly they intend to remove that blemish? There is time to do it: there are presumably Sessions ahead —such, we imagine, is their hope and expectation—in which they will continue to occupy the Treasury Bench. But it is a pity that the convenience of the House could not have been served by a single Bill dealing comprehensively with that major blemish as well as with this particular incovenience and that any doubts should exist in any mind, in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, as to the sincerity and integrity of the intentions of the Government to act in office in accordance with their words in Opposition.
  I hope, therefore, that although the Bill is so drawn as not to be capable—unless I am misadvised—of being amended to deal with the major blemish of which I have spoken, the House and those whom my hon. Friends and I represent can feel assured that it will be removed by legislation during the lifetime of this Government.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: I do not wish to comment on the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) other than to say that I wholeheartedly accept that the non-uniform treatment given to Northern Ireland must give grave offence and cause worry to the people of Northern Ireland. I am delighted that that anomaly is to be removed. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will disagree with me, but, of course, it is my hope that our membership of the EEC over the years will make a significant contribution to helping to do away with some of the tragic misunderstandings among the people in Ireland.
  I hope that the House will forgive me if I begin by welcoming the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten) in his exalted capacity as Parliamentary Private Secretary to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office. I do not know whether that is a precursor of any major Cabinet reshuffle or other changes in the Government, but we all congratulate him on his appointment.
  In opening this debate, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said—it was a masterly understatement—that matters concerning parliamentary boundaries cause some speculation among right hon. and hon. Members. He said that Labour Members would have considerable experience of the temptation into which it is possible for parties to fall in this area—again, a masterly understatement. In view of the events that took place in 1969, we can only assume that were the Labour Party now in Government it would not only wish to wait until European Assembly election boundaries were decided before implementing the parliamentary boundaries but it would probably suggest that we should wait for the boundaries for world government to be decided.
  During our debates on this subject in 1969, the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) made an important point. He said:
  "In almost every case I have listened to the arguments of the political prophets about what the changes would mean and, in the main, the prophets were proved wrong when the boundary changes were made."—[Official Report, 1969; Vol 785, c. 764.]
  Whatever speculation may be taking place about the possible advantage or otherwise to the Tory Party in the proposals of the Boundary Commission, if I were sitting on the Labour Benches I would not be too disturbed about them. In my county of Hertfordshire we have nine parliamentary seats. The number is shortly to be increased to 10. At present, the Conservative Party holds all the seats. When the county has 10 seats, it will be more difficult for the Conservative Party to hold all the seats. But Labour Members will be delighted to know that my constituency will be somewhat safer if these proposals are accepted.
  What is the Government's main case in asking us to support the Bill? Why are they right to do so? They are right to do so because at the end of the day this House decides how we can best co-ordinate the proper conduct of parliamentery elections. It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) to talk about Government interference in these matters. The words I have just used come from a speech by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), who in 1969 rushed to the defence of the then Prime Minister when he was introducing his rather disgraceful piece of gerrymander-

  297
  ing. He said that the House of Commons had a perfect right to alter these rules and that Conservative Members were degrading the House when they said that the Government did not have the right to make up their minds and reach conclusions.
  I do not want to be unfair to the right hon. Gentleman, so I shall assume that throughout the debates in 1969 he was being naive, because everyone else in the country and in the House—te doorkeepers and the ladies who serve tea— knew that we were witnessing one of the most blatant examples of gerrymandering the country had ever seen. I do not want to embarrass the Labour Party too much, because the right hon. Member for Leeds, South is a kind and courteous man. Although he felt obliged to hint that the Government were involved in a gerrymandering exercise, he did not truly believe it or overstress it. It would, therefore, be only proper for me to omit quoting from the Crossman diaries—
  Mr. John Patten: Do not deny us our little pleasures.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: No, I shall not quote them because I do not wish to stir up unnecessary controversy. I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that he does rot believe that the Government are acting improperly.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Was it not remarkable that the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) hardly criticised the Bill but instead concentrated on other matters that are entirely peripheral to it?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention Of course, he is right.
  In 1969, the main defender on the Floor of the House of the action being taken by the then Horne Secretary was the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman may be naive. Perhaps he did not talk to the doorkeepers, the tea ladies and everyone else who knew what was happening. Perhaps he did not know that it was without: precedent for a Minister to lay affirmative orders and then to whip his party to vole against them. Let us accept all that.
  During those debates, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) suggested rather unkindly that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale was being influenced by the forthcoming election. He dismissed the right hon. Gentleman as a mere column in the Evening Standard. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has progressed from the Bench below the Gangway, from being a column in the Evening Standard to being a pillar of the establishment, I can only express a sense of relief that that part of the establishment's edifice that is sustained by the Labour Party has some flying buttresses from outside, of which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and Mrs. Shirley Williams are examples, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be let loose on us in that way again.
  Mr. George Cunningham: I am getting a little lost in these metaphors, but since the hon. Gentleman has gone on about 1969 for about 5 or 10 minutes—do not blame him for doing so—will he take a little longer, in so far as you, Mr. Deputy, Speaker, will permit him, to refer to the substantive ground that was advanced for what was done in 1969 and why he thinks it was invalid?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: If the hon. Gentleman invites me to venture into that territory, I am delighted to do so. The ground advanced by the then Prime Minister was that local government boundary reforms were taking place that were of such paramount importance that the Government had no alternative but to delay the boundary changes. I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to page 592 of Richard Crossman's diaries, where he refers to the Prime Minister, saying:
  "he began to shape a timetable designed not on the merits of getting, local government reforms that are acceptable to local authorities and public opinion but solely to suit his argument that he is genuinely postponing alterations to the boundaries."
  Mr. Cunningham: Rather than read out a book which, I must confess, I have never taken time to read—I prefer to read the real story—would it not be better for the hon. Gentleman to read the schedules to the Acts that we are busy amending? They place conformity between parliamentary boundaries and local authority boundaries in a paramount position to be taken into account by the Boundary Commission. That is what gave the substantive case put in 1969.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: In referring to the substantive case and the schedules, I must repeat the point made by the right hon. Member for Down, South. As a new Member, I am constantly surprised, in referring to Bills passed in the Parliament when the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale was Leader of the House, to find that almost every Bill was guillotined. The schedules to which the hon. Gentleman referred were guillotined without debate. His is not a point I can take seriously. Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene again?
  Mr. Cunningham: Yes. The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood either me or the Act. I was referring not to the schedule to the 1978 Act but to the schedules to the main Acts which lay down the principles, the rules so-called, which the Boundary Commissions are to take into account. The paramount rule — paramount above numbers — is conformity between local authority boundaries and parliamentary boundaries, and that was relevant in 1969.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: That point has been dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I think that the schedules refer not to local authority but to county boundaries.
  Mr. Rathbone: May I remind my hon. Friend that it is all the more important that the new boundaries are introduced to correct the few remaining anomalies that exist between county and constituency boundaries?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: That is right, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.
  Mr. Cunningham: May I make a fourth and, I promise, last intervention in the hon. Gentleman's speech? He said that only the county boundaries in the statutes are relevant for this purpose. He is not mistaken about the present position, but he is with regard to that which existed in 1969.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: If that is the case, no doubt my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will pick up the point when he replies to the debate.
  I want to accept the doctrine expounded by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale in 1969 that it is for the

  299
  House to decide how these matters should be conducted and for the Government to come to the House and make their case. If the case is made, they are entitled to proceed.
  We are faced with the European Assembly Elections Act 1978. I am sorry that I misunderstood the previous intervention by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. However, it is important to stress that that Act was guillotined without proper debate. The schedules place upon the Boundary Commission an obligation to report the constituencies for the European Assembly at the same time. The Government are proposing simply to amend schedule 2 and to restore the pre-1978 position. It is important also to stress that no changes in the law relating to parliamentary boundaries are suggested—
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is all in self-interest.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but I do not want to go into that process in any detail. However, I should have thought—I thought that I sensed this from the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South—that the Labour Party would be very quiet when talking about self-interest in these matters, because it has an appalling record. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) would be well advised to remain silent, in his sedentary position. If he wishes to intervene, I am sorry to tell him that I have a great list of quotations from the Crossman diaries. I should be delighted if he were to intervene to give me a peg on which to hang further embarrassing quotations.
  I want briefly to examine the Government's case and to say why I believe it should be accepted by the House. The first point is that the Boundary Commissioners are charged to report between every 10 and 15 years. We already know that the last report took effect for the elections that took place in 1974 but that for a number of reasons—the 1969 reasons—that should have happened in 1970, so we are already getting enormously behind on all of this matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) is rightly indignant about the fact that at present he is representing 110,000 people. It is an extraordinary anomaly. I am sure that most right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches will recognise that it is simply not on for there to be seats in urban areas in this country with between 20,000 and 30,000 electors. I am sure that that is common ground on both sides of the House. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State made a speech on this subject at the Conservative Party conference. He said that the Government were determined to do everything within their power to ensure that when we came to vote at the next general election the country would be voting under new boundaries, boundaries which would make it certain that a vote cast in Bromsgrove was no longer worth one-quarter of a vote cast in Newcastle, and that a vote cast in Suffolk was no longer worth one-third of one cast in Salford. I think that it is common ground in the House that anomalies of this sort must be ironed out as quickly as possible.
  I come to the point about the European Assembly. I see no reason why we in Britain should delay what is a very important process by simply waiting upon some committee in Europe to propose some sort of uniform electoral system for the whole of Western Europe. My belief is that when proposals are put forward they will not be accepted by one,
  300
  two or three member States and that they will simply be kicked back again and countries will be asked to come up with other proposals. We simply cannot allow our important Boundary Commissioners to be held up by this sort of thing.
  Mr. Dalyell: I hope that the hon. Member realises that there is a problem in this respect. Speaking as a former Member of the indirectly elected Parliament, I find it extremely unsatisfactory, given the importance of that Assembly or Parliament—call it what you will, according to taste—that political groups turn out to be lopsided because the elections in one country are conducted on a different basis. Take, for example, the Socialist group at present, which is severely disadvantaged because of the elections system in Britain, which is totally different from that of our Community partners. This has meant that the group is absolutely out of balance to what it would have been normally had the elections been conducted on a different basis. Therefore, there is a problem from that point of view.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: That is a very important point. I suggest that it is not only a question of the electoral system, because in our country, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, it is the practice of the British electorate, whenever they are called upon to vote outside a general election, to vote, broadly, against the Government. Consequently, whatever system we have, we shall always be in a position in Europe, with the dates, that the party which is in government at that time will be voted against, just as it is now in local government and county elections.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is it not remarkable to hear the Opposition saying that we should allow the interests of Europe to stand in the way of our own constitutional practices and processes?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful for that intervention. I do not think that that is what was being said by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). However, one of the arguments that might be advanced—I believe that it has been advanced from the Opposition Benches—is that this is a scandal and a gerrymander. I would not want to pursue that point because, I repeat, I did not have the feeling that the right hon. Member for Leeds, South believed that. There will be some who will advance that argument, but I do not think that they will believe it either, and they will be advancing it in a purely party-political spirit.
  The point made by the hon. Member for West Lothian is important. We shall have a great deal of difficulty in arriving at some sort of uniform electoral system in the European Community which is acceptable to all of us. It is not just a matter of our electoral system; it is also a matter of timing. Even if it were done under a PR system, we should still find that the British public would fulfil their tradition of voting against the Government outside a general election. In any event, therefore, the unfair position under which the Socialist group in the European Parliament now has to labour arises as a result of the fact that they were victims of the unpopularity of the sitting Government when those elections were held. That is another problem that will have to be faced.
  That simply underlines the main thrust of my argument, namely, that we simply cannot afford to allow our very important parliamentary boundary recommendations to be held up by considerations of this kind.

  301
  The Home Secretary has put forward a case for the Bi11 and has said that what he wishes to do is to fulfil his duty to lay before this House the Boundary Commission report, with a draft of the Order in Council for giving it effect, with or without modifications to the recommendations contained in the report. He has said to the House that he wishes to fulfil that duty as soon as may be. I can only say that I have found his explanations and arguments convincing. I hope that the House will not hesitate to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I am afraid that I am a bit cynical about all this. Being a member of the Liberal Party, facing the Conservative Party inevitably makes one cynical. When the Act that is now being repealed went through the House, no Conservative Member uttered a cheep about what is now being portrayed as an essential change in the procedure. The Bill has been introduced at this stage in order to bring forward the Westminster constituency reviews because it is felt that this will have some effect—we can argue as to about how much— on the next general election. That fact should be faced.
  I am not saying that it is all that terribly wicked. Like the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), I shall not go over the whole 1969 experience. However, I am entitled to remark that it is only first-past-the-post systems that have a capacity for gerrymandering or are open to accusations of gerrymandering in this way. A PR system cannot be treated in this manipulated fashion.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that under most PR systems one inevitably ends up with a group of important and influential people in a political party or organisation taking decisions about who should appear on lists, and that that is the kind of gerrymandering which, in many ways, is much more disreputable than that m which he is referring?
  Mr. Johnston: I regret to say that I disagree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. I am not going to belabour the argument, but his comparison is invalid and improper. [Interruption.] An improper comparison is one that is riot proper. I do not mean improper in the sense of order. It is an improper argument because it is not a fair one.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) referred briefly to the House of Lords, which, in due course, will have to consider the Bill- He said that it was most unlikely, in his opinion, that the Lords would reverse the Bill in the way that it reversed the 1969 proposals I should like to give one quotation from the Leader of the Opposition—he was then on the Back Benches—to match the many quotations given by the hon. Member for Watford. The right hon. Gentleman said on 14 October 1969:
  "I resent it very deeply that the House of Lords should still retain any power whatsoever to interfere with the system of election which this House may decide to have. It has a constitutional position to do so, but that does not mean that it is right to do so or that it can be justified in doing so".—[Official Report, 14 October 1969; Vol. 788, c. 274–5.]
  I imagine that the view of the Opposition on the matter is raw slightly different from what it was at that time. It is interesting to contemplate what their Lordships will do. They are the guardians of our constitution. I hope that they ill consider the Bill most carefully.
  302
  My first main point is that the Bill is wrongly named. It is not really concerned with European Assembly elections. It is about Westminster elections. It interferes with an established timetable for reasons which, I suspect, are not unassociated with party advantage in Westminster. It would be interesting to know from the Government whether the staff of the Boundary Commission are being increased to facilitate and make sure that this operation is carried out with speed. If that is so, it is happening at the same time as staff cuts are occurring all over the place across a fairly wide social field.
  I wish to concentrate on the implications for the next European elections. I shall recall some views that were expressed on this matter during the debate in the House leading up to the 1978 Act, which is now to be amended, the effect of that on the 1979 election and the undertakings that were given concerning 1984. As the right hon. Member for Leeds, South said, this matter was not touched upon at all, surprisingly enough, by the Home Secretary in introducing the Bill.
  In 1977 the view was accepted by the then Labour Government that it was necessary, in order to achieve just representation of our people in the European Parliament, that a proportional system should be introduced in advance of the uniform system which the Council of Ministers agreed in 1976 would be introduced in 1984. The Government therefore introduced the regional list system. It was disappointing to hear the right hon. Member for Leeds, South say that, following a debate and a vote, the matter, from his point of view, was over. I do not see why, or how, in all consistency, the right hon. Gentleman could argue persuasively, as he did at the time, only to ditch those views two years later, as if the proposal had been a mere expedient. That would be most unlike the right hon. Gentleman, who is not a man given to expediency.
  The regional list system was defeated. It is reasonable to say that the major argument against the proposal was that it would probably have represented a double change. The hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) opposed it, making it clear that he believed in a common system, that it would come about and that it would be proportional but that it was wrong to have two bites at the cherry. The hon. Gentleman said on 13 December 1977:
  "When we began discussing this matter in Select Committee 18 months ago I came quickly to the conclusion that it would he a mistake to depart from the existing system for the first round"
  The hon. Gentleman elaborated that by saying:
  "We are faced with the prospect of having to change twice. We shall have to change from the first-past-the-post system to the regional list system if the amendment is defeated. Then, when the common system is devised, we shall have to change again. I do not accept the argument that it is easier to change from one form of proportional representation to another than it is to change from first-past-the-post to PR".—[Official Report, 13 December 1977; Vol. 941, c. 318–20.]
  That was a potent view in the debate, but it rested on the assumption that there would be a common system in 1984.
  A number of hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), have already mentioned it, but it is worth reminding the House that the end result, after these new constituencies had been created, was that the elections in Britain, as opposed to those in Northern Ireland, were appallingly distorted. Of the 78 seats, the Conservative Party obtained 60 with a vote of 50 per cent., which represents 77 per cent. of the seats for 50 per cent. of the votes. The Labour Party got 22 per cent. of the seats with 33 per cent. of the votes. The Liberals, with 13 per cent. of the vote, got no

  303
  representation at all. The Conservatives got 19 more members than would have been the case using any system employed in any of the other eight countries. The Labour Party got nine fewer, and the Liberals 10 fewer.
  I remember very well that on the night of the election, on 11 June 1979, even the Paymaster General, whose views on electoral reform, I reckon, would be widely approved by Stone Age man, was moved to say on television that he felt there would have to be a change next time and that it was bound to come.
  The onus for making preparations for a uniform system lies with the European Parliament. The introduction of this Bill now ignores the Community timetable in connection with the proposition for a uniform system and suggests that the Government have no intention of having regard to a uniform system. That has led the Liberal Party to put down its reasoned amendment. I recognise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the amendment has not been accepted, but I hope that I might be allowed briefly to draw it to the attention of the House.
  The amendment proposes:
  "That the House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to take account of the commitment entered into by all member countries that the next elections to the European Assembly should be by a uniform system throughout the Community, a commitment which was reaffirmed by the present Minister of State at the Foreign Office, the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon, in the debate on 13th December 1977".
  If the Government are sincere in wishing to see a uniform system, a proper timetable would have been for them to await the European Parliament's proposals, which will come forward next year and are likely to be discussed by the Council during the British Presidency of the Council in the second half of 1981. Following agreement, legislation could properly be brought forward in the 1981–82 Session. That would do nothing to prevent the completion of the review of the Westminster constituencies. It would not affect what the whole purpose of this Bill is alleged to be, which is to disconnect the two to ensure that the Westminster constituency reviews are completed before the next British general election takes place.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: That is on the assumption that the proposals that come forward eventually are agreed by all member States. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, apart from any difficulties that we might have in finding these proposals acceptable, the French, for example, have a very odd electoral system by our standards, and they will find it extremely difficult to accept them. I should say that the chances were much better than evens that whatever proposals emerged would not be acceptable to all member States.
  Mr. Johnston: Obviously, a point that the Government might reasonably make is that, if there is a failure to reach agreement, it will be necessary for us to update the existing constituencies in order prudently to be prepared for non-agreement and, therefore, to be able to participate in the election itself. I appreciate that that argument will emerge. However, if there is any lack of agreement, at the end of the day it will be the British Government's responsibility and no other Government's. Taking the French example which the hon. Gentleman quoted, all that the French did in the last European elections was to establish a national list. That was a form of proportional representation.
  304
  Here we come to a difficult area. I shall not elaborate on it. I say simply that I do not think that anyone believes that a uniform system of election means a technically uniform system. But it must mean a system that is based on the same principles, and that again must mean that it is proportional within certain reasonable parameters; and there is no doubt that the British system is not.
  After all, the European Parliament is an advisory Assembly. It is not an elected Government. All these arguments about majorities do not apply. It is intended to represent the political attitudes prevalent throughout the Community, and at the moment it does not do that.
  I began by saying that I was pessimistic. However, I still make an earnest appeal to the Government. What they are doing at the moment makes me profoundly pessimistic about their intentions, but I still hope fervently that I am wrong.
  We heard just now about Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that it was wrong for one part of the United Kingdom to operate on a voting system that was different from that applying in another part. I suggest with even greater force that it is equally wrong in an advisory Assembly for one part of the Community to have people elected on a basis that is different from that operating in other parts. Britain produced an unrepresentative result in 1979. It was not just unrepresentative; it was grossly unrepresentative. I hope that the Government will not allow that to happen again in 1984.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his explanation of the workings of the Boundary Commission for European constituencies and his reassurance that there is no way in which the Bill, if enacted, will have any effect on the application of the Boundary Commission's recommendations in this country.
  The Bill is an opportunity for the House to correct a constitutional anomaly—what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) described as a "small blemish"—which this House itself created. It is, therefore, sensible and a courageous step for the Government to take and, what is more, it is a fair step, as was illustrated most dramatically by the extremely good speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon).
  That does not mean that the Bill will not lead to considerable changes in constituency boundaries in this country more quickly than otherwise might be the case, but those changes have to be welcomed if they are fair. If the Boundary Commission's recommendations go through, sadly I shall face the loss of a dearly loved part of my constituency, the area of Hailsham and Hellingly in East Sussex, but I shall be partly compensated by some small jewels from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), which he in turn will not wish to give up lightly. But, if fairness is required for the proper operation of our constitutional parliamentary democracy—as I believe it is—these changes have to be brought in, and they have to be brought in very quickly because of the anomalies that exist.
  There are, however, some wider considerations, which were touched upon by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). They have to do with the eventual effect of the Bill on the European Parliament or Assembly. That

  305
  Assembly represents people's interests, but it is also more representative of the interest groups within each of the European constituencies, and since 1978 those representatives have bee a elected rather than appointed, though I am pleased that there are still hon. Members of this House who find the energy and the time also to be Members of the European Assembly.
  That leads me to a slight side tangent which I wish to raise in this context. It has not been referred to so far. It is the issue of proper liaison between Members of Me European Parliament and us as Members of this Parliament.
  It is notable, especially during this debate, that there is nowhere in the Galleries in this House where, by right, Members of the European Parliament can sit and listen. I hope that that will be eventually be put to rights.
  Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley): There are empty seats in the Galleries now.
  Mr.Rathbone: Yes, but those seats are for ordinary visitors. I am saying that Members of the European parliament should have a position, by right, on a specific Bench in one of the Galleries so that they may hear our debate about their future and how it affects them.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: As a matter of curiosity, do we get reciprocal rights in the European Parliament?
  Mr. Rathbone: My hon. Friend's intervention leads right into my next point, which is that whereas we as visiting parliamentarians to the European Parliament are provided with day passes which give us a free run of the parliamentary building.—except, I believe, the actual Floor of the Parliament, though I am not even sure about that because a great many people are allowed on the Floor, including television cameramen, which I should welcome in this House, though not necessarily in such an ostentatious way —there is no method for Members of the European Parliament to come in and meet us without going through the procedure which visitors to the House have to go through of checking in, going through a security check and then being checked again by the police in the Central Lobby. There is no way in which they may use our excellent Library or, even more important, make use of our excellent legal facility provided by the Clerks of the House. Some form of special day pass would be extremely helpful to them and would lead to better co-ordination between the House of Commons and the European Parliament.
  That is all by way of an aside. The Second Reading of the Bill is one step towards the adoption of a uniform system of elections to the European Parliament. Bit here—I do not make just a semantic point, because it is important—unlike the hon. Member for Inverness, I do not think that a uniform system necessarily means an identical system. The hon. Gentleman said that it should not be technically identical. I do not think that it necessarily has to be the same electoral system, as long as there is the same electoral outcome at the end of the day, namely, that it is reasonably uniformly representative.
  It is not a question of the simplicity of one man, one vote, though there are many countries where even that does not exist. In our developed democratic parliamentary system it is a question of one man—or, indeed, one woman—and one reasonably equally powerful vote. That power can be unequal in the numbers of people whom we
  306
  represent, and it can be unequal in the way in which those people, however many in number, exert their power through the ballot box.
  I therefore hope that the uniform systems for Europe will be able to embrace a system that gives fair national representation for the United Kingdom. In the context of the European Parliament, that means allowing all substantial parties to gain representation broadly in accordance with what voters actually want in the casting of their votes. In that same context, it should allow representation of minority groups within each of the parties. After all, within each of the two major parties in this country there are minorities whose views are rather divergent from those of their leaders. Among Conservative Members there are those who are antipathetic towards Europe, and among Labour Members, I am pleased to say, there are those, though in a minority, who have more favourable views on Europe than the leadership of their party seems to express.
  Moreover, such a method of representation should allow fair representation locally. By that I mean fair representation for each of the major parties from each of the regions of this country. That is important, because a lack of proper party representation of some regions already exists. There is a heightened risk in certain regions, particularly in Scotland, where under the present first-past-the-post system it is perfectly conceivable that the total representation in the European Parliament would have been Scottish Nationalist. That would not have represented the views of Scotland at all fairly, judging by any recent election or opinion poll.
  This issue is of more importance even than the issue of parity of representation, because one of the major tasks of the European Parliament is to help the European Commission to work out a satisfactory regional policy. Unless there is satisfactory regional representation within the Parliament, it will be very difficult for that Parliament, in turn, to work out a satisfactory regional policy.
  I come back to the sort of results that can be expected from the present system. What I am about to say is in no way an exaggeration, but it illustrates how absurd results could be. Because of the present method of voting—first past the post—and because of the way in which the votes are distributed between regions, the Labour Party could get 53 per cent. of the votes and have 80 per cent. of the Members. The Conservatives could get 26 per cent. of the votes and have only 6 per cent. of the members.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Too high.
  Mr. Rathbone: It does not sit well in the hon. Gentleman's mouth to make cynical sedentary comments of that kind, because I think that he in his heart of hearts, like most of us in this House, would like to see the system work better.
  The Liberal Party could get 13 per cent. of the votes and have no seats at all. Scottish Nationalists could get 4 per cent. of the votes and 10 per cent. of the seats. By comparing these figures, we can easily see how absurd the outcome of the present system could be.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington): Has my hon. Friend noticed that many of the well-favoured and favourite institutions in this country do not work in principle but work very well in practice?
  Mr. Rathbone: I have certainly noticed that. One cannot but notice it. It is all the more peculiar because our

  307
  institutions work by precedent, as opposed to constitutional rote. But perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to come back to that matter a little later.
  The illustrations that I have given should not lead Opposition Members to gloat, because, as we all know, that happens to be the present position—how people feel about the parties, and the state of politics as a whole at this moment in time. The position could change in the wink of an eye, and there could be a swing back the other way.
  So it is important for both Front Benches and Members of all parties to note that these anomalies can occur under the present system, all the more so because the date for European elections is pre-ordained. Therefore, it is not possible for a party to ride on the top of a wave of popularity at any particular moment and choose the moment for an election in order thereby to benefit.
  It will not be easy to find a uniform system. As has been said, the European Parliament has been considering the matter for quite some time. I understand that two alternative systems have been put forward to its political affairs committee by the sub-committee on electoral procedure. However, neither of the two systems was considered sufficiently acceptable to be put forward for consideration by the Parliament as a whole. Consequently, the sub-committee has been charged with a further examination of the problem and asked to bring forward revised or alternative systems of a proportional nature.
  That will be done some time in the new year, and there are indications that it may be some time in March. It will be a difficult and time-consuming task, because, as has been pointed out, all Members from each country tend to feel that their system of elections suits them. It happens to be the system that got them there, just as our system of elections has got us elected to this House.
  But I wonder whether that is a valid claim for the United Kingdom. We picked a grouping of Westminster constituencies, applied the same methods of election as we use here in Westminster and said "That will do for our elections to Europe." It is conceivable, therefore, that one of the other systems used in the United Kingdom would have been, and would still be, more applicable to Europe. I am thinking, for instance, of larger constituencies with multi-Member representation, as exist in many local government areas and in the way that Northern Ireland votes for its European representatives. Indeed, the Labour Party suggested such a system for the ill-fated—and, to my mind, not late-lamented—Scottish and Welsh Assemblies.
  An extension of that principle can be used by having larger multi-Member constituencies in which a single transferable voting system can be applied. Again, that is the system at present used in Northern Ireland for elections to Europe. That principle could be extended to other parts of the United Kingdom. Indeed, on that basis I should have been tempted to support the amendment of the Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, had it been called, even though I do not believe that that was their intention in tabling the amendment.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: Does the hon. Gentleman fully understand that in Northern Ireland, where we have three Euro Members, when a problem arises in any part of the Province all three are summoned? They get in each other's way and waste each other's time.
  308
  Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that he would favour that kind of pattern anywhere in the rest of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Rathbone: I hate to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that perhaps there would not be quite the same problem of getting in each other's hair—
  Mr. Molyneaux: In each other's way.
  Mr. Rathbone: —in other parts of the United Kingdom. That problem does not exist where this system of election operates elsewhere. It certainly was not the case when university Members of Parliament were elected to this House by such a system. There was no problem of getting in each other's hair—
  Mr. Molyneaux Mr. Molyneaux rose—
  Mr. Rathbone: I shall finish this point, and then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  That system of university Members threw up some interesting representatives in this House, including my great aunt, Eleanor Rathbone. It is a pity that we have lost the intent, which I think was in the 1950 Conservative election manifesto, to reinstitute the university Members.
  Mr. Molyneaux: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I apologise for intervening again. The phrase that I used was "Get in each other's way". What we have is a triplication of effort.
  Mr. Rathbone: There is not much more than a minor semantic difference between getting in each other's hair and getting in each other's way. I believe that if people work with good will together they will not get in each other's way or in each other's hair. That system of election and representation works extremely well in other countries, and there is not that sort of friction there.
  Mr. Stanbrook: My hon. Friend said that he was not aware of any friction arising in any other country where that system is adopted. Is he aware that in Western Germany it is possible for a constituency to be represented in the normal way on the first-past-the-post system by a Christian Democrat and also, because of the topping-up system, to be represented by a member of the Social Democrat Party? Those two people within the one constituency not only get in each other's way, because they compete to be at every public function, but in each other's hair, because the member of the SPD is a member of the governing party and knows a great deal about what the Government will do, whereas the member of the Christian Democrat Party is regarded as the Opposition. Yet he is the legitimately elected member for that constituency. Surely, that is a grave defect of that system?
  Mr. Rathbone: I must quote back to my hon. Friend what he said to me earlier—that it sounds complicated in principle but that it seems to work extremely well in practice. Many people who have reservations about the operation of our whole parliamentary and political system cast envious eyes towards the relative stability of Germany over recent years. It was partly as a result of a contribution from this country that the system was introduced there.
  I return to my hon. Friend's previous intervention. It is part of the British tradition to choose an electoral system appropriate to the election concerned. This can be illustrated by reference to various times and various Governments. I give as examples the following: the retention, under the 1972 Conservative Act reorganising

  309
  local government, of multi-member seats as the norm in English and Welsh districts, despite the Royal Commission's recommendation of universal, single-member seats: the reintroduction by the Consevatives of the single transferable vote in Northern Ireland in 1973; the retention by the Labour Government of STV for the Northern Ireland Convention; the proposed two- or three-Member seats in the Labour Government's Scotland and Wales Bills.
  One of the strengths of this country is that we can be pragmatic which I think was the philosophy underlying my hon. Friend's intervention. We have not only been pragmatic but have tuned that pragmatism into practice.
  It is all the more conceivable that another system could be adopted for elections to the European Parliament because it is a very different Chamber, with very different functions, from this Chamber and its functions. Most fundamentally, it is not a Chamber where decisions are taken. It is essentially an advisory Chamber, which makes clear overall majorities infinitely less important to its effective operation than is the case here. A corollary to that is that it-also makes the representation of minorities all the more important.
  It is difficult for me to see how or why arguments can be put against the adoption of a more proportionate system of election for the European Parliament. That must be why so many people in this country—indeed, so many hon. Members—feel drawn to a more proportionate system of representation for the European Assembly than we Lave here. They can be matched by an increasing number of those who have been elected to represent this country within that. Assembly.
  This will all take time. It is to be hoped that it will take place before the next round of elections in 1984, but it may not. Certainly, difficulties have been identified. In the meantime, it mist be absurd to tinker with the present Euro constituency boundaries pending the possibility of much greater change
  It is equally absurd to postpone much-needed revisions to the Westminster constituency boundaries by making them dependent upon the long decision process which we as a country, and the European Community as a whole must enter into with regard to European Assembly representation.
  It is for that reason that I believe that this is an excellent Bill, deserving support from both sides of the House.
  6.47 pm
  Dr. Edmund Marshall (Goole): The Home Secretary this afternoon moved the Second Reading of a Bill the sole purpose of which is to amend a particular provision of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978. When the Bill leading to that Act was going through the House, the official Conservative Opposition gave it full support. On the day of the Second Reading, 24 November 1977, only a handful of Conservative Members voted against. The speech of the present Home Secretary on that occasion was largely devoted to criticising the Labour Government for not having brought the Bill forward earlier. The burden of his speech was that he had wanted to see the Bill much sooner.
  The Conservatives were happy to co-operate in the passage of that legislation. When there was a timetable notion on 26 January 1978, the Conservative Opposition -lad a free vote It is noticeable that those who voted for the motion, which assisted the Bill's speedy passage,
  310
  included the present Prime Minister, the present Home Secretary and both present Ministers of State, Home Office. I re-echo the point made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that there was not a peep from anyone on the Conservative Benches about the matter that the Government now seek to amend.
  When a Bill is introduced to amend an Act passed only two or three years previously, it is usually to correct something that was wrong—perhaps a passage that was badly drafted, some constitutional nonsense. No one has suggested that there is anything like that involved here.
  I do not agree with the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), who said that the Bill was to put right a constitutional anomaly. An anomaly is not involved. I take issue with the right hon. Member for Down, South. This is not a blemish. There were good reasons why the European Assembly Elections Act 1978 was drafted in the way that it was.
  It cannot be said that the Bill is necessary to enable the Boundary Commissions to meet the statutory time limit of their present general reviews. Nobody has suggested, even with the present requirement that they should conduct a review of the European constituencies at the same time, that they cannot meet the deadlines of April, May and June 1984.
  I turn to why the provision which the Bill intends to amend was included in the Act.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if he was satisfied that it was impossible to complete the review of European boundaries by 1984 he would support the Bill?
  Dr. Marshall: I am saying that there is no need for the Bill in order to enable that provision to be made. If difficulties were caused by the incorporation of the European review with the present review, which would lead to an overlapping of the 1984 deadline, obviously an amendment of some law would be necessary. That could be achieved by amending the legislation that introduced the 15-year limit. That is not questioned. Nobody says that we cannot meet the 1984 limit.
  The provision was included in the 1978 Act to enable, as far as possible, the European Assembly constituencies in Great Britain to have coterminosity with Westminster constituencies. Schedule 2(2) to the Act requires that no Westminster constituency shall be included partly in one Assembly constituency and partly in another. For the sake of administrative convenience and general public wellbeing, it is advisable that each parliamentary constituency shall be included in one European constituency. That is helpful to Members of Parliament. We shall each know then that there is one European Member representing each of our constituencies. We might not agree with that hon. Member, but I shall be helped by knowing which European Member represents the Goole constituency and I shall be able to keep an eye on him.
  When either set of constituencies is reviewed, there might be an overlap period during which, even under the present arrangements, new constituencies of one kind are operating at the same time as old constituencies of another kind. Such an overlap is bound to arise because the general election dates for the two Parliaments do no coincide. The European Parliament is elected on a fixed-term basis. It must be in everybody's interests for the period of such an overlap—when the two sets of constituencies are out of

  311
  Step—to be as short as possible. That will reduce confusion and duplication of effort for the elected representatives and for the people who administer elections.
  If the Bill is enacted, it is possible that the new Westminster constituencies will come into force at the next general election. I put it no higher than that. That will be in late 1983 or in 1984. It will be impossible for the new European constituency boundaries to come into force until the election after next—in 1988 or 1989. That will result in an overlap of four or five years when the two types of constituency would be out of step.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is that an assertion?
  Dr. Marshall: It is almost an assertion, on the basis of the timetable described by the Home Secretary this afternoon. He said that the inclusion of the European constituency review would prolong the present general review by about 15 months. If the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) examines a calendar, he will see that that makes it almost impossible for all the arrangements to be made in time for the next European elections.
  Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman's argument is relevant. A 15 months' delay might occur if the two reviews have to come through together. Does that necessarily mean that once the Westminster parliamentary boundaries are fixed the redrawing of the European boundaries will necessarily take 15 months? Is it not conceivable that they could be drawn more quickly, as they were last time?
  Dr. Marshall: The 15 months were mentioned by the Home Secretary this afternoon. I must assume that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West has not been following the debate.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): What happened last time is not of direct relevance, because the date decided for the first European elections involved a truncated procedure for the first European boundaries, which the legislation being amended today does not prescribe for subsequent boundary reviews.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The argument had not occurred to me in this manner. The argument is that, under the procedure followed by the Government, new boundaries will not be fixed for Europe until the European election after next, on the basis of the first-past-the-post system. That should be cleared up this evening.
  Dr. Marshall: My argument is reinforced by my right hon. Friend. With the enactment of the Bill, the likelihood is that there will be a delay in the review of European constituencies and that they will not come into force until 1989. That will mean that in some parts of the country a new Westminster constituency could come into operation in 1983-84 and be covered by a multiplicity of European Members.
  Humberside is an example. Under the Boundary Commission's provisional recommendations, a new Boothferry constituency is proposed. That will cover almost one-third of the entire land mass of Humberside and be an enormous constituency. It will overlap three of the
  312
  present European Assembly constituencies—Humberside, Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, North. I am trying to highlight such an overlap.
  If the Bill is enacted, there will be a prolonged period of confusion when the two types of constituencies operate out of step, assuming that elections to the European Parliament take place and are based upon the first-past-the post system.
  Mr. Stanbrook: If the hon. Gentleman is right, does not that argument equally apply to municipal boundaries? After all, at present we have difficulties when municipal boundaries are based upon parliamentary boundaries which existed previously, as a result of which there must be fresh parliamentary constituency boundaries. In other words, according to the logic of that argument, should we not have municipal, parliamentary and European boundaries together? Would that not be impossible? In the end, would it not be better if they remained separate?
  Dr. Marshall: In his convoluted intervention, the hon. Gentleman almost ended up at the point at which he started. I am all too readily aware of the gist of what he said, in that my present constituency of Goole is in no fewer than four different counties. I am one of only two hon. Members who have the pleasure to represent four counties in the House, the other being the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Watson). Since local government reorganisation in 1974, we have had that unusual position. It was precisely that point which the then Labour Home Secretary argued in 1969. I shall not go into great detail about the whole of that debate, but I am glad that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) has highlighted the argument for me.
  Much has been said in the debate about the need for early redistribution of Westminster constituencies because of disparities between the electorates of existing constituencies. Indeed, the Home Secretary gave a long list of existing constituencies which are so much above the electoral quota and so much below. I am sure that every democrat would acknowledge that disparities of the scale that has been mentioned—30,000 to 100,000—are not good for our system and that we want to see an ironing out of those disparities. As far as possible, we should like to see constituencies that are all close to the electoral quota.
  But I have news for the Home Secretary. That objective will not be achieved by the present general review of parliamentary constituencies. If one looks closely at the proposed electorates up and down the country, it is astonishing to find how great the divergences are. That is so even if we put aside areas of the country with unusual geographical features, such as the Isle of Wight, with its electorate of 88,460, or Orkney and Shetland, with its electorate of 28,307. One can understand why the Boundary Commissions in their present review are perpetuating those unusual constituencies. However, even if one puts aside those considerations, one will find that, in the proposals so far published or revised in the recommendations of the English Boundary Commission, electorates vary from 46,493 in Surbiton to 80,583 in Wood Green, which are both within Greater London. Another interesting constituency is that of Sidcup, for which the recommended electorate is 49,739.
  If one looks at particular cases within particular counties—for example, in Staffordshire—one will find a variation from 51,602 in the proposed constituency of

  313
  Staffordshire, South-East to 76,180 in Stoke-on-Trent, North. In Lancashire. there is a variation from 52,154 in the proposed constituency of Morecambe and Lunesdale to 76,628 in Blackburn.
  Of the 345 constituencies so far proposed for 31 counties in England—that is, if one regards Greater London as a county—92, or well over one-quarter, have 1976 electorates which differ from the electoral quota by more than l0 per cent. and 11 have electorates which differ by more than 20 per cent.
  Mr. Robin Squire (Hornchurch): Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that in coming to their recommendations the commissioners are required to look not merely at the existing population but at the expected population changes in the immediate future? If that is so, that could account for a number of the variations to which he has referred.
  Dr. Marshall: On the contrary, I expect that the population changes that have taken place since 1976 will have widened the divergences about which we are talking. In a sense, it was unfair of the Home Secretary to quote his list on the basis of 1980 figures, because that does not give a fair comparison with the new constitueucies that are proposed in the general review, all of which are based on 1976 electorates. It would have been more interesting had the Home Secretary given a list of present constituencies on the basis of their 1976 electorates.
  The position in Scotland is even more interesting. There, the electoral quota is 53,649—somewhat less than in England. So far, only 39 seats have been proposed for the eight regions outside Strathclyde. Of those 39 seats, 17, or more than 40 per cent. have 1978 electorates—1978 is the base yea: in Scotland—which differ from the Quota by more than 10 per cent. and 6 by more than 20 per cent. Even if one excludes the Highlands and Islands, with their special; geographical features, one has a variation in Scotland ranging from 36,299 in the proposed constituency for West Borders to 64,500 in Dundee, West.
  When all these proposals are put together, one finds that the constituencies so far proposed for the mainland of Great Britain have electorates ranging from 30,100 in Caithness and Sutherland to 80,583 in Wood Green. Therefore, the arguments that the present disparitie in constituency electorates necessitate the earliest possible redistribution are much overated.
  Mr. Britton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if he is engaging in this statistical analysis and complaining about unfairness it is grossly misleading to talk about divergences in the new constituencies when he includes within his global figures parts of the country which operate on different electoral quotients?
  Dr. Marshall: I have quoted only one such instance, and what I said made that perfectly clear. I shall repeat almost word for word what I said earlier, namely, that on the mainland of Great Britain—that is exactly what I said—there is a divergence from 30,100 in Caithness and Sutherland to 80,583 in Wood Green. Therefore, the argument that the present constituencies need to be redistributed as rapidly as possible to iron out the great divergence in their electorates does not fully hold water, because what is now being proposed by the Boundary Commissions will still leave a wide divergence in those electorates.
  314
  The range has already increased because of the passage of time since 1976. When those constituencies first come into operation, be it in 1983, 1984 or some time later, we shall see how widely they range.
  The Home Secretary and the Government are asking the House to amend a previous enactment in one narrow respect, namely, a provision that has never yet been implemented because there has been no review of Westminster constituencies since the enactment of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978. There is no experience of the working of that provision. There is no legalistic contradiction involved in the present state of the legislation. No argument can be put forward requiring the earliest possible redistribution, other than that provided for in the present law, which requires that the reports should reach the Home Secretary not later than 1984. Only the House can judge for itself the real reasons for this move by the Government.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. Selwyn Gummer (Eye): I shall not take up the argument of the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall). It is not an adequate defence for him to say that because the new position will not be perfect we should opt for the old position, which is much worse. However one uses the statistics, that is not a sensible argument. It was interesting to note that the hon. Gentleman showed concern, care and compassion for Euro Members and a desire to co-operate and consult with them, which is touching from a representative of a party that wishes to abolish Euro Members altogether. I wonder whether we can take seriously his crocodile tears or whether we should suspect that there is another reason lying behind his remarks.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who opened the debate for the Opposition, and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), who is to reply. should declare an interest. Both of them benefit considerably under the present system. The electorate of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South is 24.9 per cent. below the average. That helps a great deal when answering letters. The electorate of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is 42 per cent. below the average. I have no reason to doubt that he will put forward the strongest views for putting off the change for as long as possible. The hon. Gentleman must realise that if the system that is used in the Labour Party allows him to get a constituency, he will need to have 28,000 more electors to reach the necessary average.
  There is a strong vested interest within the Labour Party in favour of the present system. Of the four candidates for the leadership of the Opposition, three were in that position. The electorate of the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) is 11.4 per cent. below average. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who did this country such a disservice when he was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has an electorate that is 17 per cent. below the average. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), who now leads the Opposition, has an electorate that is no less than 37.6 per cent. below the average—and not the average for England but the average for the already low figure for Wales. Let us begin by realising that there is a good reason for many hon. Members to seek to prolong the comforts of the present system.
  Dr. Edmund Marshall: Before the hon. Gentleman gets too far into his speech, I wish to take up his reference

  315
  to me in his opening remarks. I was not pleading for great co-operation between Westminster Members and Euro Members. I was simply saying that it helps me to keep an eye on my European Member if there is only one of him. During the past month I have crossed swords with him simply because I was able to find out what he was doing.
  Mr. Gummer: The House will now realise that the purpose of prolonging the present position is that of surveillance. No doubt the House will give due weight to that as a proposition. The fact remains that we have a system that starts by being unfair in numbers. That unfairness is sufficiently great to attack the very basis of the democratic system. It cannot be right that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) represents six times as many people as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart). That cannot be a democratic system. Even if this proposal is only a bit better, it is better to be a bit better quicker than to prolong the agony for what may be a further 10 years.
  We must look carefully at the numbers. It is not a question of a numbers game but a question of the representation of people who have a right to believe that their representation is at least reasonably fair. The numbers position means an over-representation for the towns and an under-representation for the country. For example, the county of Suffolk has many more people than Manchester, yet Manchester has eight Members of Parliament and Suffolk has only five. Each Suffolk Member represents twice as many constituents as each Manchester Member. That means, for example, that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman)—he knows that I intended to mention this—can make my constituents homeless by opposing shorthold provisions. Every one of my constituents knows that the right hon. Gentleman represents half the number of people that I represent. He may represent them extremely well. I am talking not about quality but about quantity. The system is very much weighted against those who live in the rural areas.
  The average electorate of the rural constituencies of East Anglia as a whole is 89,000. The average electorate of Liverpool, Manchester or Glasgow is between 40,000 and 45,000. That cannot be fair, and it should not continue.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is not the necessary consequence of the difficulties to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention that, because the House is weighted towards urban Members, it is less perceptive to the special needs of the rural areas in which I live?
  Mr. Gummer: I was hoping that my hon. Friend would lead me down that path, because it is a path that I wish to follow. Within the rules of order, I wish to point out that there is an interesting correlation between the number of urban Members and the amount of rate support grant that happens to find its way into the rural areas. The rural counties that are under-represented receive a smaller share of the national cake per capita than the counties that happen to be in urban areas. I make no allegations. I' propose no wicked plots. I simply suggest that taxation with under-representation means higher taxation. Similarly, benefits fall to those who have the largest number of voices to speak for them as well as those who have the biggest voices to speak for them.
  316
  There is a further disadvantage in the present system. I put it somewhat lightheartedly and I hope that it will not be taken too seriously. However, it is worth saying. There is the factor of mischief-making. I have noted carefully that many of the hon. Members who interfere and speak widely on constituencies of other Members themselves represent too few constituents. I think of the speeches made recently by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), who has 12,000 too few constituents. I think of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett)—
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Rasputin.
  Mr. Gummer: —who has 13,000 too few constituents. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) has 15,000 too few constituents.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: None of them is here.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has 14,000 too few constituents and the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), who is so prominent on all issues, has 34,000 too few constituents.
  If those hon. Members had a few more constituents writing a few more letters, they might have less time to support such unfortunate causes. I mention those but there are many others. There seems to be a mischief factor that lies in the small number of constituents in certain constituencies.
  Mr. Martin Stevens (Fulham): My hon. Friend has confessed to a certain lightheartedness in his approach. Does not he agree that although his bucolic flock may be more numerous than those constituents who are represented by hon. Members with city centre seats, if it is a matter of writing letters—he has not produced statistics for this—the town constituent is far quicker to reach for his pen than his country cousin?
  Mr. Gummer: I am about to produce not statistics but personal examples. When I was the hon. Member for Lewisham, West between 1970 and 1974, the number of letters that I received was one-fifth the number that I receive as the hon. Member for Eye. Those who live in rural constituencies are no less ready to write. My hon. Friend has inadvertently underlined one of the difficulties. Those who live in the towns are not only over-represented but often extremely patronising to those who live in the country. It is sad that one of my hon. Friends should suggest that those who live in the country are either unable to write or so gripped by the agues of the cold that they are unable to move their pens. His attitude towards my constituents is nothing less than disastrous.
  It is unfortunate that my hon. Friend does not have enough rural friends in this place to put him right. That is the point that I am about to make.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) would have to walk rather more if he represented a rural constituency.
  Mr. Gummer: My constituency amounts to 640 square miles. It contains 202 villages. Driving as I do and as I should not, it takes an hour and a quarter to drive from one corner of my constituency to the other. It is interesting to compare my constituency with that of Glasgow, Central, a constituency that one can see across. That is a constituency that even my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) could walk across rapidly. I wish to compare that constituency with mine. I represent

  317
  72,000, whereas the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central represents only 19,000. He can meet them in a hall. I have to travel from village to village. One hall in the centre of Glasgow, Central could gather constituents from all points of the hon. Gentleman's compass. That is because all points are comprised within two miles. With a constituency that amounts to 640 square miles, it is extremely difficult to ensure that one has that natural and reasonable connection with one's constituents. The changes that we require are needed necessarily and rapidly.
  I have taken some care to compare the constituencies in Suffolk with those in Glasgow. I wish to illustrate the differences. The proportion of the constituencies in Suffolk with above-average electorates run like this 46 per cent., 5 per cent, 26 per cent., 40 per cent. and 31 per cent. The constituencies of Glasgow with electorates below the average run as follows: 30 per cent., 19 per cent., 52 per cent., 18 per cent., 23 per cent., 42 per cent., 17 per cent. and 7 per cent. Those percentages are based on an average that is lower than the English average. We are not even comparing like with like. We are starting from the total unfairness of the difference between Scotland and England.
  It is important for the House to realise the seriousness of these disparities. The situation is outrageous, and if our constituents understood they would be extremely angry. What should I say to a member of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers who asks me "Why do I have half a vote compared with a member of the National Union of Mineworkers who lives in Ebbw Vale?" Why is it that two members of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers have the same electoral weight as one member of the National Union of Mineworkers in Ebbw Vale? I should find it difficult to answer that question in a way that would not be insulting to the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers. I hope that one of the things that it might achieve by joining with the Transport and General Workers Union is the ability to put pressure upon the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale the Leader of the Opposition, to do something about the imbalance.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will not object if I say that I am sorry that the Bill does not go farther. The time has conic to question deeply the historic fact that Scotland and Wales are given a number of seats that is based, in one instance, on the Act of Union. Even if one adopts the line of some of those on the Opposition Benches, that was rather a long time ago. It is historic precedent that the Scots, for some reason, must have 71 seats in this place. I find that difficult to understand.
  Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart): Get your facts right.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman, who has only recently entered the Chamber, has one of the smallest constituencies in this place. He is not in a position to argue.
  Mr. Maxton Mr. Maxton: rose—
  Mr. Gumner: As the hon. Gentleman has not been present for the debate, I do not intend to give way to him.
  Only eight of the Scottish seats reach the average of the
  English seats, and 12 of them have fewer than 40,000
  electors. Those that have fewer than 40,000 are not all
  318
  constituencies such as Ross and Cromarty, Bute and North Ayrshire or Banff. They include Edinburgh, Central; Edinburgh, Leith; Glasgow, Central; Glasgow, Govan; Glasgow, Hillhead; Glasgow, Kelvingrove: Glasgow, Queen's Park and Glasgow, Shettleston. It is outrageous that six Glasgow Members should represent fewer electors than, in some instances, two English Members. That is unacceptable.
  Members of this place cannot claim to be democratic representatives in the way that should be open to them. That is why I am attracted to the Bill. However, sadness lies therein because the Government should have taken some account of the real feeling in England that, far from being the overlords and getting the best of things, we are in electoral terms the underdogs. It is time for those who represent English constituencies to say that enough is enough. We have too many Members from Scotland and too many Members from Wales, and we want the pattern of representation changed. I am sorry that the opportunity has not been taken.
  What will be the effect on the European Assembly? It has been argued that we shall in any case be having proportional representation. I normally agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), and I am sorry to disagree with him on this occasion. Proportional representation is an unsatisfactory way of democratic election. It removes the connection between the Member of Parliament and his constituency. It leads to a wholly unnecessary complication. It also gives far too much power to the party caucus. The advantage of our system—not, I am sad to say, as it is operated by the Labour Party—Lis that it enables a large number of different groups of people to choose their Member of Parliament if they live in a constituency that is likely to be held by one party or another in a relatively democratic way. In my constituency, with a party membership of 12,000 or 13,000 people, every voter can vote in those circumstances. That is democratic. It allows for an independence of view and support outside the party. I should hate us to lose that.
  However, the arguments for proportional representation on the European scale are stronger than those on the Westminster scale, simply because of the size of the constituency. Many of us would go along with some sort of PR, but we should not feel that it is just around the corner. To suggest that we should not take such steps because we shall have a new system soon is to misunderstand what is happening in the remainder of Europe. In the European Parliament the arguments are fast and furious. I cannot believe that by 1984 we shall have a new system agreed by all the countries. We should accept that the election is likely to be fought under our present system.
  If we de-link, it will enable the commissioners to get on with their business—immediately they have presented their report on Westminster constituencies—of dealing with the European Parliament. With luck and judgment, we should be able to get both through by the relevant dates. We cannot produce the one, wait for 15 months while it is organised and then start on the other. That would he a mistake. It is wrong of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South to put that forward.
  I hope that the House will not be swayed by the two dominant themes put forward by the Opposition. The first was to push aside the real democratic arguments for a change in the boundaries as quickly as possible. They used

  319
  arguments that would have done credit to those who opposed the 1832 Reform Bill, who said that they wanted reform but not yet. The argument is that there is this or that in the way and that when those things are put right all will be well.
  The other argument used by the Opposition, which is extremely difficult to accept, is that they were pure and innocent in their dealings with past Bills. They suggested that this Bill was gerrymandering. It is unacceptable to compare the two situations. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South suggested that holding up a boundary redistribution and making the system less fair is the same as advancing a boundary redistribution to make it more fair—in other words, to stop something happening and, therefore, make the system less fair is perfectly reasonable, whereas to make it fairer quicker is wicked and gerrymandering. That does not come up to the normal standard of argument of the right hon. Gentleman.
  The second part of the Opposition's argument, which ran right through speeches, was a general opposition to the nature of the European Parliament. I believe in the change primarily because I want a more democratic system in the United Kingdom. I want to achieve as quickly as possible a fairer system in this country. However, it is most important that it should not be thought by people here that, because of an arrangement in Europe, democracy is held up. The Labour Party blames the EEC far too often for everything. The Opposition are now trying to blame the EEC for the fact that this bit of fairness does not go ahead. That is not proper or sensible.
  I believe in the European Parliament. I have the very best relationship with my MEP, as do all hon. Members in his constituency of Suffolk and Harwich. I wish that hon. Members would build up such relationships, which they would find valuable in their work in this House. They would be thereby contributing to Europe and to the strength of this nation instead of sniping at it. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes in his belief that in this House we should make every provision for the regular attendance of our colleagues who represent the European Parliament. In that way we should be able to make sure that overlapping matters are discussed together regularly and that this House is au fait with what the European Parliament is doing.
  We want the Bill because it is fair. It advances the cause of democracy. It stops the scandal whereby the hon. Member for Ardwick can block legislation for my constituents while representing only half the number of my constituents. The present system ensures that there is more work for mischievous hands. I hope not only that the House will pass the Bill but that Labour Members will realise that the balance of the debate has shown that the case put forward by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South does not stand.
  7.35 pm
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell (Southampton, Itchen): I do not intend to follow the many red herrings introduced into the debate by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer). If I may say so, it is an appropriately named constituency for the hon. Gentleman.
  It is amazing how the Conservative Party rediscovers democracy only when it is to its electoral advantage to do so. We all know that the only reason for the Bill is that the
  320
  Conservative Party wants redistribution of seats in parliamentary constituencies before the next general election. It considers that it will be an electoral advantage, and the guesstimates of that advantage are between five and 40 seats. If it had been suggested that such a measure would give the Labour Party an advantage of five to 40 seats, the Bill would not have come before the House. That is the political reality. I do not blame the Government. If we were in Government, we should probably do the same. However, the Government should not come here with pious talk of democracy when they are playing a political game for political advantage.
  I regret that the Bill does not go a little further. The Home Secretary may have misinterpreted my intervention. Our parliamentary democratic system is unique because of the relationship between the Member of Parliament and his constituents. Other countries have different electoral systems. A few years ago I helped a Socialist Democratic colleague in his election campaign in Germany. Several of us walked through the streets of Munich with him, and not a soul recognised him. That was because of the German system. British Members of Parliament, certainly those who represent provincial areas and towns, know that they will be recognised if they walk through their town. I am not boasting when I say that I allow three times more time than others to walk from my house to the library because of the people who stop me and ask to discuss a problem. That relationship is fundamental to British politics. It does not exist elsewhere. That is why I am opposed to any system of proportional representation that would destroy the constituency as it is now.
  However, it does not matter whether it is a constituency of 50,000 or 80,000. I accept the argument about a very small constituency and a very large constituency: it is wrong that one should be 25,000 and another 110,000. However, for constituencies there is not much difference between 50,000 and 80,000.
  I do not accuse the Boundary Commission of being biased. The terms of reference have existed for a long time. The Boundary Commission is concerned only to balance numbers, not to maintain the community aspect—the relationship between the Member of Parliament and his constituents. For example, a large village with a population of about 20,000 to the west of Southampton has changed constituencies in every boundary redistribution since the war. It has gone from one constituency to another merely to balance the numbers.
  What is now proposed in my constituency is ironic. My local council has spent £10 million on building a bridge across the River Itchen. The bridge was built to improve communications between the two sides of the river. What has the Boundary Commission done? The ward with which the bridge connected has been taken out of Southampton and shoved into Eastleigh, which has no relationship with Southampton. No one from that ward shops in Eastleigh. The only reason for the change was to maintain the numbers. My constituency has a population of 83,000. That was thought to be too big, so the Boundary Commission cut out one ward. One ward in Southampton, cutting across local government boundaries and so on, has been pushed into another constituency with which it has no relationship whatsoever.
  I hope that either this or another Government will seriously look at the criteria involved in the Boundary Commission's proposals and will pay more attention to

  321
  keeping communities together—that is the essence of parliamentary democracy—than to balancing the numbers.
  Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman may feel that I misled him earlier, but I do not think that I did. I said that that was the purpose of the local inquiries which are undertaken after the initial recommendations are trade. The points that the hon. Gentleman has just made ought properly to be made at those local inquiries.
  Mr. Mitchell: The only trouble is that local inquiries have to act within a general remit. I can argue that another ward, not that: particular ward, should be taken out, and I will no doubt do so. However, the local inquiry will not maintain my 80,000 electorate because of the difference in numbers. That does not come under the local inquiry's remit.
  As regards the European constituencies and the system that we shall have in 1984, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was right when he said that we should now know the Government's thinking on this matter. My right hon. Friend said that the Labour Party was opposed to a uniform system. I am not opposed to a uniform system, or, as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said, a uniform type of system, even if it is not a technically uniform system.
  What happened in the European Assembly election was outrageous. The whole structure was distorted by what happened in this country. What happened here was bitterly resented by other parliamentarians because it distorted the whole structure. The Government should give us some idea of their thinking on the kind of electoral system they intend to operate in 1984 for the European Assembly election. It is essential that we have the answer to that question.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) talked about there being a blemish on the present system. By that he meant that a different system would be to his party's elector al advantage.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: No.
  Mr. Mitchell: The argument is that if there are three separate European Assembly constituencies in Northern Ireland, there will be three Unionist Members and no SDLP Members.
  Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken on a point of fact. In Northern Ireland the party results of elections based on proportional representation are virtually the same as those based on direct voting because of the layout of the respective colours of the population. [Interruption] It is no use the hon. Gentleman disputing it, because it has been proved time and again. The reason why my hon. Friends and I object to this proposal is that it is a differentiation between an integral part of the United Kingdom and the rest of the United Kingdom, quite apart from the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman about its divorcing the representative from his constituents.
  Mr. Mitchell: I appreciate the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, but should like to return to his first point. It depends how the boundaries are drawn. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it was notorious in the past in Northern Ireland to draw boundaries in ways which gave certain results That is what many of the troubles were about in 1959. There was dissatisfaction with the electoral system because it gave certain results. The way out of the
  322
  dilemma in Northern Ireland is for the rest of the United Kingdom to adopt the Northern Ireland system of proportional representation for European Assembly elections.
  I imagine that most hon. Members do not want to give the European Parliament too many powers. The job done by the Euro Member is fundamentally not a constituency job. He does not deal with constituency matters relating to tax, social security and so on. Therefore, it is less important for him than for national Members of Parliament to have a direct relationship with individual constituents. For example, the Euro Member deals with farmers and farm workers through organisations.
  Do the Government have any plans to review the criteria upon which the Boundary Commission works? What is the Government's thinking on the type of electoral system to be introduced for the 1984 European Assembly election
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport): It is always a pleasure to follow in debate the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell). I listened with interest to his remarks about his constituency. I know that he is highly regarded there as a hard-working constituency Member. We in Hampshire take the view that, if we must have a Labour Member, there is no one better than the hon. Gentleman to fill that role. It is no part of my job to assist the hon. Gentleman to remain a Member. I simply say that we shall enjoy having him as a Member for the time remaining to him.
  It is clear from the argument that we have heard so far that it is proper not to allow the reviewing and implementation of the Westminster constituencies to be delayed by the review of Euro constituencies. Therefore, the Bill must be implemented as quickly as possible.
  In wishing the Bill a fair wind, I should like to make some points which are relevant to it. The first concerns the problem of the Euro constituencies. I find myself in sympathy with the hon. Member for Itchen, who referred to the system in the European Parliament currently favouring the Conservative Party. The election was held when the Conservative Party was electorally favoured on the first-past-the-post system.
  At the moment, the Conservative Party is overrepresented in Europe, but that situation will not always continue. There may be a time when perhaps the Conservative Party will not be as popular as it was. We shall then have the reverse situation. The Conservative Party will be under-represented and the Labour Party will be over-represented. Therefore, I support the proposal that election to the European Parliament should be based on proportional representation because that tends to give a better balance overall. It tends to iron out some of the peaks and troughs in representation. It will mean that over the years the United Kingdom will be represented by a fairer balance reflecting the views of people in this country than by representation based on the first-past-the-post system.
  We also have some substantial problems few people have faced up to them—in regard to the way in which this country is represented in Europe and the facilities that we give to the Members of the European Parliament. There has been no proper attempt made to grasp the problems of how we can link the views of Members in Westminster with the views of Members of

  323
  the European Parliament in Strasbourg. We meet irregularly, on a spasmodic basis. The Members of the European Parliament have virtually no facilities here. They have to send in cards if they wish to see individual Members of Parliament in Westminster. There is no way in which they can link into our Westminster system. The result is that since the direct elections there has been increasingly a divorce of views between Westminster and Strasbourg. Those who believe in Westminster and those who believe also in our membership of the European Community should not allow this system to continue.
  The present system is playing right into the hands of those who are screaming that we should come out of the European Community. It is playing right into the hands of those who say that there is nothing in common between Westminster and Strasbourg, because at the moment there is indeed very little in common between them. We have no proper briefing on what happens in Strasbourg, and the MEPs find it difficult to keep in touch with our activities here.
  The grasping of this nettle ought to be linked with the similarly important issue of constitutional reform involving the House of Lords. I should like to see Members of the European Parliament having some access to Westminster through the House of Lords. We simply cannot allow the present position to continue. Those who believe in our present membership of the European Community should realise that we are playing into the hands of those who wish us to come out of Europe.
  If we were to introduce a system of proportional representation for the election of our Members of the European Parliament, it would cause very little damage to the present system of geographical representation by the Members of the European Parliament, because their areas are already so large that they do not really represent a geographical area in the same way as Westminster Members. There would be very little damage done to that link if we were to have a change.
  I agree completely with the hon. Member for Itchen—in saying this I shall do even more damage to his electoral chances next time—that Members of the Westminster Parliament have increasing links with and responsibility within their own constituencies. The days have gone when a Member of Parliament could have casual, rare links with his constituency. Now, it is the norm for a Member of Parliament to have very strong links and to accept personal geographical responsibility for the area that he represents and for everything that happens within it.
  For that reason, I can see the argument for saying that we should not play the numbers game—to talk in the code of those who speak about boundary redistribution—the numbers game being to stick as closely as possible to the average number and make each constituency conform to that. I can see the argument of those who say that we should not play the numbers game but should pay particular regard to localities and communities.
  In my constituency, Gosport, there are 50,000 voters. The constituency was first created for the February 1974 election. The parliamentary constituency being exactly coterminous with the borough of Gosport, we have a tremendous sense of community within the borough and within the parliamentary constituency. I deal with one
  324
  borough council and I think that the council prefers to deal with one Member of Parliament. The arrangement works extremely well.
  If the parliamentary constituency is to be extended, it will mean inevitably allowing a parliamentary constituency to take part of the neighbouring borough of Fareham, and the Member of Parliament will represent one borough and part of another. I can see the arguments that many people have against such an arrangement, but I do not think they are persuasive, for the more we allow the sense of community, the subjective sense, to enter into this calculation, the less likely are we to have objective decisions and the less possible is it to justify the decisions on objective grounds.
  The numbers game—taking a norm and sticking to it as accurately as possible—is fairer overall because it irons out the distinctions which could be put forward by individual localities which seek to evade the norm by saying that they are special and should have a larger or smaller number.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: In what way is it fairer to have Gosport and Fareham divided into two equal numbers, regardless of community, rather than have one Member representing 50,000 voters in Gosport and the other Member representing, say, 75,000 voters in Fareham? How does it become fairer by taking a little bit off one and putting it into the other?
  Mr. Viggers: It becomes fairer because the more we allow subjective judgments to enter into the matter, the more likelihood there is that the ultimate result will not be objective because it will be tinkered with on the way through.
  So far, there has been little comment on the way in which parliamentary constituency boundaries have been fiddled in the past. I choose the word "fiddled" carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) pointed out very fairly that the Bill simply allows a redistribution to be brought forward, and that is completely different from the proposal to hold back a redistribution. He did not go one step further and point out that the record on this matter is rather a black one and shows that Cabinet members have in the past influenced parliamentary boundaries and caused them to be distorted. The more we allow subjective judgment to enter into this matter, the more likely it is that that subjective judgment will be used incorrectly.
  I should like to refer to the way in which Richard Crossman, when he was the Minister responsible, fulfilled his responsibility to the country. At the risk of boring the House with a lengthy quote, I feel that I must put this on record and show that, if objective judgments are discarded, subjective judgments come in and the result can only be described as corrupt. Richard Crossman wrote in the first volume of his diaries, at page 65:
  "as Minister in charge of local government boundaries, I alter a county boundary I may affect the fate of the MP sitting for this borough. Very soon after I became Minister I had been approached by Bert Bowden, Lord President of the Council, and told that if the reform of the boundaries of Leicester went through, at least two of the Labour seats would be in danger, including his own. I also discovered that in Coventry there were risks involved, but that I could by a minor amendment make practically sure that Coventry remains our way. So I find myself as Minister of Housing a powerful politician in my own right. Of course, it's a little improper to see these local government boundary changes in relation to parliamentary divisions and we must remember that the Parliamentary Boundary Commission

  325
  responsible to the Home Secretary won't be reporting until five or six years' time, i.e. after the next election. Nevertheless, my colleagues are bound to consider the impact of local government boundaries on their constituency boundaries; and I also have to consider what general attitude I should take to the Local Government Boundary Commission as well as how I shall handle these particular decisions."
  The story goes on through the diaries, and Crossman emphasises on page 88 of the first volume:
  "They are my personal decisions. Not even the Prime Minister can influence me in them. My colleagues know this and this gives me an odd detached power in dealing with them. After all, I can make or mar George Brown at Belper, Bert Bowden in Leicester, Bill Wilson in Coventry, Ted Short in Newcastle; each of them now knows that as Minister of Housing the decision I make may be life or death for them in terms of representation at Westminster."
  How did Crossman exercise his stewardship? How did the responsible Minister exercise his judgment on behalf of the nation? On page 240 of the first volume of the diaries, he says what he did:
  "Of course I realised that this solution would put the maximum number of Labour votes inside the borough and the maximum number of Tory votes outside in the county, and so save the Labour seats in this next parliamentary redistribution. This is the line I forced on the department."
  Finally, Crossman says on page 243 of his diaries, referring to June 1965:
  "Yesterday I announced my three local government decisions, and my first job today was to see how the national press treated them. I saw deceit pieces in The Times and in The Guardian. Certainly, they saw nothing sensational in my decisions and they don't make any charges of gerrymandering. This is a case where the less said the better."
  That is the record in the words of a Labour Minister who was responsible for exercising judgment in the matter of redistribution of parliamentary boundaries. That record is sufficiently shocking for all hon. Members to feel that objective judgments should prevail wherever possible. It is important that we should strive to ensure as far as possible that parliamentary boundaries are dictated by the numbers within those constituencies, because that diminishes the risk that subjective judgments will be used.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: May I inform the hon. Gentleman that we all hope that great and high principles will rule in this sort of matter? However, in Kirklees, Batley and Morley we had a recommendation from the Boundary Commission which the Home Secretary overturned on the recommendation of an interested party—a Conservative Member of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is saying that the same thing happened under a former Minister in the Labour Government.
  Mr. Viggers: I have no knowledge of the area referred to by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman), but no doubt if there is a point of substance in what he said ray hon. and learned Friend will deal with it in his reply or will write to the hon. Gentleman. The record can indeed be put right.
  In discussing the Bill, we are dealing with one simple point. Should the current situation, where some constituencies are far too large numerically and some are fur too small numerically, be redressed sooner rather than later? It should be redressed sooner, and therefore support the Bill with enthusiasm.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I do not wish to follow the avenues and byways opened up by the hon.
  326
  Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). He quoted at length from the diaries of the late Richard Crossman. If my memory serves me correctly—I am not an avid, regular reader of the Crossman diaries—the episode that he referred to was not about parliamentary boundaries but about local ward boundaries. In the case of Leicester, to which he referred, he was talking about a decision that was taken in about 1968 to extend the city boundaries beyond the then existing city boundaries and to incorporate into the city boundaries local authority housing which up to that date had been outside the county. I do not read such a horrendous picture into the Crossman diaries, even taking into account the natural exaggeration of Crossman.
  Mr. Viggers: I am happy to put the hon. Gentleman right on this point, and as he is not as avid a reader of the diaries as I am I shall read a few sentences to him:
  "I soon discovered that as a Labour politician these are for me not merely decisions about the boundaries of local authorities, but decisions which will influence the boundaries of constituencies. The reason for that is simple: constituency boundaries are drawn broadly in conformity with the boundaries of county boroughs."
  Mr. Marshall: That is my point. The then city boundary was being extended to include areas that had been built and which were owned by the city council. I do not think that that is a form of gerrymandering. That statement does not say that Crossman gerrymandered parliamentary boundaries. The hon. Gentleman will know that Crossman was not responsible for parliamentary boundaries. They were then, and still are, the responsibility of the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Dalyell: As the late Dick Crossman's PPS for six years, without entering into the details of the argument, I should add—if such statements are to be made—that he was approached, to my most certain knowledge, by hon. Members from both sides of the House who argued about their personal futures.
  Mr. Marshall: I wish that my hon. Friend had kept that intervention to himself. He may have been trying to put the record straight, but it does not help my argument. It helps the argument of the hon. Member for Gosport.
  The second point made by the hon. Member for Gosport, a view shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell), was that there should be a debate some time in the future about the terms of reference of the Boundary Commission. One of the points that has been made throughout the debate is that there is a desire for a wide-ranging discussion on the terms of reference of the Boundary Commissioners. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) will turn his mind to that when he replies to the debate.
  I hesitate to refer to the remarks of hon. Members who are not in the Chamber, but, in view of some of the comments of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) regarding some of my hon. Friends who were absent from the Chamber, I should like to deal with some of the points that he made. He referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and commented on his activities in the House. Most hon. Members will know—the ignorance of the hon. Member for Eye will be forgiven—that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has not been well for some considerable time. I think that

  327
  I speak for some of my hon. Friends when I say that his presence in the Chamber is greatly missed—not only on this side of the House.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Marshall: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Member for Eye referred to the fact that his constituency covered 640 square miles. I wish that the hon. Gentleman were here. I can only say that even with a constituency of that size he spreads himself far too thickly, both in his constituency and in this Chamber.
  I agree with the spokesman for the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), who is also absent. He said that the Bill had nothing to do with the European Assembly elections, a point that was borne out by the hon. Member for Eye. It concerns the effect of the 1978 Act on the Westminster elections. If there is an underlying principle in the Bill—I do not believe that there is one—it is basically one of political expediency. It was only 21 months ago that the House gave a Third Reading to the European Assembly Elections Bill—16 February 1978. The number of hon. Members who voted in favour was 381 and the number who voted against was 98. On any objective assessment—the hon. Member for Gosport made great play of the objectivity that figures can impart—that is an overwhelming majority in favour of the legislation. Explicit in that Bill was the link between the drawing of boundaries for Westminster constituencies and the drawing of boundaries for European Assembly constituencies. The linkage between the two was explicitly stated. A number of prominent Conservative politicians voted in favour of the Third Reading of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) named a few. In addition to the present Prime Minister, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Energy and the Secretary of State for Industry voted in favour of it. If they think that it is necessary now to uncouple, why did not the thought go through their heads when they passed through the Lobby on 16 February 1978?
  What has happened in the meantime to produce this gigantic U-turn? We are beginning to see small economic U-turns, perhaps because the Government see political advantage down that avenue. But why has a gigantic U-turn been taken in this sphere? One is led to believe that the Government see political opportunity down that road. The reason for the change is not too difficult to identify. In successive parliamentary replies, Home Office Ministers have confirmed that the English Boundary Commission is running behind its schedule. We all know the reason. It is the hiatus caused by difficulties arising from the Local Government Boundary Commissioners which were eventually resolved by a judgment in the High Court.
  I believe that the Minister of State is indicating from a sedentary position that that is not so. However, he will see that parliamentary replies by his Department to questions asking when the Westminster boundaries were likely to be reported indicated a date of early 1982. The hon. and learned Gentleman and his Department are now saying that it is no longer early 1982—they have dropped the "early", which indicates that difficulties are arising in the
  328
  way I have outlined which in turn have precipitated the decision that the Government are presenting this evening. There is, therefore, serious slippage in the time scale.
  The Government can, therefore, see a distinct possibility of the United Kingdom parliamentary boundary changes not being implemented in time for the next general election. They are not interested in the equality of voters in particular constituencies. Their interest was adequately summed up in The Daily Telegraph of 27 July 1980, which stated that Conservative Party estimates put the figure of seats which it was likely to gain arising purely from parliamentary redistribution at between 20 and 25. Let us not have any crocodile tears from Conservative Members when they refer to the need for the equality of voters in parliamentary constituencies. They are interested not in the quota figure but in the figure of 20 to 25 seats. They are already beginning to clutch at straws in their desire to win the next election. I suggest to my hon. Friends that even if we give the Tories a 20 to 25-seat start at the next election that will still be insufficient to ensure the re-election of a Tory Government.
  So the uncoupling of the Westminster and Euro Assembly constituencies is based purely on party political expedience. The Government and their supporters believe—it has been stated implicity throughout the debate—that there is party advantage in that course of action. It is, therefore, a partisan Bill in spite of the hon. Member for Gosport hoping that it will have an easy passage. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will give it a passage that is far from easy. The Bill is shabby, squalid and mere political manoeuvre, something that the Minister of State, a man renowned for his integrity, should have nothing to do with.
  I am not a supporter of the European Community, and I do not support direct elections to the European Assembly. Unfortunately, I was unable to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill on 16 February 1979 because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), who, I think, will make the same point later, I was constrained by being a very minor member of the last Labour Government. We were able to exercise our right to abstain, however, and I showed my displeasure for that 1978 Act by positively abstaining at all stages of its passage—
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Put that in the diaries.
  Mr. Marshall: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) refers to "the diaries." Perhaps I shall put it in my diary in 30 or 40 years' time—
  Mr. Powell: That was the one I had in mind.
  Mr. Marshall: In spite of the prescience of the late Richard Crossman, I do not think that he referred in his diaries to my activities on 16 February 1978.
  If I were not so deeply disturbed by the blatant political gerrymandering of the Bill, I would favour unlinking because I would support anything that would bring European elections into disrepute, but not if it is based on squalid party political manoeuvres. So, reluctantly, I have to support the reasoned amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. They can on this occasion count on my active and positive support in the Division Lobby tonight.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I have bad news for the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). I do not think that the amendments have been selected. He will, therefore, have to find some other way of doing what he told us he did before, and that is to make a positive abstention an indication of negative disapproval, if that is not getting too involved. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not allow me to intervene during his speech on the question of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), because I wanted to say that many of us share the views of the hon. Member for Leicester, South—
  Mr. Jim Marshall: The hon. Gentleman will embarrass me.
  Mr. Bottomley: I hope that I shall embarrass a number of people.
  The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) was making was not a personal attack on the hon. Member for Bolsover. The only aspersions that my hon. Friend cast—I believe inaccurately—were against the right hon Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). I think that my hon. Friend got it wrong. One of the last persons whom hon. Members would regard as doing anything for his political future is the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. During the last Labour Government he showed a disregard for his political future and preferment by a number of actions on which the Opposition supported and congratulated him. Just because he finds himself on the Opposition Front Bench, we should not say that he is likely to produce a speech that will in any way be based on the size of his constituency. That is not what we would expect of him, and I am sure that we shall not be disappointed when he speaks.
  It was important for me to intervene, when the right hon. Member for Leeds, South was speaking, to be the first to say that there is general agreement that the political result of bringing in the new boundaries before the next election will probably favour the Conservative Party. That view may be wrong, but it is general. It is also worth saying, however—and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leicester. South did not say it—that the opposite side of the coin, which he, in his more excited and less serious moments, regarded as a shabby manoeuvre, is that if the new boundaries do not come in before the next general election the Labour Party is likely to maintain an advantage which, on any objective assessment, is undeserved.
  I hope that we shall all approach the Bill basically on its merits and he willing to acknowledge openly the likely political advantages and disadvantages but that we shall rise above them and instead discuss what appears to be right and suitable.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: The hon. Gentleman referred particularly to the point about the 20 to 25-seat gain arising from redistribution of boundaries. Does he agree that there was evidence a the time of the passage of the Act early in 1978, with the boundary changes then known and the way in which one saw boundary changes going, that that situation was likely to arise anyway, so that the right hon. Gentlemen to whom I have referred and who now occupy high office in the present Government knew that that would happen but still voted for the linkage between the two?
  Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman's memory is obviously better than mine. I do not recall whether the circumstances in 1978 were such that we needed to get that Bill through quickly and have an abbreviated procedure for drawing the Euro boundaries. That may or may not be relevant. What is relevant is that very few people in 1978 believed that the proposals for the new boundaries, both for Westminster and Euro constituencies, could be delayed beyond early 1982. Most people in 1978 expected the election following the one to come in 1978–79 to come in 1983–84, and if both sets of revised boundaries had been put forward in early 1972 there would have been no problem. I do not believe that we would have seen this Bill. I do not regard it as a particularly big or significant Bill. It can be useful in the circumstances, but there is a danger that the extra delay in linking the proposals for both the European and Westminster constituencies might mean that the next Westminster election will be held on boundaries that are drawn up on populations of many years back.
  The hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) produced a statistical porridge that contained rather more water than oats. However, he tried to argue that already the differences in constituencies proposed for the counties for which the Boundary Commissioners have put forward their views are so great that it hardly makes any difference.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eye managed to deal with that point, and it is clear that if we have constituencies that are now running at under 20,000, or even one under 20,000, and constituencies over 100,000, it will be a great improvement if we come to a range—leaving out the Highlands and Islands—that goes perhaps from 30,000 to 40,000, or from 40,000 to 50,000, to 70,000 to 80,000 at the higher level.
  If one lays down a certain number of seats for a county, there is clearly a problem of trying to keep within borough boundaries. I am aware of that in London. Perhaps I may declare an interest, in that if the Boundary Commissioners had decided to reduce the number of seats in the Greater London area by two my seat would have gone. My constituents would not have gone, but I might have gone.
  If one is to keep London constituencies within boroughs, it is not possible to avoid the problems of Wood Green. If Wood Green is 80,000 and one wants to halve it—the same argument applies to the Isle of Wight, outside London—one may be stuck with either two constituencies of 40,000 or one of 80,000. That is a problem that must be faced. Obviously, it can be faced by going more often over county or borough boundaries or whatever, but if we can bring the electors in particular constituencies into a closer range so that they are closer to each other, that is clearly an improvement.
  There are very few people who have put forward a convincing argument—I do not think that I have heard one from the Opposition Benches today, although the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury often surprises us all—that justifies keeping the linked responsibility of the Boundary Commissioners in such a way that we may be left for another seven years before we get revised Westminster constituencies.
  I hope that the Government will take the opportunity of breaking that link—which is all that the Bill does, in effect—and the opportunity presented by breaking the link for saying that they are open to adopting different systems from those that we have now for the European Assembly elections. I believe that it would be possible,

  331
  even if we had to have another accelerated procedure, to allow the House to consider going on to some changed form of election.
  It is always a bit difficult for a representative of a party that has had sweeping majorities on the first-past-the-post system for the first European Assembly elections to say that we now want to change the system so that the other side does not get a great majority of its own. I think that the same thing would apply even if there were a risk of the Conservatives getting a large majority in Europe again and moving on to a more balanced system. Virtually any system that we could introduce for the Assembly elections would be better than the one that we have now.
  I do not really mind whether one has something rather like the French system, under which people vote a week later if one candidate does not get a majority of the votes. I do not mind whether we have a fairly straightforward PR system or whether we go on to an added-Member system. I think that the Government ought to say today that if the Bill goes through there will be an opportunity for the House to consider what system will be used for the next European Assembly elections.
  While on the subject of the possibilities of PR, may I say that I hope that the Government will also give consideration to bringing in a changed system for local government elections. Looking at my own borough, Greenwich, which is perhaps a little more in the news than it often is because of the council's apparent—and, I hope, temporary—reluctance to sell council houses, and at the balance of votes there and the balance of councillors, one finds that there is as much a disproportion there as there is in the representation of United Kingdom electors in the European Assembly.
  I hope that we shall use the opportunities that will be available during the rest of this Parliament, and, I hope, in the next Parliament, to revise our system for the Assembly elections, to reform the House of Lords and to give serious consideration to our election system for local authorities. For local authorities, I prefer either to see one-third of the councillors elected each year or each two years, so that one cannot sweep out virtually a whole council because of a national change, or, go on to a form of PR. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) showed how one could accept most forms of PR and maintain constituency links if most MPs or councillors were willing to represent greater numbers than they do now and get an element of proportionality and keep the constituency linked, which is very important.
  I believe that one thing that will come from altering the parliamentary constituencies for Westminster elections will be more marginal seats. I approve of having more marginal seats. It helps to break central party control over associations, candidates and MPs. It makes it easier for those of us who are occasionally in advance of our parties to argue certain views. In my case it is probably true. I need to get about 1,000 Liberal votes and 1,000 Labour votes to continue being elected, so if occasionally I appear to be drifting towards the pink side of the political spectrum it must be appreciated that there are justifiable reasons for it in terms as well as the fact that I normally vote and speak in the way that I believe to be right.
  It is worth noting that the constituencies that have the largest Labour Parties in Britain are the marginal constituencies of Woolwich, Southampton and, I think,
  332
  Eastleigh—traditional marginals in which the Labour Party has to recruit members because it knows that it is into a fight. I do not think that is true so much of the Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, Glasgow, Central and Manchester, Central seats.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, South referred to a gigantic U-turn on the issue. I do not think that that is worth taking seriously. What is worth taking seriously is the value of the Boundary Commission itself. Few people have argued that the Boundary Commission put forward in its draft proposals new constituency boundaries that have been influenced by party political considerations. Obviously, the representations put forward by many people at inquiries are influenced in that way. I do not mind saying that the mild suggestions that I have put forward to revise the draft proposals for my constituency were based entirely on community of interest. The particular wards that I wanted were those closest to the centre of the constituency. Others could have argued that the Member of Parliament was trying to keep Conservative wards and lose others. The same thing could be said of the proposals put forward by the local Labour Party. That has not been said about the Boundary Commission itself.
  The question of the terms of reference has been raised. There is a good case for saying that the Boundary Commission should be able to anticipate population changes. That seems self-evident, but the more I think of it the more I think that such a proposal is open to political manipulation. It might be possible for a local council to say that it intended to build 5,000 new homes in an area and ask the Boundary Commission to make room for that development in its plans. We need to reconsider the terms of reference of the Boundary Commission. I can see a good case for some changes, but I suspect that, on balance, the situation is roughly right. We need to make sure that the Boundary Commission reports every 10 years and that Parliament implements its proposals if they have gone through local inquiries.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Tarn Dalyell: I agree with the last remark of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). Where population and demographic changes can be foreseen, the Boundary Commission should take them into account. Like the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), I represent a growing new town, or part of it, at Livingston. As at Milton Keynes, the population can be seen to be increasing, and these matters should be taken into account. There should be some kind of rolling plan.
  The hon. Members for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) had some fun with Dick Crossman's diaries. Looking at the words in cold print, they are entitled to do so. My memory of the situation is different. This was one of the comparatively few subjects over which Dick Crossman absolutely agonised, I was his PPS and am, therefore, in a position to know what happened. He agonised for a very human reason. Not only can colleagues of a long time be deeply affected, but political opponents can be affected. Dick Crossman agonised, possibly more than some people think he should have done, over the question whether a particular boundary redistribution would seriously disadvantage a leading member of the Opposition at the time and whether, if certain decisions were made by the then Housing Minister, they would be seen as an act of malice towards the Opposition generally.

  333
  These are tricky issues. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) will recollect, a holder of his former job—I refer to Sir Frank Soskice, later Lord Stow Hill—was once and probably twice done out of his constituencies by boundary redistribution. Anyone who has to live with this kind of situation knows that it is not so simple as those who put forward clinical judgments might like to suggest.
  Mr. Viggers: My purpose, I assure the lion. Gentleman, was not to have fun or to throw mud. My purpose was to make a serious point. I confirm my understanding of what the hon. Gentleman says and agree that great care was taken over the decisions. The question that arises is whether this is a good way for boundary redistribution decisions to be made. Should one perhaps emphasise more the objective way of carrying out this task by virtue of the numbers game rather than through the subjective judgment of the Minister?
  Mr. Dalyell: It depends upon what one means by "objective" and "subjective". Many hon. Members do not consider that often the Boundary Commission is particularly objective. As my hon Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr Hamilton) and I know—we are both Scottish Members—the Boundary Commission in the last few months has made a proposal for two constituencies of 39,000 and 40,000 in Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, where in 1959 I was a candidate. I know the area well. Some of my relations come from there
  To propose two tiny constituencies on the Scottish border while leaving some major constituencies—I represent 90,000 people and, therefore, know something about the situation—is hardly a very objective judgment.
  The Boundary Commission may have reasons fordoing it, but there are those of us who can see that we are just as objective as the commission. Anyone who, like me, has attended hearings of the Boundary Commission on local authority boundaries knows that there can be at least two views. My hon. Friend may recollect the saga of Greenrigg and Harthill, which came before the Scottish Committee, where clearly the decisions of the Boundary Commission were made without the knowledge of the intimate situation affecting the local people.
  I do not want to go into any specific case, but these are matters where objective judgment depends on who is making the objective judgment. It is rather as though the objective judgment was mine and the subjective, non-objective judgment was someone else's. The two may be reversed, and each unto his opinion.
  I want to ask a question of the Minister—it may be a heresy or it may be something of a daft Willie question. How is it that tie Boundary Commission takes such ages to come forward with its proposals? There are some of us who, in a naive way, think that we could sit down one evening by out firesides with the proverbial pencil and back of an envelope and a map of Scotland and put forward some fairly sensible proposals for the Scottish constituencies; and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) could do the same for Wales. Why does it take such a long time for the Boundary Commission to come forward with its proposals?
  There may be an answer to this, but some of us do not understand why it lakes so long, and, frankly, we do not understand why the staff of the Boundary Commission has to be increased. I put the question in the hope that it will
  334
  elicit some comment before the end of the debate. Why is it that the staff of the Boundary Commission is apparently increased when everyone else is having to cut down?
  I move to the European issue. I am now one of those who think that direct elections were a mistake and that if we are to have a European Assembly its Members should sit there on the old indirectly elected basis, though I hasten to add as one who for four years was a Member of that Assembly that there should be some kind of rota system and that no Member of the House of Commons, the Bundestag or the Folketing should be a Member of the Assembly for more than four years. I know that there are seniority problems and so on, but, with the advantage of hindsight, if there is to be a European Assembly I should like to see a revolving system. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) always held this view and was wiser than others of us were at the time.
  Having said that, I must face the fact that there is a problem. It is the one about which I interrupted the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), and it was also referred to by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). We are asking a lot of the Members of the European Assembly, given their system, if we alone have a system where the pendulum swings far further than in any other country in the Community and the nature of the British representation is that of a yo-yo swinging perhaps from one extreme to the other.
  That is all very well in an atmosphere of adversary politics and decision-making. But with an advisory body one has not adversary politics but hemicycle politics where groups are for ever coming together and trying to work out consensus. It makes life a bit more difficult at their end.
  Mr. Cryer: In fact, apart from the record of the present Conservative Government, who have swung over to the extreme Right, the record has been of a large area of consensus between the Conservative and Labour views.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am expressing myself badly. I am talking about the numbers rather than the policies. It is a numbers question. There are 60 Members of the Assembly representing the Conservative interest and 17 representing the Socialist interest. If one is to take the Socialist group in the Assembly seriously as a group, that is extremely damaging to those Members. All that I am saying is that if no one else, no other country, has the swing of the pendulum and we do, it creates a distortion which is a problem for them.
  Does the Home Office accept that that is a problem? If so, what is its answer? The only practical answer in one sense, given our system, is proportional representation. I have always voted against it, but I should be interested to hear the Government's view of it if they recognise as serious the problem of the lopsided nature of the British representation in the European Parliament. In particular, I must ask whether we have in mind any initiatives when it comes to the British Presidency of the EEC in July-December 1981.
  I want to raise what I believe is a related issue. With my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I attended a conference at Nuffield college, Oxford under

  335
  the chairmanship of David Butler. It was attended by Mr. Gordon Wasserman, on behalf of the Home Office, and a number of academics, such as Professor Bryan Keith-Lucas and members of the Hansard Society. The subject matter was a rules of referendums Bill.
  As one who has played a very active part in one referendum and a less active part in another, I can say that the truth is that if we are to have another referendum, particularly—dare I say?—in a possible situation in Northern Ireland, some of us think that it is high time rules were firmly laid down beforehand for its conduct. For example, I hope never again to be in the position of having to go to the High Court to obtain injunctions on the question of the allocation of media time. All this had to be done for the Scottish referendum in great haste, when it seemed that there would be a four-to-one majority in television programmes against the then "No" point of view in the referendum.
  I say that in detail because we must come to grips with the fact that if we are to have referendums, by their very nature sprung on us at short notice, it is better that rules be laid down beforehand as far as possible on major issues such as finance for umbrella organisations rather than having ad hoc decisions that will be thought to be unsatisfactory by those who have to participate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) will remember the dispute and difficulty about the rules and ground rules for a referendum in Scotland. Let us not suppose that a referendum in Northern Ireland would be any easier.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Never mind that.
  Mr. Dalyell: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes, though he is entitled to make his sotto voce remarks.
  I do not think that anyone will dispute the proposition that if there is to be a referendum in Ulster rules should be laid down well beforehand. Otherwise, a referendum would have no chance of satisfying anyone.
  The basis on which results are announced is important in terms of any referendum. That takes us back to constituency issues and the allocation of constituencies, given that there should be a referendum decision. I am entitled to ask in general terms whether the Government regard the referendum issue as being connected in any way with the present legislation. What is the Government's thinking on the size of unit on which any referendum answer should be received by the returning officers and announced in public? Clearly, this is not simply a matter of mechanics. Whether referendum results are announced on the basis of constituencies, on the basis of regions or on the basis of the entire area covered by the referendum matters a great deal.
  I have been given an opportunity to ask some questions. I look forward to the Minister's comments.
  8.45 pm
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I apologise for missing much of the debate because I had to attend a Select Committee meeting.
  I have little or no hesitation in supporting the Bill. It is an excellent Bill. Generally, it is admitted that its effect is likely to be favourable to the Conservative Party. It is none the worse for that. Nobody can seriously argue that
  336
  it involves any cheating. That certainly cannot be argued by Labour Members after the events of 1968. Accelerating redistribution does not help me since my constituency is of quota size. I accept that even after redistribution wide variations will occur. In so far as they involve scattered rural areas, the variations are inevitable. There are bound to be country constituencies which are thinly populated. It is ludicrous to expect that such constituencies come up to the quota. I see nothing anomalous about that.
  Merioneth has 37,000 electors whereas other constituencies have 80,000 or more. Such anomalies are inevitable. No one suggests that, for example, the Western Isles should be amalgamated with three other North of Scotland constituencies to meet the quota. Equally clearly, it is indefensible that such anomalies should continue in city centres where some areas of 20,000 or 30,000 electors constitute entire constituencies.
  I echo what the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said about the incredible slowness with which the Boundary Commissions operate. The House is also slow in giving effect to their recommendations. The Commissions operate with a paralytic slowness. Public inquiries also take a long time. That is, perhaps, understandable, but an incredibly long time elapses before reports are issued.
  I have no doubt about supporting the Bill. It is defensible and I am happy with it. However, I am a little worried about its title. It has little to do with European Assembly elections. I should have been happier if the Bill had a title which reflected more closely its contents.
  Since the Bill is entitled "European Assembly Elections", one has the right to comment on some of the provisions which should be in a Bill which is so named. One of the matters which might have been included and which is of importance is the necessity—long overdue—to provide access for European Members to the Palace of Westminster to make contact with hon. Members elected to this Parliament.
  It is extremely difficult to have the necessary contacts between Members of this Parliament and its corresponding Members in the European Parliament when they must queue up at the entrance, go through security checks and send in green cards to make contact with their corresponding number here. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, whom I, along with other hon. Members, have repeatedly questioned on this point, will soon be able to give effect to the recommendations of the Services Committee concerning the provision of better access for European Members.
  Another matter which is more directly relevant to the Bill, and which I would like to have seen in it, is a provision allowing British subjects who are eligible to vote in elections in this country to vote in elections to the European Assembly when they are resident within the EEC. I should have liked to have introduced that subject in a Private Member's Bill. I have drawn a fairly high place in the Ballot, and I had toyed with the idea of introducing it. However, I understand that, before long, the Home Office is to issue a Green Paper on the subject. I also understand that the timing of that Green Paper would awkwardly cut across the timing of the Private Members' Bills procedure. I have, therefore, had to drop the idea. However, this matter should be looked at as soon as possible. It is absolutely absurd that people who operate

  337
  within the Community, particularly those who operate on our behalf, should be debarred from voting in the elections which affect them more than they affect anyone else.
  This measure is called the European Assembly Elections Bill. As such, I believe that it should have dealt with the method of elections to the European Parliament. I make no secret of the fact that I believe that those elections ought to be carried out by a system other than that of first past the post, which produced such strange results during the previous European elections. The first-past-the-post system has enormously benefited my party, and, therefore, I cannot be accused of making party points when I say that the result was a disreputable one which did us no good whatever within the European Assembly.
  I say that despite the fact that the European Democratic group within that Parliament, which I had the privilege of visiting a few weeks ago, has established a high reputation for the seriousness of its contributions to debate, the assiduity of its attendance and the general contribution which it has made to making it a surprisingly effective Assembly. However, the mere fact that the disparity in the numbers is so staggering, and the fact that there is no Liberal representative whatever from this country in that Assembly, reflects badly or our claim to be the Mother of Parliaments, the inventor of democracy and so on. That does us no good at all, and I should like to see some change.
  I think that we talk a lot of nonsense about the importance of contact between the Member and his constituents when we talk about European constituencies. It is just possible to have meaningful contacts with one's constituents when one represents a constituency of 60,000 or 80,000 voters. When one gels to 100,000, it becomes extremely difficult, and when one has constituencies of 250,000 it is absolute drivel to talk about the importance of maintaining the link between the elected Member and his constituents.
  I believe that the argument is overwhelming for having some kind of proportional representation system. I do not think that it should be on a nationwide list basis, because that is impersonal and gives total power to the party machines. But the argument relating to large regions with four or five Members each and a proportional system within those regions is a powerful one indeed.
  We stand pat on our reputation for having evolved a uniquely successful system of parliamentary representation, but it sounds a little odd coming from a country which emerged from the war less damaged than many of our Continental competitors, with so many assets, but which has probably been the worst governed country in Western Europe in the years that have elapsed since 1945.
  By common consent, we have as efficient a bureaucracy as any in Europe. We have men in public office of as high a reputation and integrity as any to be found anywhere. Some of our failure must be due to a system that exaggerates the swing one way or the other. I am unrepentantly one of those who want to see a change in our domestic system that would greatly reduce the impact of the swings and make possible a greater continuity of policy between one Government and the next. However, that is not what the Bill is about. It is about elections to the European Assembly. We have no justification whatever for seeking to impose our unsatisfactory system of parliamentary elections on an Assembly that should reflect the real balance of political forces within the country.
  338
  The system benefited the Conservative Party at the last European election. I suspect that next time, after the Conservative Party has won a general election victory in 1984, there might be the sort of reaction against that victory that we are seeing now. When the next European elections take place later in 1984 we may, even as quickly as that, see a massive swing against the Conservative victory and a Labour landslide into the European Parliament similar to that of the Conservatives at the last European election. As Labour Members apparently will consist entirely of people committed to wrecking Britain's membership of the Community, the result will be a dog's breakfast.
  I regret that the Bill does not purport to deal with the vitally important question of the method of election to the European Assembly. But, such as it is, poor thing, I have little hestitation in supporting it.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Ron Leighton: I wish briefly to underline some of the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who reminded us that the Bill is called the European Assembly Elections Bill, and I should like the Minister to touch on these questions when he replies.
  What will be the nature of the elections, if we have any further elections? I could conceive of circumstances in which we would not have them. The Treaty talks of a uniform system of elections. We did not have that last time. It was suggested that we would have it this time.
  Will the elections be harmonised on proportional representation? Most hon. Members who have spoken in the debate do not want that. Will we have the German system with half first past the post and half proportional representation, or will we have the list system? It would be interesting to hear what the Government have in mind. The more that we think about the issue, the more we realise the difficulty of grafting on to our electoral process an essentially incompatible—really alien—EEC structure.
  My right hon. Friend said that it is two years since we had a directly elected Assembly and that we should ask how it has performed. How many citizens even know the name of their Euro Member? One of the objects was to reform the CAP. Has any progress been made there? I do not think so. The Assembly held up the last budget for a long time, but it eventually passed an even worse budget. That was not an auspicious omen. Currently, the Assembly has virtually no powers. It is an elaborate facade or charade. It is a fig leaf. It gives an illusion of democratic control—a veneer of democratic legitimacy. If we wished to change it and give it extra powers—and some want to see that happen so that the Assembly will become the engine of political union and federalism—it could be done only by taking powers from national Parliaments. Extra power for Strasbourg would mean less power for Westminster. That would undermine our system of democratic self-government. Were that to happen, we would be governed by an institution in which we would be in a permanent minority. We would be governed by laws that we could not ourselves change. We would be ruled by rulers whom we could not ourselves remove.
  How can we exercise democratic control over the Community? The only way is to make Ministers

  339
  responsible to the House. I read one sentence from the manifesto issued by the Conservative Party for the referendum:
  "No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and a British Parliament."
  As a member of the Scrutiny Committee, I consider the present situation to be unsatisfactory. We should repatriate these powers to our own Parliament. I hope that the next Labour Government will do so by repealing section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.
  The previous Euro elections were unwanted by the British people. They were foisted on them. In the event, they were one Euro yawn. For example, 69 per cent. of the British people voted with their feet by abstaining. Those in the Assembly who claim a mandate have only 12 to 15 per cent. of their voters to support them. There was a massive vote of no confidence in the Assembly when the Euro elections took place.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall be brief. I am grateful to the Front Benches for curtailing their right of reply in order to allow a more generous allocation for Back Benchers. That is a good augury.
  It is surprising that a Conservative Government have brought a Bill such as this before us. On 24 November 1977, most of the leading members of the Conservative Opposition who are now members of the Government leapt eagerly into the Lobby for the Ayes to give the European Assembly Elections Bill a Second Reading. The Bill was given a Second Reading with a vote of 381 Ayes and 98 Noes. That was not an expression of Conservative voting alone. The Bill was accepted with alacrity, but not only by Conservative Members. It was consensus legislation.
  There had been a good deal of argument within the Labour Party about the Bill. At one stage Ministers were told that they would be allowed to vote against the Bill because it represented a view that was opposed to Labour Party policy. They were then told that if they voted against the Bill they would be sacked. The machinery of this place was brought into operation to get the Bill through the House. Hansard does not record, on Second Reading or at any subsequent stage, the concern of the present Home Secretary, the Minister of State or any member of the present Cabinet over what was proposed in the Bill.
  Why was that concern not expressed? There were anxious discussions behind closed doors about consensus legislation. Moves took place between the usual channels in the process of deciding how the legislation was to be brought forward. As my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) said, the only complaint that the present Home Secretary had at that time was not about the Boundary Commission but about the fact, as he claimed, that the Bill had not been brought forward earlier. He argued that the then Labour Government had not been speedy enough or eager enough to introduce it.
  Nowhere in the debates was it suggested that the procedure on which Government Members voted was faulty. Why is the item so important that it merits a Bill to itself? We all know the reason. A few pompous Conservatives have tried to brush it aside by saying that it is an excellent Bill and well merited, and other
  340
  misleading nonsense. The truth is that the Government's economic policies are failing fast. Unemployment has accelerated so rapidly that the Prime Minister called her own Secretary of State for Employment—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. Do the hon. Gentleman's remarks have anything to do with the European Assembly elections?
  Mr. Cryer: My remarks have a great deal to do with them, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Government are trying to ensure, by any means that they can, that they will get back into office at the next general election. They fear that if the legislation that they voted for is allowed to stand the Boundary Commission procedure will take too long and those 20 or 25 seats that the Daily Mail mentioned will not be handed to them.
  Legislation has never been a balk to Tory electoral ambitions. We saw their concern over the old London County Council. They could not take over the London County Council, so they introduced the London Government Act 1963 to bring in the lush stockbroker belt, in the hope that that would help them gain control. The Local Government Act 1972 has not produced more efficient local government. Everyone criticises it. It was pushed through because the Tories hoped that by extending the boundaries of the old county boroughs they would never again yield control to the Labour Party. That is precisely the aim of this legislation. It has been introduced in the forlorn hope that by altering the parliamentary constituency boundaries in time for the next general election the Tories will pick up the 20 or 25 seats for which they are hoping and praying.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) drew out the announcement about the legislation only by repeated questioning at the Dispatch Box. The proposal was not in the Tory election manifesto and was not announced in the previous Session of Parliament. If the Government's economic policies were not such an almighty disaster, I believe that they would have decided not to trouble too much with this petty gerrymandering. It will be seen to be petty gerrymandering of the electoral machine for Tory advantage by those outside the House.
  The Tories' economic policies, which are not based on their election promises, are such an almighty disaster that unemployment is rising at an enormous speed and is irreversible. No matter what tawdry little Acts they bring forward to try to gain political advantage, their action will not save them at the next general election. They will be defeated.
  9.8 pm
  Mr. George Cunningham: The House is grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your predecessors in the Chair for exercising a fair degree of latitude in the debate by allowing hon. Members to stray outside the technical matters precisely covered in the Bill. I do not refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), whose remarks were entirely relevant.
  The discussion has thrown up interestingly many points of concern in relation to the Boundary Commission that are not covered in the Bill, such as the criteria for redistributing the boundaries and the relationship of population to local community connections. It may well

  341
  be that on those issues and on the future of our form of election for the European Assembly a means should be found some time in the next few months to allow the House to go over that ground again.
  There is common ground in the House that where distortions and discrepancies arise in the size of constituencies clue to the passage of time as against other geographical considerations, those distortions ought to be eradicated as quickly as possible. Representing, as I do, a constituency where the number of electors is well under 40,000—and it has never been much above that in the whole of my 10 years in the House—I still feel that it is highly desirable that that process should be proceeded with with all due haste within the proper rules as they have been laid down over the years.
  But what is happening in the Bill? We are changing the law in a manner which is generally thought—who knows whether it will turn out to be true?—to benefit the Conservative Party at the next election to the tune of about 20 seats. Whenever that is the situation, a red light should shine in the minds of all Members just as a red light shone in 1969. I do not mind people being concerned in 1969. I disagree with the conclusions that they reached, but it was right that they should be concerned and that the matter should be probed.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley said, we have been probing this issue now for a few months. We have been asking the Government whether they intended to change the law of the land in a manner which would benefit the Conservative Party's interests. It was pretty dear from the first answers that we got that that was in their minds. Now we have the Bill.
  I want to refer to the situation in 1969 before we go any further, because there have been many references to it. The situation then was that great importance was rightly attached to the need to make parliamentary boundaries match local authority boundaries.
  In this debate, most Members have laid greatest stress on the need to have parliamentary constituencies of similar size. They may think that it ought to be the paramount criterion, but it s not. That is not the force of the second schedule to the 1949 Act. That Act sets down some criteria and then goes on to those which are, as it were, interrelated. The very first of the criteria set out in that schedule is that
  "no county or any part thereof shall be included in a constituency which includes the whole or part of any other county".
  At that time though not now, there were similar references to the need to avoid the crossing of what we now call district boundaries. So, in attaching importance to that consideration, knowing that the 1972 change in local authority boundaries was coming up, the Government of that time were doing no more than adhering to the principles set out in the legislation. Of course, most interesting arguments are not 100 per cent. one way and zero the other; they are 60–40. That is all I claim for that argument. It is 60–40.
  There was a respectable ground—it is no use the Minister of State dismissing it in that way—for arguing that what was done there was right. The consequence of what we did was to end up with a non-correlation between parliamentary constituencies and local authority boundaries, reflected perhaps most starkly in the debate by the situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall), whose constituency contains several counties. That is not a desirable situation, and that was a
  342
  consideration in 1969. This is not the time to debate it in full—it was done at that time—but the critical remarks which have been made in the debate should not be allowed to pass without that defence.
  It could be desirable for us to find an opportunity soon to discuss exactly why that criterion is put so high up the list, because it is clear from the debate that most Members who have spoken really do think that the comparative size of constituencies is in their minds more important than the congruence between parliamentary boundaries and local authority boundaries. We need at least to pursue that, because there seems to be a difference between the law as it stands, for which we are responsible, and the thoughts in the minds of the Members who have spoken in this debate.
  Listening to the Home Secretary at the beginning, one would have thought that there was absolutely no case at all for doing what the whole House, without one vote against or one voice against, chose to do in 1978. It is true that the provisions were guillotined, so the discussion was curtailed. Nevertheless, from beginning to end—and it came up on many different occasions—no one in all that discussion suggested that this particular feature was an unfortunate one and would need later to be changed.
  Is there a case for it? Yes. My hon. Friend the Member for Goole stressed one aspect of the case, which is the desirability of ensuring that one does not have a parliamentary constituency featuring in more than one European constituency. It is noticeable that that criterion continues to be a part of the legislation which will not be changed by the Bill we are debating tonight.
  There is another consideration. The Home Secretary suggested that one gets one's bricks, which are the British parliamentary constituencies, and, having got those absolutely unchangeable and decided, one then proceeds to build one's European constituencies with eight or nine of those bricks. I know that the Home Secretary is from Cumbria and, therefore, probably is more accustomed to the stones that go into dry stone dykes than to bricks, but I must tell him that one does not actually build buildings in that way with bricks. One does that with dry stone dykes, but not with bricks. One chops them to fit the thing that one is trying to build.
  That was why this provision was put in in 1978, I have no doubt. The idea was, in addition to the points mentioned by my hon. Friend, that one might find oneself with one's eight or nine bricks and with no way of producing a sensible system if one did not allow oneself to change those British parliamentary constituencies. That at least was what was in mind at that time, and that is a respectable argument.
  What the Government are suggesting is that, once these British constituencies have been decided, the Boundary Commission just has to make the best of it so far as making European constituencies out of them is concerned. We know that the distortion between seats and votes, which may be great in the case of the British Parliament, is very much greater in the case of the European Parliament on the single-Member constituency system. So the Boundary Commission will be extremely limited in the extent to which it can endeavour to make the seats and votes fit each other if we have first determined the British parliamentary seats.
  That was the reasoning behind what was done in 1978, and it was perfectly sensible.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the hon. Gentleman contending that the drawing of the constituencies for representation in this House should be different from what it would otherwise be in order to fit into a potential European Assembly constituency? Is that his case?
  Mr. Cunningham: I am merely saying that that consideration is a perfectly legitimate one. When one has to go on to make use of the units that one has decided, it is legitimate to say "Do not absolutely finalise the first ones until you are able to make use of them for your second purpose."
  That is a consideration which was relevant in 1978. I am not arguing that I like it or that on balance it is the best way of doing it. I am simply saying that that was a perfectly respectable consideration leading to the provisions in 1978, whereas, listening to the Home Secretary, one would have thought that there was no justification for it at all and that it had slipped into the schedule entirely by accident.
  I hope that when the Minister of State replies he will say something, as invited by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), about the position as it stands now in the European Parliament with regard to proposals coming forward on the next European elections, perhaps on a common basis.
  I could understand the breaking of the link between British constituencies and the European ones if the Government had given up their intention of resisting proportional representation. If they had faced in their mind the certainty that they have no chance of having a common system that does not involve Britain going over to PR and that they would want to go over to a common system, there is no point in keeping the link. What we need from the Minister of State tonight is either an assurance that the Government stick to their previous position on resisting proportional representation or an honest indication that they are facing the fact that if they want a common system it will have to be one which has PR within it.
  The Secretary of State said something rather disturbing in reply to an intervention in his speech. He implied, if we understood him rightly, that there was a possibility that the Boundary Commission would not be able to complete its work on the European constituencies in time for the next European elections in 1984. If that is the case, we shall end up with the kind of hotchpotch arrangement described by my hon. Friend the Member for Goole. That has not been made clear, and we cannot have it left as a possible implication in the Secretary of State's speech. It ought to be cleared up.
  It is interesting to look at where the whole proposal stemmed from, or at least where we can pick it up in the records. I first observed a remark by the Minister of State in a speech, not to any dispassionate and non-political body but to the Conservative Party conference in the autumn of 1979. Anyone looking for signs that the Bill before us tonight might come before us would have to turn to the press release of the Minister's speech at that conference. After rehearsing differences in the size of constituencies which existed and which were likely to get worse, the Minister said:
  "I can therefore promise this conference that the Government is absolutely determined to do everything within its power to ensure that when we come to vote at the next general election the country will be voting on new boundaries".
  I take no exception to that sentiment. But Ministers should be very careful where they express such sentiments
  344
  and about the motivation which appears to lie behind them. From reading the whole of the Minister of State's speech, it is clear that it is not an academic speech about the principles of electoral representation. It is a speech about how the Conservative Party advances its interest. Ministers of State at the Home Office should fall over backwards several times to avoid giving the impression that what they are doing is bringing forward proposals for a party political reason. I believe, of course, that the Government are putting forward the proposals for a party political reason and nothing else.
  Why is it that on that occasion, too, at a party political conference, assurance was given about other difficulties? Why was the Boundary Commission being so slow? The press release of the Minister of State's party conference speech states:
  "But there have been other difficulties. At one stage potential staffing problems threatened the work of the commission. We took immediate action to deal with that."
  Those were his remarks to the Conservative activists in the autumn of 1979. The DHSS offices might have longer queues than they have had before. The Home Office might make people wait for two years, or whatever it is, to be registered as a United Kingdom citizen, because of the shortage of staff in the Home Office. But when the Boundary Commission needed a few extra staff to secure 20 more seats for the Conservative Party, immediate action was taken to deal with that.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Up to now the hon. Gentleman has been very fair, but surely he recognises that my right hon. Friend took steps to enable him to fulfil his obligations under the law to this House. The difference is that in 1969 the steps that the then Home Secretary took did not fulfil his obligations.
  Mr. Cunningham: The Minister's obligations under the law, as it was then, were clear. They did not require the bringing forward of a Bill to change the law. I dealt with the 1969 situation earlier.
  Mr. Gummer: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is merely saying that, whatever the motive—that is a matter for argument—surely it is better to have a fairer system of election than we had before. Will not the hon. Gentleman accept that rather than question motives?
  Mr. Cunningham: Motives is interesting, as they say—unprovable, but interesting, are they not? It is very important that the whole business of electoral redistribution should not be sucked into the political arena. I have advanced the defence of 1969 on respectable grounds. The situation now, whereby a Minister of State at the Home Office chooses the Conservative political conference to give assurances of that nature at the very least—[Interruption.] Let me give a more direct example. Let us refer to one seat about which the Boundary Commission has had an inquiry today. I refer to Whitehaven, in the Home Secretary's area. That seat is what would be regarded as a safe Labour seat, although I do not believe in that concept.
  The Minister of State went to Whitehaven, and I have seen a copy of a press report of a speech that he made there to a Conservative meeting. He said:
  "I am very confident in our future. The idea that this constituency is a Socialist possession is going to be knocked skyhigh."
  We have all gone to constituencies held by the other party with a massive majority and we have said things like that.

  345
  But when the Minister of State, Home Office, who is responsible for the Boundary Commissions., says that in Whitehaven in the context of a Boundary Commission recommendation which is extremely controversial—I do not wish to enter into the nature of the proposal, except to say that it is extremely controversial and has been much argued about, and will be more so—he is doing things that are not proper to his office.
  Mr. Britain: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that because of my present departmental responsibility I should not go to constituencies that we hope to win at the next election and say that we shall win them, and that, merely because the Boundary Commission is covering the area in which that seat is included, that is improper? That is a fantastic suggestion.
  Mr. Cunningham: I say that the Minister should exercise discretion in going to such areas and saying things that will certainly be interpreted by people locally, who will say that he is the Minister in charge of the Boundary Commission and that the Boundary Commission has made a recommendation of a highly controversial character. If the Minister is showing that degree of insensitivity to the need for discretion, that worries me even more.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: As one who attended the Boundary Commission in Kendal yesterday—it met today and will meet again tomorrow—may I assure my hon. Friend tint the quotation that he has given from the Minister of State is giving the impression that the Boundary Commission is being rigged?
  Mr. Whitelaw: This argument concerns my part of the world and it may, there fore, interest hon. Members to know that the proposals put forward by my party to the same inquiry would destroy my constituency, something that the Boundary Commission had not originally proposed. I did not object to that. Now, then, answer that!
  Mr. Cunningham: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his relations with his local party, but the humour of that exchange does not detract from the seriousness of my point. I hope that in future Home Office Ministers will be very careful about what they say. If they show that degree of insensitivity, that backs up even more the allegations I am making.
  It has been suggested that because hon. Members have been able, correctly, to quote cases where there is a small Labour seat, like mine, and a large Conservative seat, the existing system must operate to the disadvantage of the Conservative system and to the advantage of the Labour Party. At the general election in 1979, the Conservatives had a majority over Labour—I leave out the Liberals, who have their own grievances, and deal only with relations between the two main parties—of 7 per cent. on votes. That was increased by the system to a majority of 11·2 per cent. on seats. So, although one can certainly pick individual cases and argue the case anecdotally, seen in the round the system at the moment does not give my party a built-in advantage.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The basic flaw in the system has nothing to do with, whether redistribution should come early or late. The hon. Gentleman might remember the February 1974 election, when, with a minority of votes, the Labour Party got more seats, which demonstrates the problem of redistribution rather than of the general election system.
  Mr. Cunningham: But it is also important.
  I want finally to quote a figure on 1974 in relation to what has been said about 1969. In 1970, under the system that we were supposed to be fighting to retain, a Conservative majority of 3·4 per cent. on votes was transformed into a Conservative majority of precisely double that on seats. In the first 1974 election, under the system whose introduction we were supposed to be resisting, a Conservative majority of 1 per cent. on votes was transformed by the system into a Labour majority of just under 1 per cent. on seats. Those facts destroy the anecdotal evidence mentioned in the debate, and they suggest convincingly to me that, primarily, self-interest has motivated the bringing forward of the Bill.
  9.34 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): I do not think that anyone would claim that in debating this quite short Bill the House has always been narrowly confining itself to the subject matter of the Bill. But the debate has been none the worse for that, in that it has led to being a wide-ranging number of matters of general electoral interest being raised. What I thought was the saddest moment of the debate was when, hon. Members on both sides of the House having raised points of substance and detail, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), in winding up—seeking to conceal the paucity of his arguments—wrapped himself up in a tissue of fabricated allegations which carried no conviction whatsoever and did great damage to the reputation which he has deservedly held until now for rationality and fairness. It is sad that he should have done that, and the House will judge him accordingly.
  The debate started with the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) making an allegation of gerrymandering. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) paid the right hon. Member for Leeds, South a richly deserved tribute and compliment, with which I wholeheartedly associate myself, in saying that the right hon. Gentleman did not sound as though he believed his own allegation. That is about the size of it.
  But the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was not prepared to leave it at that and sought to rake over the coals of 1969 and put forward an allegation in defence of what was done in 1969, for which he could not, even with all his strained logic, claim more than a 60–40 chance of success. What he said was that it has traditionally been local government considerations that have been dominant in these redistribution matters and that all that happened in 1969 was that the Government of the day took a different view from that expressed in the House today and thought that local government considerations should take precedence over the question of equality of representation.
  That is a travesty of what occurred. It is a travesty which began with a travesty of the law. What the hon. Gentleman started by saying was that in the law as it then existed the predominant consideration in the redistribution of seats was local government boundaries. That simply is not so. Let me simply show that to the House. What the second schedule to the 1949 Act says is that so far as is practicable, having regard to the rules, local government boundaries should be followed in the process of redistribution. But it is very significant that that is rule 4. Rule 5, however, goes on to say:

  347
  "The electorate of any constituency shall be as near the electoral quota as is practicable having regard to the foregoing rules"—
  that is to say, the rule relating to local government boundaries. If the House wants to know which of the two considerations should be paramount, the answer is provided by the very next words of paragraph 5:
  "and a Boundary Commission may depart from the strict application of the last foregoing rule"—
  that is, the rule relating to boundaries of local government authorities—
  "if it appears to them that a departure is desirable to avoid an excessive disparity between the electorate of any constituency and the electoral quota, or between the electorate thereof and that of neighbouring constituencies in the part of the United Kingdom with which they are concerned."
  Dr. Edmund Marshall Dr. Edmund Marshall rose—
  Mr. George Cunningham Mr. George Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Brittan: I shall not give way. I am answering some of the points that have been made.
  The fact is that it is clear that the dominating consideration must in the last analysis be the question of equality of representation. If the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was right and the previous Government were dominated by a concern that the principles of local government boundaries should continue to play the role that they did, how can he explain the fact that his Government sought to persuade the House to do that by bringing a Bill before the House which, presumably, was designed to give effect to the principles which the hon. Gentleman claims have at least a 60–40 chance of being right?
  When the legislation failed to get through Parliament, it was then that the Government of the day—instead of dropping it, instead of complying with the provisions operating as far as the Boundary Commission was concerned and implementing the recommendations that the utterly independent Boundary Commission had put forward—having been duly forced to act by the threat of legal action in the courts by the late Ross McWhirter, came to the House and put forward the orders implementing the recommendations of the Boundary Commission and then invited their own supporters to vote them down. That is what happened. It is one of the most disreputable episodes in post-war parliamentary history. It is not surprising that allegations of gerrymandering today are put forward by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South with patent lack of conviction and by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury with a patent inability to convince anyone else. That is the reality.
  I turn to the Bill and what it does. Whatever else may be said against me about my speech at Whitehaven—I am delighted that it received such good coverage and that the hon. Gentleman has ensured that it gets even better coverage—I should like to make a declaration of non-interest. The parliamentary Boundary Commission has reported both for Cleveland and for North Yorkshire, in which two counties my constituency of Cleveland and Whitby sits. What it has recommended amounts simply to the dismemberment of my constituency. I can, therefore, safely say that I am declaring a non-interest.
  Much of the debate has concentrated on issues other than those in the Bill. We were castigated for what is claimed to be the possibly misleading title of the Bill. It
  348
  was rightly pointed out by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) that the Bill is essentially about boundaries for the United Kingdom constituencies rather than about anything to do with the European Assembly. I do not disguise the fact, and I am happy to confess to any quotations that are prayed in aid, that the purpose of the Bill, among other things, is to enable the parliamentary Boundary Commission review to be completed in time for disparities that at present exist to be redressed before the next general election. It seems to me that the most convincing argument that anyone has been able to bring forward against that approach is not that it was wrong to introduce an elementary measure of democracy in such a way but that it was wrong to tell the Conservative Party conference that we were doing it. That is a strange basis for criticism. It is characteristic of everything that has been stated from the Opposition side—quite apart from remarks about what the Bill might have contained rather than what it does contain.
  The Opposition have failed to answer one very simple question to which the House was entitled to expect an answer and on which the whole argument ought to depend. The extent to which the argument has not depended on it is due to all the red herrings that have been thrown across the trail. Listening to my right hon. Friend's account of the disparities that at present exist, listening to him tell the House that there are at the moment 11 constituencies containing over 100,000 electors and 14 constituencies containing fewer than 40,000 electors, hearing hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) explain those figures and hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) develop the point, the simple question that the Opposition have not answered is whether they are saying it would be right for the next general election to be fought on the boundaries that currently exist. That is a question that the Opposition have not answered. They have said everything other than that. They have talked about the European method of elections, about other changes that should be made in our electoral process and about matters of detail, but they have not answered the central question, which is whether they believe that it would be right to hold the next general election on the present boundaries.
  There can be only one answer to that question. No one who believes in democracy, that it is right that there should be, broadly speaking, equality of representation and that votes should be as close to being equal in value as possible can doubt that there can be no justification for holding the next general election on the present boundaries.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The point has been made that, under the redistribution, we shall have small constituencies as well. Given the small size of some constituencies, therefore, of couse that is necessary.
  However, let me plut two questions to the Minister. First, if this legislation does not go through, is it right that the redistribution scheme will not have been approved by this House by 1984? Secondly, as a result of what is being done, is there not a very good chance that the next European elections will be fought on the constituencies that were sorted out three years ago and that they will not be put right until 1989?
  Mr. Brittan: I shall answer both those questions, but first I want to confirm my understanding of what the right hon. Gentleman said, which is that he concedes that it

  349
  would be quite wrong for the next general election to be fought on the present boundaries. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman concedes that. I cannot make him concede it. However, I can say that there is no justification for any view other than that the present boundaries are unjustifiable and that there ought to be a redistribution before the next general election.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, South now seeks to shield behind the possibility that there might be a premature general election. That is unworthy and does not meet the point that what we are talking about is the normal life of a Parliament.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked two questions, and I shall answer them, I hope, with candour. He asked whether, if this legislation were not passed, the Boundary Commission would complete its deliberations before the next general election.
  Mr. Rees: Before the five years.
  Mr. Brittan: The answer is that the Boundary Commission is under a legal obligation to complete its deliberations, and I have no reason to doubt that it will complete them, within the statutory period. However, there is rather more to it than that. The statutory period ends in the spring of 1984. That means that one does not know quite how close to that the Boundary Commission would go in the absence of this legislation. Certainly it would go pretty close.
  Once the process has taken place, what matters is not coming to this Dispatch Box and presenting the conclusions of the Boundary Commission which have the legal effect from that moment that any election is to be fought on the new boundaries. That is only the beginning of the process. When we talk about a situation in which hundreds of constituencies are to change their shape, it means that all political parties will have to set up new organisations reflecting the new constituencies, and new candidates will have to be chosen. That is the process that takes time.
  This has nothing to do with party politics. It affects all political parties. It is not in the interests of democracy that the Boundary Commission should present its proposals, say, right at the beginning of 1984 when there can be a general election at the very latest in, say, June 1984, and in that period all the political parties in each new constituency should have to re-form themselves and select new candidates. I do not think that that is democracy as we know it, either.
  Therefore, there is every justification for facilitating the process that will enable the parliamentary Boundary Commission to complete its work substantially earlier than that and in time to enable the parties to re-form in the new constituencies and choose their candidates, In my view, that facilitates the work of democracy rather than thwarting it.
  I hope that in the light of that answer the right hon. Gentleman, even now, will accept, as he at least appeared to concede, that there is no justification for the gross disparity outlined by my right hon. Friend to remain until the next general election, and that the right course for him to adopt is to advise his right hon. and hon. Friends not to oppose the Bill.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: If the Bill goes through, when does the hon. and learned Gentleman expect the orders to be laid before the House?
  Mr. Brittan: I cannot say, because the Boundary Commission is an independent body. It has estimated that it will produce its reports in 1982. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall then bring the orders before the House as soon as possible.
  I turn to the one other major topic, raised by the right hon. Members for Leeds, South and for Down, South (Mr. Powell). It relates to the whole question of the operation of European Assemblies, in the proper sense of the word. I think that it is conceded, and I hope that I have explained sufficiently, that the Bill in itself is silent on the future arrangements for European Assemblies. All that the Bill does is to sever the connection in time between the working out of the boundaries for Westminster constituencies and those for the European Assembly elections.
  Both right hon. Gentlemen fairly said "This is all very well, but what will happen regarding the method of election for the European Assembly? What will happen in particular with regard to the method of election for Members representing Northern Ireland, as compared with what happened at the last election?" They properly sought to tease the Conservative Party with quotations expressing views about what ought to happen. They said that the Bill contained no steps that would lead to that end, and they are, of course, right.
  The European Parliament is deliberating at present on the whole question. It is producing a report, which has to go to the Council of Ministers. The assumption is made that in the last analysis the report will recommend a uniform system of elections that will be inconsistent with the arrangements in the 1978 Act. That may or may not be right.
  It is fair to say that the Treaty imposes no time limit for the establishment of uniform procedure, nor does it define the scope or nature of the concept of uniformity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) and the hon. Member for Inverness said, there is considerable room for doubt about how uniform a uniform procedure has to be. Once agreement has been reached by the Council on a proposal from the Parliament, it will really then be for each member State to implement that agreement according to its own constitutional requirements. That will require legislation. We have not got to that yet.
  A sub-committee of the political affairs committee has prepared a draft report for the European Parliament. It sets out the options of proportional representation, the additional Member and the regional list systems. That report has yet to be considered by the European Parliament. It will be a long time before it goes to the Council. At this stage, all that one can say is that we are awaiting proposals which might be put to the Council of Ministers. When we consider such proposals, we shall consult opinion in Parliament and throughout the country.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Nothing that the hon. and learned Member has said prevents the Government now from confirming, or reaffirming, their conviction that, whatever the system, it should be uniform throughout the United Kingdom. I have listened carefully to the hon. and learned Member. He said nothing in contradiction to that. I hope that he will reaffirm that that is indeed the Government's view.
  Mr. Brittan: I do not think that events will arise like that. The essence of what is being worked out in Europe

  351
  involves a uniform system—a system which will be uniform throughout the Community, let alone throughout the United Kingdom. It follows that any proposal is bound to apply uniformly throughout the United Kingdom. I believe that that disposes of the right hon. Gentleman's point. I hope that he regards that assurance as sufficiently adequate.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: In 1978, when we debated the original Bill, members of the present Government who were then in Opposition voted in favour of a uniform system. Are they still in favour of a uniform system?
  Mr. Brittan: We are in favour of a uniform system, but it will arise in the way that I have described. There is no inconsistency. The flesh and bones of a uniform system have not yet arrived.
  Mr. Michael English Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West) rose—
  Mr. Brittan: I now turn to—
  Mr. English: Give way.
  Mr. Brittan: I shall not give way.
  I now turn to the point made by the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall). It is important. He said that even if one concedes that the purpose of achieving a greater degree of equality of representation is just, and that even if one believes that it is democratically right that one man's vote should not count for substantially less in one part of the country than in another, there is nothing to be said for making it easier for the Boundary Commission's proposals to come forward before the next general election. The reason that he gave was that in those constituencies with which the Boundary Commissions have already dealt—in the counties where the review is complete and for which provisional proposals have been made—substantial disparities remain between constituencies.
  Of course, that is so. It must be so as long as the Boundary Commissions are not obliged simply to chop up the country into mathematically equal portions and so long as they are entitled to take account of local government boundaries to any extent, as they are entitled to take account of major geographical features.
  The only point that matters is that, although disparities remain, the effect of the proposals is enormously to reduce the disparities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eye said, it is absurd to suggest that because the problem has been drastically diminished and not totally removed the Bill should not be supported.
  The Bill is not a general measure for electoral reform or electoral law. These are matters that we are considering. What it does is to enable the gross disparities that exist at present to be removed. It enables that to be done by severing a connection between the Westminster parliamentary boundary redistribution and the European one, which was quite irrational and need not have existed in the first place. It is for those reasons that I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 241.

  Division No. 7]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Ancram, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Arnold, Tom

  Alison, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  352

  Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

  Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

  Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)

  Forman, Nigel

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Fox, Marcus

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Bell, Sir Ronald

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fry, Peter

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Best, Keith

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Blackburn, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Blaker, Peter

  Goodhart, Philip

  Body, Richard

  Goodhew, Victor

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gorst, John

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Gow, Ian

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Gray, Hamish

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Greenway, Harry

  Bright, Graham

  Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

  Brinton, Tim

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Brittan, Leon

  Grist, Ian

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Grylls, Michael

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Brown, M. (Brigg and Scun)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Hannam, John

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

  Hastings, Stephen

  Buck, Antony

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Budgen, Nick

  Hawksley, Warren

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Heddle, John

  Butcher, John

  Henderson, Barry

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Hicks, Robert

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Hooson, Tom

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Hordern, Peter

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Churchill, W. S.

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Cockeram, Eric

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Colvin, Michael

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Cope, John

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Corrie, John

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Critchley, Julian

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Crouch, David

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Knox, David

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Lamont, Norman

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lang, Ian

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Dover, Denshore

  Latham, Michael

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Durant, Tony

  Lee, John

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Lester Jim (Beeston)

  Eggar, Tim

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Emery, Peter

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Loveridge, John

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Luce, Richard

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  McCrindle, Robert

  Farr, John

  MacGregor, John

  Fell, Anthony

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

  353

  McQuarrie, Albert

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Madel, David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Major, John

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Marland, Paul

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Marlow, Tony

  Sherton, William (Streatham)

  Marshall Michael (Arundel)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Marten, Neil (Banbury)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Mates, Michael

  Silvester, Fred

  Mather, Carol

  Sims, Roger

  Maude, Rt Hon Angus

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Mawby, Ray

  Speed, Keith

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Speller, Tony

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Spence, John

  Mellor, David

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Sproat, Ian

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Squire, Robin

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stanley, John

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Steen, Anthony

  Moate, Roger

  Stevens, Martin

  Monro, Hector

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Stewart, J. (E Renfrewshire)

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Stokes, John

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Mudd, David

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Myles, David

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Neubert, Michael

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Newton, Tony

  Thorne, Neil (llford South)

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Trippier, David

  Parris, Matthew

  Trotter, Neville

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Viggers, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Waddington, David

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Wakeham, John

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Pollock, Alexander

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Porter, Barry

  Walker, B. (Perth}

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Wall, Patrick

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Walters, Dennis

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Ward, John

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Warren, Kenneth

  Raison, Timothy

  Watson, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Wells, Bowen

  Rees-Davies, W. R

  Wheeler, John

  Renton, Tim

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Whitney, Raymond

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wickenden, Keith

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Wolfson, Mark

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rossi, Hugh

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Rost, Peter

  Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Adams, Allen

  Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood

  Allaun, Frank

  Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

  Alton, David

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Anderson, Donald

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

  Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Bradley, Tom

  Ashton, Joe

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Atkinson, N(H'gey)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Bagier, Gordon A.T.

  Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  354

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Campbell, Ian

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Canavan, Dennis

  John, Brynmor

  Cant, R. B.

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Cartwright, John

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Coleman, Donald

  Kerr, Russell

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Conlan Bernard

  Kinnock, Neil

  Cook, Robin F.

  Lambie, David

  Cowans, Harry

  Lamborn, Harry

  Craigen, J. M.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Crowther, J. S.

  Leighton, Ronald

  Cryer, Bob

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Litherland, Robert

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Deakins, Eric

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  McElhone, Frank

  Dempsey, James

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Dewar, Donald

  McKelvey, William

  Dixon, Donald

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Dobson, Frank

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dormand, Jack

  McNally, Thomas

  Douglas, Dick

  McTaggart, Robert

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  McWilliam, John

  Dubs, Alfred

  Marks, Kenneth

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Dunn, James A.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Eastham, Ken

  Maxton, John

  Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  English, Michael

  Meacher, Michael

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Ewing, Harry

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Field, Frank

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Fitch, Alan

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Flannery, Martin

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morton, George

  Ford, Ben

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Forrester, John

  Newens, Stanley

  Foster, Derek

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

  Ogden, Eric

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Freud, Clement

  O'Neill, Martin

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  George, Bruce

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Palmer, Arthur

  Ginsburg, David

  Park, George

  Golding, John

  Parker, John

  Gourlay, Harry

  Parry, Robert

  Graham, Ted

  Pendry, Tom

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Penhaligon, David

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Race, Reg

  Haynes, Frank

  Radice, Giles

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

  Richardson, Jo

  Home Robertson, John

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Hooley, Frank

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Horam, John

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Howells, Geraint

  Robertson, George

  Huckfield, Les

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Rooker, J. W.

  355

  Roper, John

  Tilley, John

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Torney, Tom

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Ryman, John

  Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Wainwright, R. (Colne V)

  Sever, John

  Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Watkins, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Weetch, Ken

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wellbeloved, James

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Welsh, Michael

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  White, Frank R.

  Silkin. Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Silverman, Julius

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Whitlock, William

  Snape, Peter

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Soley, Clive

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Stoddart, David

  Winnick, David

  Stott, Roger

  Woodall, Alec

  Straw, Jack

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Wright, Sheila

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Mr. James Tinn.

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  European Community (Shipbuilding)
  10.14 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Adam Butler): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9866/80 and supports the Government in its efforts to ensure the continuation of an agreed framework within which temporary aid, in the light of the present crisis, may be provided to the Community Shipbuilding Industry.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Mr. Speaker has selected the official Opposition's amendment.
  Mr. Butler: As this is the first occasion for some years on which the House has had the opportunity to discuss the shipbuilding industry in a Community context, it may be of assistance if I set out the background to the draft directive before dealing with its detailed provisions.
  In my statement of 13 November on British Shipbuilders' finances, I made it clear that the Government accept that subsidies will for the moment continue to be necessary to enable British Shipbuilders to obtain merchant ship orders during the continuing crisis in the world shipbuilding industry and that in line with other OECD countries the Government consider that shipbuilding subsidies world-wide should be progressively reduced. I also made it clear that the Government are, however, prepared to continue to support with taxpayers' money British Shipbuilders' efforts to achieve viability. Those considerations, which of course apply to the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry as a whole, have been taken into account during the preparatory stages of the draft directive and are reflected in the motion before the House.
  356
  There has been little change in the prospects for merchant shipbuilding and shiprepair during the past few months. Although the United Kingdom percentage of OECD merchant ship orders increased during the first half of the year, and, indeed, the orders for British Shipbuilders in compensated tons is above the level of orders achieved in 1978 and 1979, that momentum has not been maintained. Reports from various quarters confirm that the position on orders still remains uncertain.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Minister accept that the gravest uncertainty over orders stems from the way in which the Government are delaying orders that are in their hands? Will he bring those orders forward, which would greatly help shipyards throughout the country?
  Mr. Butler: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. On the public sector side, there is a limited number of non-naval orders under consideration over some months ahead. Defence orders are not the responsibility of my Department.
  The recession that is affecting all industrialised countries continues to affect demand for ships, and a general upturn in orders still appears to be some way off.
  I said in my statement of 13 November that there were new opportunities for British Shipbuilders in offshore work if the corporation could prove itself competitive. There was a great deal of interest in the subject of the BP order for a semi-submersible drilling rig on that occasion. I am glad to say that British Shipbuilders has obtained that order, which is a notable success, in the face of strong international competition. I hope that the corporation will build on that success.
  I should also report to the House that since my statement of 13 November the external financing limits for the nationalised industries for 1981–82 have been announced. The limit for British Shipbuilders of £150 million, compared with £185 million for the current year, now completes the package of Government backing for British Shipbuilders' efforts to achieve viability. A full announcement about Government policy towards Harland and Wolff, including funding for the current financial year, was made on 1 July 1980. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make a statement in due course about plans for 1981–82 onwards.
  Many of our discussions in the House seem to be about the public sector. It is to that area that the greatest part of our aid goes, with the exception of intervention fund money, which is available to the private sector as well. We must not lose sight of the fact that there is still a private sector shipbuilding industry, which cannot look to the Government to finance its losses. There is also a substantial private sector ship repair industry, which receives no subsidy at all. The private sector no less than the public sector has had to cope with the problems of low demand. The fact that they have done and continue to do so underlines the need for British Shipbuilders to secure the substantial and rapid economies and improvements in productivity to which I referred in my last statement.
  I turn now to the draft fifth directive which the Scrutiny Committee recommended for debate. The Government were ready to respond to the request for such a debate. On the previous occasion when the fourth directive was recommended for debate, the then Labour Administration were not able to find the time for it.

  357
  The fifth directive, in its draft form, is the latest in a series of directives designed to provide a mutually agreed framework for controlling the subsidies paid by member States to their shipbuilding industries. In this respect, the draft directive is concerned to ensure that there should be fair competition between member States.
  The draft directive, like its predecessors, also takes account of the general desire of the OECD shipbuilding countries in dealing with the current shipbuilding crisis to avoid a credit and subsidy race. I hope that that objective—the avoidance of a credit and subsidy race—meets with general approval. Subsidy races benefit no one except those with the deepest pockets or with money to burn. Generally, a country ends up getting exactly the same share of orders as it would have done before, but at greater expense to the taxpayer.
  The current fourth directive expires at the end of this year. It included for the first time provision for production subsidies designed to deal with the effects of the shipbuilding crisis, especially the problems caused by competition from lower-cost countries, particularly in the Far East, but in other respects its coverage was limited. Experience of its operation has indicated the need for a more comprehensive coverage. Since all the shipbuilding industries of the Community are subsidised by one means or another, cither directly or indirectly by aids to shipowners, it is clearly desirable that the scope of the new directive should be as wide as possible.
  Therefore, the new directive, with slight modifications, preserves the main features of the fourth directive which were accepted by the Labour Administration in 1978. In addition, it has two new provisions—one dealing with aid in the form of financing measures and the other extending scrutiny over aids to shipowners.
  The main articles of the draft directive are articles 6, 8 and 9, which I shall describe briefly.
  Article 6 deals with production aid intended to deal with the effects of the current crisis and repeats, with minor modifications, the provisions of the fourth directive. Crisis aid is permitted under this article only if it is linked to restructuring objectives designed to make the industry viable and provided that the aid is temporary and progressively reduced. These criteria, as I have made clear, are the same as those in the fourth directive, are fully in line with Government policy and, I repeat, were accepted by the previous Labour Administration. Therefore, one questions why the amendment has been tabled.
  Article 8 brings aid to shipowners under closer scrutiny than was provided for under the fourth directive. This is a development which we support. It is clear that aids to national shipowners are in some cases acting as aids to shipbuilding. In comparing the levels of subsidy paid to shipbuilding in the United Kingdom and in various EEC countries, we have made clear our view that all forms of subsidy must be taken into account. The House knows the number of times that we have tried to compare the levels of subsidy between various Community countries. Confusion has arisen largely because of the aid which some of those countries give to their shipowners. Therefore, it is right that we should try to bring all these forms of aid together. That is what article 8 effectively does.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: The Minister deferred to the difficulty and confusion caused in
  358
  determining what level of aid applies in the different Community countries. Does he accept that if we enforce the conditions of the fourth and fifth directives our shipbuilding industry may find itself at the lower level of subsidy because it has not been possible properly to determine the level of subsidy, which may be higher, in other countries? If so, what action do the Government have in mind to deal with the situation?
  Mr. Butler: I think that the hon. Gentleman is not quite understanding what is behind article 8. It has exactly the purpose of bringing in, under the Commission scheme, aids which are at present given to shipowners, as in the case of Belgium. These at the moment do not fall under the fourth directive, and so it is impossible to compare or attempt to control the levels of subsidy unless aids to shipowners are also included. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that one cannot get exactly the right amount of subsidy. Indeed, the levels of intervention fund which are on offer from different Governments vary from one country to the other, so that there is not an exact level at the moment. The point of the past directives and of this directive is to try to ensure that, as far as possible within the Community, competition operates.
  Article 9 is completely new and covers aid which may be present in the form of financing measures. This article applies to both private and public sector industries and in principle to any form of financing measures. It applies, however, only when subsidies are present in the financing measures and thus does not prejudge any of the particular cases falling under this article. Nor does it discriminate against public sector industries. The financing by the Government of the losses of British Shipbuilders and Harland and Wolff falls within the scope of this article, but I do not foresee any difficulties as a result of that.
  Article 5 of the draft directive provides for co-operation between the Commission and member States in dealing with the consequences of restructuring. This relates to the possibility of action being taken under either the European regional development fund or the social fund, but it does not create any new source of funds. Action has already been taken under the regional fund and about £9 million has been allocated to the United Kingdom under the non-quota section for the encouragement of small and medium-sized firms in areas affected by shipbuilding closures.
  With regard to the social fund, assistance can already be provided for some types of schemes for workers from the shipbuilding industry. This year, an allocation of £7·5 million has been made from the fund to British Shipbuilders for a two-year training and transfer programme for employees forced to change jobs within the industry because of reorganisation and yard closures. British Shipbuilders has just received the first instalment of £1·8 million.
  More recently, the Commission put forward proposals for a special scheme to provide assistance from the fund for workers leaving the shipbuilding industry. The Scrutiny Committee has recommended that this be added to the agenda for tonight's debate.
  The Commission's proposal is a modest one. It provides assistance for schemes to encourage the early retirement of those aged 55 and over. It would run on an experimental basis for two years and would cover only 2,000 to 3,000 people across the Community as a whole. A scheme of this sort would, however, be a novel

  359
  departure for the social fund, which has previously concentrated on training and, to a lesser extent, job creation.
  The Government welcome the Commission's attitude towards the acute social and employment problems which arise from the reorganisation of the shipbuilding industry. The United Kingdom already has special schemes to assist redundant shipbuilding workers. As the House knows, I recently announced the Government's intention to renew them for a further two years. The necessary provisions for that renewal for two years are included in the Industry Bill, which secured its Second Reading on Monday.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: What estimates does the Minister have of the flows coming to the United Kingdom under the scheme?
  Mr. Butler: At the moment, I am doubtful whether there will be any flows at all. The amount of money set aside for the scheme is very small, of the order of 3 million or 5 million units of account. But, since it is opposed by the majority of member States at present, I cannot be optimistic of money being forthcoming. At the meeting of the Council of Ministers on labour and social affairs last Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment indicated the Government's support for a specific social fund scheme for the industry, but because of the reservations from other member States the matter has been referred back for further consideration.
  The remaining articles of the directive are of lesser importance, or cover procedural matters, and do no more than continue provisions which have been in force for at least the last three years under the fourth and earlier directives.
  The Government consider that the draft fifth directive constitutes an acceptable framework for the continuation of subsidies to the Community shipbuilding industry. We see the necessity for a degree of subsidy in current market conditions, but we also welcome the requirement in the directive that the level of subsidy should be progressively reduced. It is on that point that the Opposition, in their amendment, seem to disagree, despite their original support for the fourth directive.
  There can be no doubt of our wish to see a viable merchant shipbuilding industry, and I know that there is general agreement on that point. What lies behind the Opposition's amendment is the belief that, come what may, the industry should be kept in business by the injection of public money. I do not want to see any further contraction of the industry, but I am realist enough to know that yards cannot be kept open without orders and that costs can be kept to a minimum only if capacity is fully utilised, if overmanning and restrictive practices are cut out and if the business is run at peak efficiency. Viability cannot be brought about by the use of permanent subsidies. I believe that the offer of permanent subsidy can delay the attainment of viability.
  Viability in our shipbuilding industry will be achieved by the efforts of those in the industry to ensure that they build ships at competitive prices on time and to meet the needs of the market. That is the realism that is behind the Government's policy. I suggest to Opposition Members that it is no good putting in money in the way that seems to be implied in the amendment in order to keep yards open when there are no orders for them. If that is done, money
  360
  is probably being taken from other profitable businesses and other jobs are unnecessarily being put at risk. Labour Members must consider that.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Surely, the Minister has enough knowledge of the shipbuilding industry to know that the shipyards have done most to improve industrial relations and productivity and to build ships at competitive prices, and they are in serious trouble today because of lack of orders.
  Mr. Butler: At the moment the order book of British Shipbuilders is comparatively full, but I am worried because, since the first half of this year, orders have slackened off in the way that I indicated to the House. But I am glad to say that the book is looking healthier now than it has done for some time.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) refers to the improvements in industrial relations, to which I have frequently paid tribute, but from my visits to the yards and from my discussions with the unions I know that they recognise that there is great scope for increases in productivity and that they are trying to work towards that end. But, at this moment, that productivity is not high enough and the efficiency of our yards is not high enough. Viability will not be created by the injection of taxpayers' money. It will come through the efforts of those in the industry. At the moment, it is the Government's policy to put money behind such efforts because of the temporarily weak market. But we cannot—I shall say this repeatedly in the House—ignore the fact that the money must come at the expense of someone else.
  We have only a limited time for the debate. Discussion on the draft directive will take place at the next Council of Ministers meeting. I am hopeful of agreement within the framework of the directive as presently drafted. I believe that it will continue to provide the support temporarily necessary for British Shipbuilders, and I therefore commend it and the motion to the House.
  10.35 pm
  Mr. Bruce Millan: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "believes that any further reduction in shipbuilding capacity in the United Kingdom would be unacceptable, and urges the Government not to accept draft Instrument 9866/80 in its present form but to obtain the necessary changes to ensure that aid may be provided at levels sufficient to maintain a viable United Kingdom shipbuilding industry."
  Before dealing with the main document, I turn briefly to document 9198/80, which deals with the use of the social fund for helping redundant shipbuilding workers. I welcome the document so far as it goes, but it does not go very far. It is extremely modest. Even if the proposal is agreed, and it seems highly doubtful that it will be, the number of people concerned throughout the Community will be very small—2,000 or 3,000—and the money spent over a couple of years would be about £5 million. The amount that will come to the United Kingdom in those circumstances, therefore, is, in terms of our problems, negligible.
  However, I appreciate that the Government are supporting the proposal, and no doubt if it is accepted something less modest may develop later. We support the Government in this matter, and we hope that they will be able to secure a satisfactory solution.

  361
  My main objection to the principal document is that, while the position has changed considerably since 1978, the directive is still written in terms that suggest that the problem for our industry is one of restructuring, which is simply a euphemism for running it down even further. I strongly believe that we have run the industry down far enough and that we should not run it down any further. If anything, we have run it down too far, but certainly it is no longer sensible for the United Kingdom or a number of other European shipbuilding countries to talk in terms of further restructuring when that means a further rundown.
  The Minister of State told us in his statement on 13 November that since British Shipbuilders was established the total employed in it has fallen from 38,000 to fewer than 18,000. We are now down to the core yards, the basic yards that we must maintain if we are to have a shipbuilding industry of any worth.
  Contrary to what the Minister of State said this evening, I do not believe that a further rundown will make the industry in Britain more competitive. The problem it faces is one of orders and of financial support, but running it down even further will not make it easier for it to get orders or to compete in the current market, particularly against some of its most important competitors in the Far East, specifically Japan.
  Mr. Adam Butler: I know that the right hon. Gentleman would not want to misrepresent what I said. It is not Government policy to run down the British merchant shipbuilding industry. I was making some remarks which were pointing to the reality of life, which is that, if one cannot get orders, contraction must take place But it is not the policy of tie present Government to run down the industry. Decisions about the size of the industry are made by British Shipbuilders in the context of the market.
  Mr. Millan: Yes, but the Minister is assuming that the Government have nothing to do with the number of orders that go to British Shipbuilders. That is a proposition which I simply do not accept. I shall come to that matter shortly.
  On the question of competitiveness, the Minister referred to the necessity to improve productivity. I do not disagree with him on a number of these matters. But he might have acknowledged the tremendous co-operation that there has already been within British Shipbuilders on the part of the trade unions, something which was acknowledged by the new chairman of British Shipbuilders in his latest annual report.
  However, the fact is that with an industry which is running down and is struggling for orders in a difficult market situation it is very difficult indeed to get the necessary improvements in productivity. If the industry continues to go down, if its orders and its capacity continue to go down, I do not believe that we shall get an improvement in productivity. If we are to get the necessary improvement in productivity, it will be only if we can either expand the. industry from its present base or at least maintain it at its present level and prevent a further drift downwards, and such a drift is exactly what is now happening.
  The question that the House and the Government must ask themselves is whether we want a viable shipbuilding industry. It is a question which the Community has to ask, as well as the United Kingdom. If we want a viable industry, we must do certain things to obtain that. I do not believe that this draft instrument matches the needs of the
  362
  situation. In terms of the philosophy of the instrument, it does not give a clear answer. So far as it gives an answer at all, it is an answer which would lead inevitably to further reductions in our shipbuilding capacity.
  Before coming to the key questions of orders and assistance, I make another point. The Minister mentioned article 9 and said that he did not believe that that held out any dangers for British Shipbuilders. I am a good deal more worried about article 9 and the effect it might have on the arrangements that the Government have for meeting the losses of British Shipbuilders than the Minister appears to be. I hope that the Minister will give more information about that. Despite what he has said, I believe that article 9 could be and might in fact be used discriminatingly against Britain and, in particular, against British Shipbuilders, and that would make the prospects of success for British Shipbuilders even more difficult than they are now.
  The key questions are those of getting our share of the orders which are available in the world and what Government assistance is provided towards that end. These two matters are interlinked. I do not believe that the levels of Government assistance which the Minister announced on 13 November and, in particular, the reduction of the intervention fund to £45 million in the year from July 1981 to July 1982, taken along with the fact that that fund provides a maximum subsidy of only 25 per cent. now compared with the 30 per cent. prior to 1979, will enable us to get sufficient orders to keep British Shipbuilders at its present level of capacity. The financial limits are now inadequate both in total and in terms of percentage aid.
  When one takes account of that and the other elements of Government inaction concerning orders, one is extremely worried about the state of the industry.
  Taking the order position first, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) got the figures the other day for orders placed with OECD countries in the three half-years to June 1980. Between January and June 1980, the United Kingdom showed a certain improvement, but that improvement has now largely been lost, as the Minister acknowledged, because over the last few months very few orders have come to British Shipbuilders.
  The startling feature of the table which appears in written answers of 27 October is what has happened to Japan, as a member of OECD, and the improvement in orders which took place in the half-year July to December 1979. Taking the whole OECD, in the first half-year of this year the total orders were virtually the same—in fact, they were down from 5·9 million tons to 5·7 million tons. But during the same period, the half-year from December 1979 to June 1980, Japanese orders went up from 3 million tons to 3·7 million, so that in what has been a good period by comparison with recent years for world orders the rest of OECD went down very substantially.
  In effect, when there was a slight upturn in world orders, more than the whole of it went to the Japanese among the OECD countries, and when one takes account of Korea and the rest the position is even worse.
  The orders have deteriorated since then, and there is no doubt that unless action is taken—in some respects, it has to be taken on an EEC basis—about Japan and unless we get some reduction in Japanese capacity, bearing in mind that the Japanese have not fulfilled their OECD requirements, to the extent that there are orders in the world at all they will go to shipyards in Japan and

  363
  Korea, and the Common Market as a whole and the United Kingdom will not have sufficient orders to maintain the industry at even the very much reduced levels that we have at present.
  Yet there is no real sign that either the United Kingdom or the EEC is doing anything about Japanese shipbuilding. Very belatedly, the EEC is now doing something about Japanese cars, but nothing is being done about Japanese shipbuilding. The chairman of British Shipbuilders pointed out in his statement on the last annual report:
  "Despite earlier forecasts by the Japanese Shipping and Shipbuilding Rationalisation Council that Japanese shipbuilders would reduce output from 8·1 million tons in 1976 to 2·7 million tons in 1979, actual output in 1979 was 4·9 million tons"—
  nearly double what it was intended to be. If we allow this to continue, there is very little prospect of any viable future for British Shipbuilders. Therefore, we must ask the Government to take action, and in this context it has to be taken along with our partners in the EEC. I might add that the present value of sterling compared with the yen, and how it has moved over the past two years or so, makes it virtually impossible for Britain to compete for many of the available orders.
  I pass to one or two other matters. First, the position on public sector ordering is very unsatisfactory, and I hope that the Minister will say more about it. I hope that he will also tell the House about naval ordering. The Government's defence procurement policy is in a mess at the moment. This Government came in pledged to spend more on defence, but in terms of naval orders for British shipyards the position is a good deal worse than it has been for many years. When the Minister made his statement on 13 November, he said that the future naval programme was still under consideration. We are to have a Trident programme which is costing several billion pounds, but we have not enough money to put a number of ships into our own shipyards. I am not in favour of increasing the defence programme, but if it is to be increased we might as well get some work into British shipyards.
  Mr. Neville Trotter: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the submarines are likely to be built in a shipyard? Is not that the most likely way in which the money will be spent?
  Mr. Millan: At present we have nothing resulting from the Government's promises on naval orders. We have nothing on scrap and build. The Minister was in favour of it at one time, but that has run into the sand. There is no sign of an initiative by the Government.
  Most important of all is the question of the offshore business, which is excluded from the draft directive but which is immensely important to the future of British Shipbuilders, which has set up a new offshore division to try to obtain the work that is available in this area. Despite what the Minister said about the recent BP order for a semi-submersible drilling rig, the record over the past 18 months or so is lamentable. First, there was the loss of the Shell emergency support vessel to Finland, although the order for the previous one for BP under the Labour Government was placed in a Scottish yard, Scott Lithgow. The Minister mentioned the BP rig order placed with Scott Lithgow, but the second BP rig was lost to Korea.
  This has all happened within the past month. Ben Line has placed another order for a rig with Korea. Houlder
  364
  Offshore is placing orders for a rig with Korea. The latest announcement, by KCA, only within the past week, which mentioned four prospective drilling rigs—I do not know how firm these orders are likely to be—was that, although it had originally been intended that the rigs would be built in the United Kingdom, all of them are now to be built in Korea. There is also the question of the tension leg platform for Conoco. As far as I am aware, there is no guarantee that that will come to the United Kingdom.
  If within a country with a large North Sea oil development going on such orders go abroad at the rate at which they are now going, when we have the capacity to cope with them in this country, it is nothing short of a national scandal. I do not believe that any other shipbuilding nation would allow that to happen.
  For example, the Norwegians say that every order must be built in a Norwegian yard, but it is the exception rather than the rule for that to happen here.
  Some Government money will have to be involved, although I am not in favour of open-ended subsidies to oil companies and others involved in the North Sea oil business. The Government have so far set their face against subsidies for these orders. They believe that British Shipbuilders should be able to compete on an equal level with yards in Korea and elsewhere. That is impossible, particularly with the present value of sterling. If that business is not to be lost irretrievably, the Government must see that the necessary arrangements—financial and other—are made to retain the orders within the United Kingdom.
  The Minister talked about wasting money, but it is the Government who are wasting money. It is being poured out in unemployment benefit. At the same time, our industrial base is being eroded. For a country with our traditions and geography, to allow our merchant shipbuilding industry to "go down the plughole" with so many of our other industries, to use the phrase of the director-general of the CBI, would be indefensible. Unless the Government produce a much more radical and energetic policy, that is precisely what will happen.
  10.54 pm
  Mr. Neville Trotter: It is right that we should be discussing the affairs of the shipbuilding industry in the European context, because the whole of the Western European industry is in danger of perishing if no action is taken.
  I am sure that I am not the only Member to have visited the Far East. I saw for myself the competition that we all face there. In Japan, one finds extremely efficient yards with well-paid employees, extremely productive and building half the world's ships in a working week of about 40 hours, with the average pay about £7,600 a year. That is not slave labour but extremely efficient competition.
  If one goes a few hundred miles further, one finds in Korea and Taiwan, like other developing countries, a different picture where 60 or 70 hours a week are worked for wages which are only half those common in Western Europe. That presents fierce competition to both the Japanese and to us. The whole of the Western European industry faces a grim future unless we face up fairly and squarely to this two-pronged competition.
  It is no good dealing only through OECD—as we certainly must—with the problems presented by the Japanese industry. We must also consider what we should do about competition from the developing countries which

  365
  have much lower standards of living, much lower wages and longer working hours and which are able to produce adequate ships which compete with the ships produced in Europe.
  Against that background, it is no wonder that the Western European industry has withered. The cuts in the Labour force in Britain, which we all deplore, are matched by equally great cuts in Sweden and other Western European countries, both in the EEC and without. The problem will be with us for a long time. We are right to provide continuing aid for the industry in such circumstances.
  The aid should be transparent. I am sick of hearing about the hidden aid given by our European competitors. I do not know whether we shall now see the nailing of such aid to the mast. I doubt it. One is often told that hidden aid is available in Western Europe.
  The amount of money made available to the industry in Britain is substantial. A total of £389 million was made available up to 31 March this year. That means that about £500 million is involved if one takes account of the money since committed. We are talking about a substantial investment by Britain in the future of shipbuilding under both Labour and Conservative Governments. Such investment is right because there must be a future for merchant shipbuilding in Britain, and I believe that it s could be at a size for the industry which is not much lower than at present.
  Five factors will decide the level of the industry. The first is the value of the pound compared with other currencies. All our industry suffers from that. Sometimes perhaps too much emphasis is put on that and not enough on some of the other factors. The second factor is the level of Government aid. As I have said, much has been done in that respect.
  The third factor is delivery on time. The record is now much better than it was. Unfortunately, we have a lot to live down. When I was in Hong Kong I talked to the managing director of a large shipping company with 200 ships. He was a modest man. I asked him how many tons were involved and he said 20 million—more than half that in the British merchant navy. He had 50 ships on order and not one was being ordered from Britain. When I asked wily, he said "Late delivery." He told me of a series of British yards whose delivery had been 12 or 14 months late. I was happy to tell him that there had been a great improvement in industrial relations. I said that he should give us the chance to deliver on time, as I believe we can. There is no doubt, however, that this unfortunate reputation harms our future.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: When talking to shipowners, will the hon. Gentleman indicate that late delivery is not always because of bad trade union relations? For instance, the Robb Caledon yard built a ship for a New Zealand cement company. The late delivery of that ship was because of design changes on which the, company insisted when the ship was being built. It had nothing to do with bad labour relations.
  Mr. Trotter: If the design had been changed, I should not count that as a late delivery. The gentleman in Hong Kong was an intelligent man. He did not become managing director of 20 million tons of shipping without knowing what he was talking about. I am afraid that those were his words. I could only do my best by saying that things were now better, which I believe to be the case.
  366
  The fourth factor is the question of productivity. The chairman of British Shipbuilders is concentrating, quite understandably, on the problems arising from the value of the pound, especially when compared with the yen. But if one reads the small print of some of his comments one sees that he is concerned about the lack of productivity in some of the yards. He has referred to the way in which productivity has fallen in the past year or two.
  Mr. Don Dixon: When the hon. Gentleman talks about productivity, he should also talk about the tools used by the men and the lack of investment in the shipyards. When the shipyards were in private hands, they were starved of investment. The investment in the Japanese shipyards is about £2,800 per man, compared with £686 per man in the British shipyards. When talking about productivity, one must compare like with like.
  When I spoke in a debate on 5 November, I said that in British shipyards men were still pushing shellplates around on wooden harrows. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and the Under-Secretary of State for Employment—who is sound asleep in his place at present—visited my area. I took them to a shipyard in South Shields and showed them one of those wooden barrows. When talking about productivity, one must also talk about the tools that the men are using.
  Mr. Trotter: In referring to South Shields, the hon. Gentleman is probably referring to a repair yard rather than a building yard. There has been a problem for many of the most capital-intensive yards in the world. They were tooled up to build large crude carriers of 300,000 or 400,000 tons and are carrying that capital cost while building ships of 40,000, 50,000 or 140,000 tons. There can be over-investment in capital. It is fortunate for the industry in Britain that we did not go in for massive building yards in the way that other countries did.
  Mr. Douglas: Like Japan.
  Mr. Trotter: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If the Japanese had not succeeded in obtaining so many orders, they would be in an appalling state. If we had followed their example and gone into series production of large ships, we should be talking not about the loss of jobs that has occurred but about two or three times as many. I do not think that the main problem is capital. I think that the main problem is that if the men in a yard know that the ship they are building is the last one on the order book it is difficult to increase productivity. All hon. Members will understand that difficult human argument.
  The final factor is that of flexibility in design. British Shipbuilders was taken for a ride by a gentleman who telephoned and said that he wanted to build a car carrier to bring Japanese cars to Britain and obtained much publicity for himself and his company by doing so. British Shipbuilders fell for that and gained a lot of bad publicity. Too often for my comfort I hear, however, from those concerned with the shipping industry that the possibility of obtaining ships from the British industry is ruled out because it does not want to make a certain size or type of ship. If perhaps one asks for, say, a ship of 140,000 tons, British Shipbuilders may say that it does not have a design of that size but only one of 120,000 tons or one perhaps of 170,000 tons. That attitude does not prevail in the yards in the East. They will build any ship that is required. In the present state of the market, that must be the right attitude.

  367
  I understand the advantages of standard ships and the savings in cost in producing similar ships time after time—for example, the SD14. I do not think that that policy can lead to success for all our yards at this time. Too often I have heard tales of British owners who have not got anywhere when thinking of buying new ships here because the type that they wanted was not the type that British Shipbuilders was prepared to build. That is something that the chairman should consider.
  This is a short debate and I shall not say much more, but I wish to raise the question of redundancy pay. I heard what my hon. Friend the Minister had to say about the possibility that the document on redundancy pay would not get past the opposition of other countries in Europe. I must ask, however, whether the scheme is intended to apply to private yards as well as public yards. If that is the principle in Europe, it is one that could be adopted in Britain, too. I see no reason why those who work in the private sector in the industry should operate in conditions that are different from those that apply in the public sector. There are those who say that they are in danger of losing their jobs because they are being undercut in the private sector by the heavily subsidised public yards that are only a few miles away.
  Having regard to the Government's general philosophy, it is only right that the private yards should be included in the scheme. It is even more right that they should not be undercut in the way that I have described. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear that in mind in future and will bring pressure to bear on British Shipbuilders to ensure that it does not obtain work for itself at the taxpayers' expense by closing down a yard a few miles away that is in private ownership.
  11.6 pm
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I do not understand why the Minister cannot accept the amendment. We are debating Community legislation and we are asking that the House should not accept the instrument in its present meaning and form. If the Government were to accept the amendment without a Division, they would be able to return to the negotiating table and say "The instrument is not enough." I think that most hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that the instrument has not gone far enough.
  The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) made a very good speech. He talked about Western Europe. We are in Western Europe and we are in the Community, which is the largest trading bloc in the world. We must be able to build the means whereby we are able to ship our trade throughout the world. The United States learnt to its horror during the Second World War how silly it was to give up its ability to build ships. We in Western Europe would be mad to throw away our capacity to build ships, which enables us to live by our trade. That is a fundamental. There is no party difference on that score. It is obvious that we should agree on that.
  The British industry is the most important in Western Europe. Apart from our own industry, the industries of France and Germany, for example, are perishing. That is not happening in the face of Korean competition or that of developing countries, severe though that may be. It is happening because of the supremacy of a highly corporate State called Japan. It is enormously well organised. It has a collectivism that is unknown to the Socialist Party in this
  368
  country and certainly unknown to the Conservative Party. It has a willingness to back its industry with all sorts of subsidies that are cheats.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) spoke of the Japanese figures. They are frauds beyond belief. The Japanese come to Europe pledged to reduce their exports of cars, ships and the rest. They say "We are taking too much of your market. We shall reduce our exports to this figure." That is fine, but they never do it. In fact, they double their exports. We still believe innocently that they will all be nice Japanese in the end and will play fair. They will not do that.
  That is why I cannot understand why the Minister does not embrace the amendment and say "We are going to Europe to tell the Europeans that we are fed up with the Japanese and the way in which they are going about things. We are putting up with this no longer." We must ensure that we have a shipbuilding industry in Britain or Western Europe in the next few years.
  The yards in my constituency have virtually given up trying to get merchant shipping orders. I thank the Minister for the help that he has extended to the yards in my constituency that are trying hard to obtain high technology orders. Perhaps Western Europe can build the high technology ships that the Japanese, with all their ingenuity, cannot build.
  I hope that very soon the recession will be over and trade will blossom. That is when we shall have to build merchant ships. Britain will not be able to build the ships because we will have sacked all the men and the yards will be closed.
  I am surprised that the Minister is not willing to accept the amendment in the spirit intended. It is not intended to do down the Tories. It is meant to try to say to our European partners that we in Britain have had enough and will not shut down any more yards. We want to keep our capacity and to remain a shipbuilding country. Other countries in Europe should join us. I am not in the least concerned about the Treaty of Rome, competition rules and so on. We are not fighting among ourselves in the EEC for orders. We are fighting against the remainder of the world. Europe is not divided. We should be united in trying to sustain our shipbuilding, basis.
  Our Ministers should go to Brussels and say that the draft directive is ineffective. The draft directive is well meaning and has some good points, but it is not enough. Europe should demand a positive shipbuilding policy.
  Viscount Davignon is the present Commissioner and may well be reappointed to be in charge of industry.
  Mr. Douglas: Oh, no!
  Dr. Mabon: Do not hex him, for goodness sake. Whoever he is, let us have a Commissioner who believes in intervention not in industries that are uncompetitive but in industries that are strategically necessary for the economic well-being of Europe. That is the important point. The Right-wing Tories who believe in competition are old-fashioned. This is not a world of true competition. If anyone disbelieves that, let him ask any Japanese business man. We should wake up and realise that we have a tremendous threat, which has continued not for one, five or 10 years but for all the time that I have been in Parliament. For nearly three decades we have had a challenge from the Japanese, who are very good at doing

  369
  us down at every stage. We soft-hearted souls let them carry on in the interests of competition, productivity and delivery on time.
  I hope that we shall monitor the Government's disgraceful award to the Finns of the ship that they are building on equal terms with the one that we are building in the Clyde. I bet that we shall build ours more quickly, better and more cheaply. I challenge the Government to recognise that. We must explode these Hong Kong myths mentioned by the hon. Member for Tynemouth by a unity between the two parties and not by division and fighting with each other.
  There may be some private shipbuilding yards, but the bulk of shipbuilding in Britain is in public hands and will remain so for a long time, despite anything that the Government do. No one will buy into shipbuilding. It is too difficult. We have to decide as a country whether we want a public or private shipbuilding industry. The answer must be a public industry.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not a myth that Scottish yards depend very much on defence orders? Can we look to the Opposition for support for increasing defence expenditure, particularly in the shipyards?
  Dr. Mabon: Yes, of course. The Labour Party may be somewhat opaque over defence. It is in favour of multilateral disarmament, but it is anxious that we should maintain our ability to defend ourselves. All our yards, including Harland and Wolff, which is a public yard although it does not belong to British Shipbuilders, essentially want to have their share of what is available. No country in the world, apart from Britain, would be willing to see orders from our interests in the North Sea go to other countries. No other oil country would do that. It is nonsense to go to Finland or elsewhere to build a ship for our Navy. The Royal Navy would not put up with that. Our Royal Navy ships must be built in Britain. The Royal Navy has been a national service since Henry VIII.
  Why do we not build not all but most of our oil ships in this country? The Norwegians, who are not in the Common Market, build their own ships. The French and the Germans, who are in the Common Market, like everybody else in the oil business, build their own ships. Therefore, why cannot we do the same?
  I give the Minister credit for getting us the second BP order. He lost the first order, so he is one up and one down. We give him credit for being one up. He is not totally incompetent; he is only half competent. We would like him to get all the orders for all the activities in the oil sector and in the Navy sector, whatever our defence programme may he.
  We in Britain have to face the fact that in Europe—and I am a very pro-European fellow—
  Mrs. Peggy Fenner: The right hon. Gentleman is a brave man.
  Dr. Mabon: Yes, I am a brave man. It is no criticism of Europe that it does not get things right any more than it is that the British Parliament does not get things right. It is more important that in the Community we fight for the things that are true. The survival of the shipbuilding industry in Western Europe and in Britain is vital for the health of all.
  11.16 pm
  Sir David Price: I have a great deal of sympathy with what has been said by the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon).
  I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the accompanying letter to the main document is signed by our former colleague Christopher Tugendhat. I feel that the whole House will wish to congratulate him on surviving the attack on his life today. It is appropiate that one of us should pay tribute to him.
  The accompanying letter refers to the situation in European shipbuilding continuing to be "one of crisis". One can argue about the use of the word "crisis" in the context of a continuing situation. It is misused clinically. It means a serious situation, as I am sure we would all agree. We are told in the document that between 1975 and 1979 employment in EEC shipyards fell by 35 per cent. and output by 40 per cent.
  The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), so to speak, stole the figures that I have, but I do not criticise him for that. This is the object of parliamentary questions. However, I should like to add to one of the conclusions that we can draw from those figures.
  The figures show the comparision in the order book between the first half of this year and the first half of last year. It is interesting that, whereas for the first half of 1979 orders taken by all EEC yards represented 49 per cent. of Japanese orders, for the comparable period this year they represented only 30 per cent. In other words, they remained almost static, with a slight variation in the mix of countries in the EEC. However, Japanese orders for the first half of this year have gone up from 1,700,000 gross compensated tonnes to 3,700,000 gross compensated tonnes. There has been an almost threefold recovery, because it is a recovery from the depths of the shipbuilding slump.
  I find it deeply disturbing that the Japanese, who had the enormous commitment to super-tankers and so on, should have made this recovery. One could explain the big fall in their order book in 1978–79 as being due to oil pollution caused by the super-tankers. However, I have every reason to suppose that that big increase has not been entirely due to a take-up in new orders for super-tankers, because that still remains a slightly slack part of the market. I would not begin to draw a conclusion about British yards, but in the total European context I ask this question, which none of the documents attempts to answer: how has Japan been able to succeed where Europe has failed?
  With respect to those who bring up the exchange control point, discussions that I have had with shippers in various parts of the world indicate that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) said, it is a factor, but it is by no means a unique factor. It applies also to the other European countries. That is the point. Whereas the pound vis-a-vis some of the other EEC currencies has gone up, that does not account for the fact that the Germans, the French and others have not been picking up equally. It is a deeply disturbing position, and I do not think that these documents assist us at all in solving the matter.

  371
  There is a lot of talk in the new directive about restructuring, but we are given no indication of what restructuring means. For instance, in the explanatory memorandum on the directive, at paragraph 3·5, we read:
  "It provides that production aid may be considered compatible with the Common Market if it is linked to restructuring, is degressive"—
  a curious term of art—
  "and does not affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest."
  What does that mean in the present context?
  I do not know whether hon. Members have received a document called "Background Report" from the European Communities Commission, with that very European address, 20 Kensington Palace Gardens. It gives an explanation to simple Members such as myself of all these documents. It is headed "Aids to Shipbuilding" and one reads at the end of it:
  "The complaint of British and other EEC shipbuilders is that neither earlier directives nor the new Commission proposal offer a comprehensive strategy for Community shipbuilding. Reduction of capacity alone is an expedient, not a strategy. On the assumption that subsidies are necessary if Community shipbuilding is to survive and offer a competitive challenge, particularly to Japan,"—
  the point that I have been trying to make—
  "the industry believes that it should be explicitly stated in the directive that the objective is a viable level of capacity in the Community industry, utilising only that amount of state aid necessary to attain this objective."
  It is rather interesting that from another part of the EEC machinery one reads those words, which go a long way to amplifying the views that we are expressing here tonight.
  The directive seems to be simply a means of facilitating the further reduction of Europe's shipbuilding capacity. It attempts, very properly, to ease the pain, and I hope that in all parts of the House we would have common agreement on that. I regard that as a perfectly respectable objective. On those grounds alone, it should be supported. But it does not amount to a strategy for reviving the fortunes of European shipbuilding. I would not agree necessarily with the Opposition that that should be at the present capacity, but we in Britain must retain a minimum level of shipbuilding capacity for reasons of security. I emphasise economic security, curiously enough, even more than military security.
  I do not like being put in a monopoly position as a buyer; I wish to retain my own freedom of action. I am sure that the views I hold are shared throughout the EEC and that it is not a uniquely British position. But there is nothing in the proposals to suggest that the Commission has made any progress at all in formulating a European shipbuilding policy.
  My question was in relation to the OECD countries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth pointed out, it is a question not just of Japan but of Korea and Taiwan as well. Brazil is now building ships. It is a worldwide matter. It is not surprising if there is some doubt—as the Minister seemed to suggest—whether the directive will go through the Council of Ministers. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify this point. We may all get excited about something that is not to happen and may become a non-event. But there must be an adequate strategy throughout the EEC about how we are to handle the matter, otherwise we shall go on with a declining shipbuilding industry in each of our countries, putting in taxpayers' money to little purpose.
  372
  There is doubt about what the major directive deals with. In that situation, we can find it easy in our hearts to support the second directive, which seems to be a genuine attempt to try to ease the problems of some of the workers concerned. If I were to be critical of it, it would be on account of the fact that it is too narrowly defined. The accompanying memorandum from the Department says that it is experimental.
  If we had the time, we could question my hon. Friend the Minister a good more severely about the meaning of the directive. The facts are simply that between 1975 and 1979 36 per cent. of the jobs in European shipbuilding were lost. The comparable figure in this country was 43 per cent. The figures already quoted for British Shipbuilders show that it is a vain hope to imagine that nationalising the industry will secure employment. I am sure that we can support the directive. It is, however, a minor proposal.
  These proposals should be accepted by the House because they endeavour to cushion the economic and social effects of the continuing crisis in European shipbuilding. In my view, they do not provide a basis for its revival, which the House agrees is what we would like to see. We cannot take much comfort from the proposals, although they may marginally help our industry. As is so frequently the case, we are back to being on our own.
  11.26 pm
  Dr. David Clark: This has been a well-informed debate, as are most of our debates on shipbuilding. I hope that the Minister has taken the message that Members on both sides of the House feel concern about the present low level of British shipbuilding capacity. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) made the point that we might not be in crisis — or, alternatively, that we are in permanent crisis—but that, nevertheless, there came a time when the level of capacity was critical.
  We are discussing these documents against the background of such a critical level. We do not want to cry "wolf" too often, because we all know what the repercussions of such a course can be. Nevertheless, the fact remains that we discuss these documents against a dire background. it may be argued that the whole theme of our discussions is wrong. As I understand it, the documents basically try to increase co-operation within the EEC. That is laudable. I fully understand such a motive. However, bearing in mind the drastic reduction of shipbuilding capacity throughout the EEC, I am not sure that that is the real problem.
  The problems which the documents should have addressed are the problems of survival of shipbuilding, not only in Britain but throughout the world. I find it difficult to make comparisons between the various subsidies, as the documents seek to do. I can remember, in this House, first hearing denials that subsidies were given to our EEC competitors. Gradually the figures came out and it was accepted that there were considerable subsidies given to every EEC shipbuilding country.
  These regulated subsidies do not give us the true picture. The British shipbuilding industry has high energy costs. We constantly hear the CBI and the manufacturers complaining about unfair competition because of the high energy costs in this country. By its nature, British shipbuilding—and the British steel industry—has high energy costs. In a sense, we are handicapping ourselves

  373
  by agreeing to regulate the level of subsidies. I feel that often in the EEC we are the only ones who abide by the rules. That has been manifestly the situation in almost every activity in the EEC. That concerns us greatly.
  I want to develop the point made by a number of hon. Members. I first started work on the land. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that we have to subsidise our agriculture industry because it is strategically necessary. The average farmer in England receives a subsidy from the Exchequer of about £7,000 a year. I am not grumbling about that; I ant merely trying to lay out the facts clearly. In the steel industry, when men were being laid off they were being subsidised to the tune of about £1,400.
  My argument is that at this moment, when we should be fighting for the survival of our shipbuilding industry, we should be prepared to subsidise it. We are in the difficult situation of tying our own hands by tying our level of subsidy to an uneconomic level.
  My basic argument is that these directives do not and will not create the situation in which we can expand or even stabilise our shipbuilding capacity in face of the competition from the Far East. The Government should accept our amendment and in that spirit go back to the Council of Ministers and get some improvement so that not only could the British shipbuilding industry stabilise itself but the European industry could stabilise itself as well.
  11.32 pm
  Mr. Adam Butler: With permission of the House, I shall try to answer the various points raised during the debate.
  First, I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) that the proposals by the Commission for payments under the social fund would not be confined to public sector companies, although, as he is aware, the redundancy payments scheme does not apply to the private sector.
  The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) expressed some concern about article 9. I tried to spell it out initially. It is a new article as far as the directive is concerned and brings within the scope of the directive elements of aid which may be present in any direct or indirect financing measures to the private or public sector shipbuilding or ship repair industries.
  It does not present an automatic power to the Commission — indeed, that power already exists in article 92 of the Treaty of Rome—to probe the financial relationships of British Shipbuilders and Her Majesty's Government. Thus, in our view there is no new power as such, and there is no automaticity about this provision. Indeed, it should enable us to press for investigation of other countries' practices should that he felt necessary. For that reason, we are prepared to accept and, indeed, welcome article 9.
  It is not entirely easy to say what aid is considered to be relevant under this article, but — here I give an example but am lot laying down law—it seems to me that if losses which are financed by a national Government are losses which arise out of orders for individual ships, that may well be relevant to this article, but losses sustained by a public sector or private sector industry due to unfilled capacity may not be relevant in this case. There is a distinction between production aid and loss financing of the kind that I have described.
  374
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) questioned the definition of restructuring. The significance of the draft directive is that restructuring goes wider than just capacity reductions. As my explanatory memorandum to Parliament made clear, restructuring can now include all measures enabling the shipbuilding industry to become competitive. Thus, I should not want to describe, as my hon. Friend did, the draft directive as a measure purely to facilitate the contraction of shipbuilding. If it can embrace measures to enable shipbuilding to become competitive, my hon. Friend can see that there is an important distinction in that case.
  Sir David Price: Can my hon. Friend spell out a little more what sorts of matters would receive aid? Would it be building a new yard? Would it be covering it in? Would it be buying new machine tools?
  Mr. Butler: I think that the definition of contraction does not need spelling out, but to improve competitiveness does not involve just the closing of yards. Improved competitiveness can come about through reductions in manning, through investment in new plant, and so on. There are various ways in which the competitivenes of a yard or an industry can be improved. It is important for the House and the industry not to be led into believing that the directive is concerned soley with the contraction of the industry, although it is obviously relevant to it.
  The question of defence orders was raised, as it so frequently is in the House. I think that we have to get matters into perspective. If we look at the record of military orders—Naval, and Army in a couple of cases—since May 1979, we find that 14 major orders, orders for other minor vessels and substantial refitting contracts have been placed with British Shipbuilders. It is important to get that into perspective.
  We on the Government Benches are not prepared to accept lectures about the Trident expenditure from a party which certainly amongst its leadership, and in its ranks, has people who believe in unilateral disarmament. I hear someone say that that is irrelevant, but it is highly relevant if a party is led by a right hon. Member who has been a life-long advocate of nuclear disarmament. If I were a voter in Barrow-in-Furness or in any other yard that thought that it might get orders, I should know where to put my X in future.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it not the case that the Government are in favour of multilateral disarmament? Would not that also lead to a loss of jobs?
  Mr. Butler: The Government are in favour of balanced multilateral disarmament. At the moment, there is no indication that the Soviets are prepared to take any part in such an operation. That is our policy, whereas that of the Labour Party is one of unilateral disarmament. I need not emphasise the point; it has been made. I realise that the point is sensitive to Labour Members, but that is why we are not prepared to be criticised for our attitude towards defence expenditure.
  Mr. Dixon: The Government say that they are interested in defence, but they are closing down all the shipyards, so who will build the ships in future? I do not know how many Conservative Members have worked in shipyards. I have worked in shipyards all my working life, and I would sooner work on a passenger liner than a cruiser.
  Mr. Butler: I have told the House, and I repeat, that it is not the policy of this Government to close British Shipbuilders.
  I turn now to the question of merchant orders, because it is relevant to the directive and to the question of aid to shipbuilding. British Shipbuilders has done better in the way of orders this year. Certainly the Japanese have increased their share of world orders, but so has the United Kingdom industry. So far this year it has taken orders for 285,000 tonnes, compared with approximately 240,000 tonnes in each of the previous two years. The Opposition have criticised the fact that the intervention fund percentage has been reduced from 30 per cent. Those 285,000 tonnes have almost all been achieved at the level of 25 per cent. intervention fund assistance, so it cannot have done the sort of damage that was suggested.
  The right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) asked why the Government were not prepared to accept the amendment in the name of the Opposition. I have spelt out my reasons for rejecting it. As is so often the case, the Opposition are not prepared to face up to the reality of the situation. They believe that there should be no more contraction of the industry, regardless, whereas the facts may be such that contraction has to take place. They believe that subsidy towards the industry should be permanent and continuing. That is not acceptable to us. In the past, the directives have allowed countries to give effective support to their industries.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh that I hope I did not express doubt about the directive being agreed to. It has general support, and certainly the warmest support of the Government. We shall see what the Council of Ministers decides this month, but there should be no doubt on the matter. It is because we can look to the effectiveness of previous directives, because we subscribe to the more comprehensive nature of the fifth directive and because we subscribe to the importance of not perpetuating credit and subsidy races in the Community that I commend the motion to the House and reject the Opposition's amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 68, Noes 118.

  Division No. 8

  [11.43 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Freud, Clement

  Alton, David

  Golding, John

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Bradford, Rev R.

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

  Haynes, Frank

  Carmichael, Neil

  Home Robertson, John

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Homewood, William

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

  Hooley, Frank

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Howells, Geraint

  Cowans, Harry

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Deakins, Eric

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Dewar, Donald

  McCartney, Hugh

  Dixon, Donald

  McCusker, H.

  Dormand, Jack

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Douglas, Dick

  McTaggart, Robert

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Dun woody, Hon Mrs G.

  Molyneaux, James

  Eastham, Ken

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

  O'Neill, Martin

  English, Michael

  Parry, Robert

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Penhaligon, David

  Foster, Derek

  Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

  376

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Watkins, David

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Welsh, Michael

  Rooker, J. W.

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Wright, Sheila

  Sheerman, Barry

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mr. George Morton and

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Mr. Joseph Dean.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Marlow, Tony

  Ancram, Michael

  Marshall Michael (Arundel)

  Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

  Mates, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Mather, Carol

  Bell, Sir Ronald

  Maude, Rt Hon Angus

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Best, Keith

  Mellor, David

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Blackburn, John

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Moate, Roger

  Brinton, Tim

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Mudd, David

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Myles, David

  Brown, M. (Brigg and Scun)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Neubert, Michael

  Butcher, John

  Newton, Tony

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Cad bury, Jocelyn

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Parris, Matthew

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Cockeram, Eric

  Rathbone, Tim

  Cope, John

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Renton, Tim

  Critchley, Julian

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Dover, Denshore

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Sims, Roger

  Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Speed, Keith

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Speller, Tony

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Gorst, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Stan brook, Ivor

  Grist, Ian

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Heddle, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Henderson, Barry

  Wakeham, John

  Hicks, Robert

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Ward, John

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Watson, John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Wheeler, John

  Knox, David

  Wickenden, Keith

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Lester Jim (Beeston)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Loveridge, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  MacGregor, John

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Mr. David Waddington.

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9866/80 and supports the Government in its efforts to ensure

  377
  the continuation of art agreed framework within which temporary aid, in the light of the present crisis, may be provided to the Community Shipbuilding Industry.

  European Community (Excise Duties)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7854/79, together with the supplementary memorandum by HM Customs and Excise dated 17 November, and would support acceptance by Her Majesty's Government of arrangements for the harmonisation of the structure of excise duties on alcoholic drinks which are compatible with the maintenance of a satisfactory excise duty system in the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Brooke.]
  11.55 pm
  Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely, you are not allowing to come before the House a document that is not written in English.
  Mrs. Peggy Fenner: Whose English?
  Mr. English: Anybody's English. I hope that it is the language of the hon. Lady as well. If she sits for the constituency that she does and cannot speak it, it is a pity.
  The document refers to
  "Excise duties on beer, wine and alcohol."
  It is probably true that beer and wine may contain alcohol. It is also true that the French language, having a paucity of words, may not have a word for "spirits". One single English poet had used more words than exist in the Academie Francaise dictionary, as we all know, but I do not see why we should have this abortion coming before
  US.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Richard Crawshaw): I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) is corning to the point of order.
  Mr. English: You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when confronted with the phrase
  "Excise duties on beer, wine and alcohol",
  that either something is missing or something is doubled up. May we have it made clear, by the Minister perhaps, whether beer and wine in the future, under the Common Market regime, will exclude alcohol, or whether alcohol will be a separate commodity from beer and wine?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take the point of order in the spirit in which it was intended. I see no wording here that precludes our discussing the motion.
  The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees): Far be it from me to come between the Chair and the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) on the meaning of "alcohol", particularly at this hour of the night.
  I am afraid that this is another chapter in a long-running saga—
  Mr. English: They cannot write English.
  Mr. Rees: I am sorry to have offended the delicate susceptibilities of the hon. Gentleman, but, as he will have appreciated, "alcohol" in Communautaire language is the equivalent of "spirits". I quite appreciate that Communautaire language is not necessarily acceptable—
  Mr. English: It is bad translation. Why not say "spirits"?
  Mr. Rees: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to come to the substance of the matter that we are debating rather than raise fine questions of syntax.
  Mr. English: It is the English language.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member wishes to intervene, he must seek to do so and not sit shouting across the Chamber.
  Mr. Rees: There have been initiatives by the Commission to harmonise the structure but not the rates of duties on alcohol consistent with article 99 of the Treaty of Rome practically since the year 1972. The House may recall a debate in January 1978 which was initiated by the then Financial Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), when his role and mine were reversed. The proposals by the Commission that were debated on that occason did not achieve anything, and fresh proposals were introduced by the Commission on 2 July 1979. They are perhaps best set out in the explanatory memorandum which is in the Vote Office and which no doubt right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have studied carefully. It was put in on 17 November 1980.
  Perhaps I may identify four of the main proposals. One is that there should be a range of duties on beer and fortified wine and spirits but that the duty on table wine should be optional. Another is that there should be a ratio between the duties on wine and beer. Currently, the alcoholic strength of beer in the United Kingdom is 3·5 per cent. and the ratio between our wine and beer duties is about 4·9 to 1. The Commission's proposal is that the ratio should be 3 to I but that that should be achieved over a period of time.
  If that proposal found favour with the Council and the various member countries, it could be implemented in this country in many ways. The House need not assume that it would necessarily involve an increase in the duties on beer or necessarily a decrease in the duties on wine. Many permutations would be possible.
  Another proposal is that there should be a single specific rate of excise duty on spirits, which would be favourable to the Scotch—
  Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. and learned Friend said that this measure could be implemented in many ways. Supposing it were implemented by reducing the duty on wine, how much revenue would that mean the Government had to surrender and, therefore, find in a different way?
  Mr. Rees: The question is a little premature. After all, we are debating so that the House can express its view on various proposals that have been the subject matter of negotiation and will again be—I regret to say—-on 22 December, which is not a particularly convenient date.
  I cannot answer my hon. Friend directly, but I can say that if the proposal of a 3 to 1 ratio were adopted it could be implemented on a fiscally neutral basis—that is, so that the Exchequer would not lose any money — by increasing the duty on beer by ½p and decreasing it on wine by 17p.
  Mr. English: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman stop using the word "spirits", since clearly the people who translated the document did not know that it existed?
  Mr. Rees: It was very much in deference to the hon. Gentleman's susceptibilities that I used the word. I thought

  379
  that that was the English word that he preferred. I am happy to defer to him on this matter. In due course, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will catch the eye of the Chair, and then he will be able to make his points of substance.
  In view of the lateness of the hour, I am omitting some proposals of less importance, although they are to be extracted from the explanatory memorandum. The fourth significant proposal is that the duty on beer should be switched from a duty on worts — the liquid before fermentation—to a duty on finished beer by 1985.
  The negotiations have been running parallel with infraction proceedings by the Commission under article 95, first, against France, Italy and Denmark, on the basis that they have discriminated against spirits, including whisky. I am happy to tell the House that the European Court has ruled against France, Italy and Denmark. I say that not in any spirit of hostility to those countries—
  Mr. Douglas Jay: They will not do anything about the ruling.
  Mr. Rees: I do not know on what basis the right hon. Gentleman says that. Those countries will conform with their Community obligations, just as we would be disposed to do in that situation.
  Mr. J. W. Rooker: The hon. and learned Gentleman must be joking.
  Mr. Rees: There is always a place for a bit of humour, even at this late hour and even on such a technical subject as this.
  I should also tell the House that infraction proceedings were started against the United Kingdom in 1976, during the period in office of the Administration of which the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) was such a distinguished member. The Commission's assertion was that the high duty imposed by this country on wine protected our brewing industry and discriminated against the wine-growing countries, among which perhaps it does not number us.
  An interim decision was given by the European Court last February, holding that wine and beer were to a degree in competition. I am sure that I carry the hon. Member for Nottingham, West with me on that. The United Kingdom and the Commission were asked to re-examine the whole question and report back by 31 December this year. In view of the pending negotiations, an application for an extension of time has been made, and we have high hopes that it will be successful.
  Mr. Jay: Might it not be better if, instead of all this nonsense, each country applied the policy that suited it best?
  Mr. Rees: If I were to approach the problem from the honourable and well-understood premise adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, I should reach that conclusion. However, since one of the essential points of the European Community is that there should be a common market and a free movement of goods between the countries, he will appreciate that discriminatory excise duties might prevent the free movement of whisky into France just as it might prevent the free movement of wine into the United Kingdom. Apart from our dedication as a Community to a free market, there are other reasons why we desire this.
  380
  If I began from the same premise as the right hon. Gentleman, who does not believe in the fundamental principles of the European Community, I should reach the same conclusion—but I do not start from that premise.
  Mr. Jay: The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has just reached an agreement with the Community under which British lamb will be subject to a levy if it is imported into France. Why cannot the same apply to alcohol?
  Mr. Rees: Over a period, we hope to iron out every distortion created by the Community. Tonight we are discussing merely the distortions, implicit or explicit, in the multiplicity of rates of duty on alcohol—or, to defer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West—spirits, wine, beer and a whole range of other things which enliven the human race.
  The debate is circumscribed. On another occasion we might investigate the gastronomic implications of a levy on lamb. Now, I am charged only with the duty to put before the House the Commission's proposals which were the subject of negotiation in October, and which will be the subject of negotiation again on 26 December, so that we can take the mind of the House with us. When I negotiate on behalf of United Kingdom interests, I hope that I can go with a united House behind me.
  Mr. Marlow: Surely, it is a question of priorities. We are talking about harmonisation. I should like my hon. and learned Friend to be honest. Should we not deal with the more important issues first? For example, the electricity price in some countries in Europe is less than 2p per kilowatt hour, whereas here it is 3p. The price of gas is 23·6p per therm here and in France 15·2p per therm.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention has nothing to do with the matter under discussion. I hope that he will stay in order.
  Mr. Marlow: I certainly shall, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask my hon. and learned Friend whether he agrees that we should get the massive energy things sorted out before we go for the minor details of harmonisation to do with what people eat and drink?
  Dr. J. Dickson Mahon Dr. J. Dickson Mahon(Greenock and Port Glasgow) rose—
  Mr. Rees: I am sorry; I can deal with only one intervention at a time, although I am flattered that the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) thinks that I can turn in two directions. That would tax me to the limit.
  I understand the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). He will recognise that I am not charged with responsibility for energy prices. These matters are proposals from the Commission. We are dealing with a specific set of proposals for alcohol—wine and beer and other related matters. My hon. Friend should direct his questions to other Ministers on another occasion.
  Dr. Mahon: I understand that the Minister will discuss in Europe, on the basis of tonight's debate, the rate of excise duty on alcohol. Alcohol is alcohol, whether it is called beer, wine, spirits or eau-de-vie. Why do not the British Government propose a tax based on the degree of alcohol in the drink concerned?
  Mr.Rees: The right hon. Gentleman is making a shrewd point, but we must move gradually and by stages. There has been sufficient difficulty in reaching a measure of agreement on the relatively simple proposals that the Commission has put forward for negotiation. The right hon. Gentleman should reserve that point for a later stage in harmonisation. I hope that we shall work towards something similar, but I do not know that it should necessarily be alcoholic strength. There should be a harmonious range of duties across the Community. We must take the proposals as they come.
  I say in all candour that there has been considerable difficulty in finding a common base, even with these Proposals. If hon. Members look through the various explanatory memoranda, they will see how the Commission has shifted its ground and dropped certain proposals. We are down to a rather narrow range on which I hope agreement may be found, provided that the House approves, on 22 December.
  I wish to indicate what I believe to be the British interest in the negotiations. First, we should safeguard British whisky against discriminaton consequent upon the imposition of varying rates of VAT. The House may appreciate that in Italy, for example, there are varying rates of VAT. We feel that they bear a little hard on exports of whisky. Secondly, we wish to preserve a certain flexibility for a period about the ratio of duties on beer and wine. Thirdly, we wish to ensure that cider will not be subject to crippling duties. I am happy to say that with the latest set of proposals that will be ensured. Finally, we hope to achieve a measure of relief for British vineyards, which form a small, vigorous industry.
  The successful conclusion of the negotiations would conform with article 99 of the Treaty. At an earlier stage, rather more elaborate proposals were commended to the House, as I have no doubt the right hon. Member for Llanelli will recall, by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, the then Financial Secretary. I hope that Hs words will sound a fair commendation to the House. He said:
  "we are concerned with a structure and with getting it right for any subsequent move towards further harmonisation, which is a long way off. As for the structural changes, it seems likely that oar trade interests will, on balance, see advantages here for this country."—[official Report, 30 January 1978; Vol. 943, c.176.]
  I do not think that I could have put it more modestly or eloquently myself.
  On the basis that that was the way that the previous Labour Administration commended roughly the same proposals to the House, so I commend those proposals to the House this evening. I look forward to hearing the views of the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker has selected the official Opposition amendment.
  12.13 am
  Mr. Denzil Davies: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "rejects the proposals contained in European Community Document No. 7854/79 on excise duties on beer, wine and alcohol; and calls on Her Majesty's Government not to accept any proposals, arrangements or decisions which take away from Her Majesty's Government and the House of Commons the unfettered power to determine the structure of and the levels of excise duties on beer and wine."
  382
  The Minister has tried to gloss over the problem. He found an apt quotation from a spokesman for the previous Government. However, he never told us that there has been a court decision. The European Court decided that we were discriminating against wine by our existing duty regime. It said that if we did not come to an arrangement it would impose its decision on Britain and seek a reduction in the duty on wine and, possibly, an increase in the duty on beer.
  The Minister of State will negotiate at Brussels under duress. He knows that if he does not come to an arrangement the court will impose one upon him. That is the background to this so-called harmonisation.
  It is not harmonisation. The Italians have no duty' on wine, nor have the Germans. They are not asked to have a duty on wine. However, as a result of this so-called harmonisation we shall have to have a duty on beer in excess of any duty that the British Government—
  Mr. Selwyn Gummer: No.
  Mr. Davies: That will he the result. The effect of the harmonisation will be that the duty on wine will have to be reduced and the duty on beer will have to be increased.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: If the amendment is carried, will it not mean that the European Court will rule against us and force us to conform with the ratio change that the Commission has recommended? If that happens, is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should break the law?
  Mr. Davies: The answer to that is "Yes". The hon. Gentleman is right. If the amendment is carried, the Europen Court will tell us, in a matter of taxation, which I have always thought was a matter of national sovereignty, that we must have the taxation regime that it wants us to have. The hon. Gentleman talks about breaking the law. The French are breaking the law, as are the Italians and the Danes. The Danes have recently introduced a discriminatory tax against Scotch whisky. To talk about breaking the law is to use a rather emotive phrase. The European Court is concerned basically with politics and not law.
  Mr. Gummer: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he was a member of a Government who renegotiated our arrangements with the European Community and accepted the authority of the court in those circumstances? Is it not appalling to suggest that if we do not like the law we should ignore it and blame others because they break it?
  Mr. English: Tell that to the French.
  Mr. Davies: The others do it. I remember that some hon. Members voted against the European Communities Bill and that the hon. Gentleman voted for it. With hindsight, I think that he was wrong and I was right. There has been no benefit to the United Kingdom from that Bill. The directive is an example of that.
  I ask the Minister of State not to agree to this harmonisation. Let him tell the court, as the French and Germans have done and as the Danes are doing, that we are not prepared to agree to this taxation regime because we believe that taxation is a matter of national sovereignty to be decided by the British Government.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman tried to give the impression that the directive is not too bad because it helps the Scotch whisky industry and the spirits industry

  383
  generally. We all know that the French National Assembly has refused to take away the discrimination against Scotch whisky. We know that the Danes have increased their VAT on Scotch whisky. We know that the Italians have discrimination against Scotch whisky. We know that there is nothing in the directive that provides that value added tax cannot be increased on whisky. That is an issue that is completely outside the terms of the directive.
  Our objection to the directive is based on two factors. First, there is the commercial factor. Why should Britain accept a reduction in wine duty—that is what will happen, and it is no good the hon. and learned Gentleman saying "We can work it out between wine and beer"—and an increase in the duty on beer? Why should our home-based industry have to suffer an increase in duty for the benefit of the European industries which will enjoy a reduction in duty? Wine will benefit.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: There will be a wine lake.
  Mr. Davies: That is right.
  We are talking about harmonisation. There is no harmonisation for the Italian wine industry. There is no duty on wine in Italy or Germany. Why, therefore, should we have to suffer an imposition on our beer industry? The directive will mean that our beer industry, which employs many people in distribution, manufacture and capital investment, will have to suffer a duty when a Continental industry will benefit as a result. That is one reason why we oppose the directive.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I hope that before he sits down the right hon. Gentleman will deal with the question of Scotch whisky exports, which will greatly benefit if the recommendation is accepted.
  Mr. Davies: I have dealt with that. The French National Assembly has refused to take away the discrimination on Scotch whisky, as have the Italians. There is nothing in the directive that prevents a discriminatory value added tax on Scotch whisky exports to Europe. The directive has nothing to do with value added tax. Since the directive has been published, the Danes have established a value added tax on Scotch whisky. It is possible for other countries to do the same. If the Minister argues the case, he must obtain an arrangement so that there is no possibility of discrimination through value added tax or any other tax against the Scotch whisky industry.
  Another point that should be raised is sovereignty. We are concerned with taxation. Taxation in the realm of excise duties means that, if the Minister agrees to the directive, he is taking away from the British Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House of Commons the right to determine the level of excise duties. It is no good the Minister saying that it is a small matter; it is not. The Commission's intention is to try to harmonise the basis of taxation in Europe. First, it wants to harmonise excise duties. It tried to harmonise corporation tax and stamp duty. At the end, it will have nothing left but income tax. If we accept the directive, we shall be reducing the area of sovereignty over taxation.
  If the Minister agrees to the ratio of 3 to 1 or 2 to 1—
  Mr. Keith Best: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously trying to draw a distinction between the imposition of excise duties and contributions to the EEC budget? Does he not accept that they are integral parts of the same thing? Does he take pleasure in trying to persuade the House that merely because other EEC countries have found themselves less able than ourselves to subscribe to their Treaty obligations this country should not subscribe to its Treaty obligations? If so, will he translate that principle into the concept of domestic British law?
  Mr. Davies: I am not sure whether the Treaty has much to do with taxation, and domestic taxation at that.
  By seeking to harmonise excise duties, the Commission is gradually seeking to take away from the national Governments of the EEC all power over taxation. It is an insidious process. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is not, he is very naive. The Commission seeks to look at excise duties, stamp duties and corporation tax. Of course, it does not dare touch income tax, but, by the time that it has managed to harmonise all the other taxes, there will be no battle left over income tax.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: If France, Denmark and Italy have refused point blank to remove the illegal discrimination against Scotch whisky following a decision by the European Court, why should they pay any attention to a directive?
  Mr. Davies: I am coming to that. The point that I am trying to make now is that there is no reason why the Commission should have power over internal sovereign matters concerned with taxation. It may have other powers, but taxation is a sovereign matter. It does not mean that because this may be excise duty it does not affect our tax base. Once the excise duty area has been taken out of the grasp of a British Chancellor of the Exchequer, his power on other matters will be limited. At the end of the day he will be left only with income tax, and that will not mean anything at all because his power over that will have been taken away by the Commission.
  I take the point made by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). Why should we accept harmonisation which does not benefit our brewing industry? Of course, it benefits the Continental wine-making industry. But we contend that our brewing industry is more important than the Continental wine-making industry. Therefore, this harmonisation is not in our interests.
  We ask the Minister of State to go to Brussels and to say "We are not accepting this harmonisation. This is not in the interests of the British economy." If the European Court says that we cannot do it, the hon. and learned Gentleman must tell the court, as did the French, that we will not accept its decision because it is a political court which is not concerned with the commercial interests of this country.
  This directive is not in the interests of the British economy, the British brewing industry or the people who work in that industry. For that reason, apart from the sovereignty issue, the amendment should be accepted.
  12.28 am
  Mr. Paul Dean: I declare an interest in these matters and wish to put some brief points to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State regarding the negotiations which are still taking place.

  385
  The speech by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) has been wholly unhelpful—
  Mr. Best: Confused.
  Mr. Dean: —to the negotiations on which Her Majesty's Government have embarked with our partners in the Community.
  I have some scepticism about the value of harmonisation in this area and in other areas, but the reality is that membership of the Community involves negotiations of this kind. Therefore, it would have been more helpful if the Opposition had addressed their minds to the reality of the situation and tried to reinforce the Government in the negotiations.
  In my view, substantial progress has been made during tae past couple of years in trying to get a fairer deal for tae United Kingdom. I understand that the original proposals would have involved substantial discrimination against British wine and cider and Scotch whisky. My hon. and learned Friend was able to give us some assurance that Her Majesty's Government would not be prepared to agree to any proposals which still retained substantial discrimination against the three key commodities. I hope that he will give further reassurance on that in his reply.
  I understand that the United Kingdom duty on beer is very much higher than that in most, if not all, of the other EEC countries. I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that if there is to be harmonisation—and I accept that that is the reality of the position—there should be at least the option that the harmonisation should involve the reduction in the duties on wines rather than the increase in the duties on beer. I hope that he will be able to say that this is at least an option that Her Majesty's Government will keep open in their budgetary strategy over the coining seven or eight years while the arrangement is phased in, if an agreement is reached.
  The motion is that harmonisation of the structure of excise duties should be compatible with the maintenance of a satisfactory excise duty system in the United Kingdom. I regard that phrase as being of very great importance, and I should be prepared to support the Government in that context. But I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to give us some indication of the timetable. I understand that negotiations are still proceeding, that some progress has been made already in preserving the key areas that I have mentioned and that it is unlikely that any agreement will be reached until towards the end of next year; in other words, it will rot be relevant for any proposals that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have for the Budget in April-May 1981. There is still a certain s mount of time, therefore, before final decisions are reached.
  If my hon. and learned Friend is able to reassure me on the points that l have mentioned, I am prepared to say that the motion before us will strengthen the hand of cur Government in negotiation within the EEC and will make it easier for our Government to ensure that our key national interests with regard to beer, home-made wines, cider and also Scotch whisky are adequately maintained.
  12.33 am
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The trouble with our debates on these matters is that, although some Labour Back Benchers resent our being in
  386
  the Common Market— and I am an unrepentant proMarketeer—as long as they criticise these matters they weaken the entire British position, although they may not intend to do so.
  Tonight is a classic example of our fighting with our friends—if that is not a contradiction; in the Labour Party it is not a contradiction—in the Common Market to insist on our rights as well as their rights. If I were a Frenchman in the National Assembly, I would vote for the motion in the knowledge that my Ministers would fight on it. They would not win 100 per cent., but at least they would have my support as a Deputy in getting on with it. Whether I happened to be a Socialist Deputy or not would not matter. It would not matter whether I was a Socialist or a member of some other party.
  The trouble is that in the British Parliament we are fighting about the principle of something that we settled eight years ago in an Act of Parliament and five years ago in a referendum, and which we shall settle again in another referendum in a few years' time, if my hon. Friends, with their natural democratic tendencies, will allow us. We shall beat them again, because we are bound to stay in Europe.
  This is a vital subject. I declare an interest because the whisky industry is vital for Scotland. It is a highly capital-intensive industry. It is the third largest in terms of the number of people involved in the industrial sector. It is a marvellous product that is consumed with delight all over the world.
  The trouble with the British Government is that we are submitting to the Europeans that "alcohol" is all acohols and not just some alcohol—not the alcohols produced by Italy or by Germany, but all alcohols in the Ten countries of Europe as they will exist as of 1981. That includes all kinds of spirituous ouzo liquors. I am not quite sure where ouzo comes in, in the Greek context, but it must come in somewhere.
  What we in this Parliament should be doing is telling our Ministers "No, we are not satisfied with this proposal. It is a dreadful draft. It is not good enough." The Minister said that we cannot get perfection tomorrow. He is right. We have to proceed stage by stage. But on the way we must not lose vital principles.
  The Brewers' Society, with which I have no connection, has sent a submission which confesses:
  "The Society has always opposed the view that beer and wine form part of the same market".
  Why? The reason is selfish interests. This, by the way, refers to British beer and British wine—what a helpless little innocent that is! The society insists that they are separate. The society adds:
  "but the ruling of the Court in the interim judgment virtually disposes of the point. The Society has been equally reluctant to seek the introduction of a directive which would require the United Kingdom to reduce the ratio between the duty on wine and beer, but not require wine either to be taxed at all or to any given level in relation to beer".
  In other words, the society is admitting that there is, in competition in the market, some relationship between the alcoholic content of beer and the alcoholic content of wine.
  I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), which was valid, that we are talking not only about that aspect but about spirituous liquors — as they say in the Presbyterian Church.
  Mr. English: I am a Presbyterian.
  Dr. Mabon: I know. My hon. Friend is a good man. We are talking about eau de vie, about brandy, which the French National Assembly will defend to the last, and quite right, too. We are talking about Scotch whisky, about all kinds of high alcohol-content liquors.
  I submit that, given that we are in the Common Market—-that is a fact—and given that we are likely to stay in it—that is perhaps a doubtful fact—the Government ought to be getting for Britain the best deal possible, irrespective of which Minister negotiates for us. I submit, with due respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies)—and I shall vote with him tonight—that we should be as difficult as are our Common Market partners over these matters. They are making us edentulous—"We cannot bite because we do not bite. We should be out altogether." That is a daft argument. If we are in a partnership, until that partnership ceases we must insist on our rights. We must strive hard to secure some fundamental points.
  Mr. Marlow: The right hon. Member says that we made the decision to join the Market eight years ago. Did we make a decision eight years ago that we would surrender domestic taxation to the Commission in Brussels? If we did, why did we not tell the British people at the time?
  Dr. Mabon: At the time, the recitation I made was that in 16 years I had
  "always voted at my party's call … never … thinking for myself at all."
  But on that occasion 69 Labour Members, including myself, voted with the then Government led by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) to go into the Common Market. That action implied a constant reduction in our ability to exercise control over certain taxation powers. We cannot get away from that.
  Furthermore, at the insistence of the very honourable wing of my party, the anti-Marketeer section—which I hope to do as much justice to as it does to me—we had a referendum in which, by two to one, the British people decided to stay in the EEC. Unless and until this Parliament, supported, I hope, by a referendum decision by the people, decides otherwise, what we are arguing about is the best deal we can get out of this wine-beer-alcohol argument. That will go on for several years.
  It is not British to rob us of our arguments because we are in the Common Market. We are in the Common Market, so let us make the best deal we can so long as we are in it. If we leave the Common Market, all will be different—I quite agree on that. But, while we are in the Common Market, it is against our interests—it is acting for the French, for the Germans, for all those against us in this case—constantly to undermine Ministers, Labour or Tory, so that they go to meetings and are unable to get the deal that we want.
  I say—on behalf of the Scotch whisky industry, if I may say so—that we reluctantly accept this directive. It is inadequate; it is a serious challenge to the basis of harmonisation. But British Ministers must stand up in the Council and say "We want an overall harmonised rate dealing with alcohol content; we want a harmonised rate of VAT on all alcoholic beverages in each member State." If we are to accept this directive, it must be on certain conditions. If we do not make conditions, no one will listen to us.
  388
  We have to try to get an excise rate relationship between wine, beer and spirits in every member country. That is what the Common Market is all about. To argue this or that variation in terms of the national interest is, to my mind, self-defeating.
  The British are the most reluctant, unhappy members of the Community, who have very bad relationships with their colleagues. We have to do our best to try to persuade our friends in the Community that as long as we are members we will try to behave reasonably and fairly. But in return for that we demand justice. This directive is not enough, and Ministers must be supported by the House in an attempt to get a better deal.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Surely, the principle that the right hon. Gentleman wants the Government to fight for was decided some time ago by the European Court. Surely, what is needed to achieve justice for Scotch whisky is not a directive, not harmonisation, but simply to get three Common Market countries to obey that decision of the European Court. What on earth do we need a new harmonisation policy for? Surely, what the right hon. Gentleman wants, and what I want, has been established by the European Court.
  Dr. Mabon: The European Court has been described as a political court, and that might well be true; it depends on how one looks at it. But the Scotch whisky industry is delighted that it has won its action in the European context. It has also won victories in Japan and other countries. Surely, my hon. Friends would not deny those victories to us. What we have to do is enforce them. One cannot ask a court to rule in the way one wants and then say "If the ruling is against us, we do not want to respect it."
  12.45 am
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: I think that the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) has evaded the vital issue. I question whether we need a directive, whether we need harmonisation. The only argument that has been put forward in support of the directive is that it will make life easier for Scotch whisky and remove the discrimination against whisky in, for example, France.
  The right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow is usually very intelligent, and I do not know why he is not prepared to understand the point. The right hon. Gentleman knows what it is, because he is smiling. The fact is that this principle was established by the European Court. The only thing that is preventing Scotch whisky from getting the justice to which it is entitled is that three Common Market countries have refused to obey that court decision.
  To those who say that the directive is essential to get justice for Scotch whisky I say that if France, Italy and Denmark have ignored the decision of the European Court, what confidence can we have that they will obey the directive or the regulations? It seems to me that if it is justice that is wanted there is no need for the directive.
  We then come to the question of what justice there can be. On page 2 of the communication from the Commission to the Council, we have the real reason for the directive.
  It is stated there that
  "the Community's policy must be to secure some reduction in the overall level of taxes levied on wine, in order to improve outlets for wine production."
  It seems clear to me that if this directive goes through it will be a move—perhaps a limited move—in that

  389
  direction. The Minister referred to a reduction of 17p in the price of wine. We know that it may be done in different ways, but the point is that the gap will narrow and that, relatively, wine will he cheaper and beer will be dearer.
  Mr. Lawrence: Wine is produced in this country.
  Mr. Taylor: That is true, but I think my hon. Friend will accept that there is a massive wine lake in Europe, and most objective observers would say that if we reduce the price of wine and increase the price of beer the inevitable result, if we believe in capitalism, will be that more people in Britain will drink more wine and probably less beer.
  The Minister has asked for our views. I wonder whether we can say that it is sensible for this country, particularly at a time of high unemployment, to agree to a general policy which, in a limited way, will lead to a reduction of jobs, prosperity and profits while increasing those of our Common Market partners.
  Is this harmonisation? There is no proposal here to have the same tax in France and Britain. The only proposal is that there should be a 3 to 1 relationship in the tax on beer and wine. There is no suggestion that the tax on beer, whisky, schnapps or anything else should be the same in Germany, France and Britain. All that we say is that there should not be any difference in the tax on spirits. The Germans can have a tax that is 10 times as high as ours. How is it a move towards harmonisation when one can still have enormous variations in taxes in different EEC countries?
  What is the point of this directive? If it is simply a means to back up decisions made by the European Court, I submit that there is no need for it. If it is meant to be a great advance, and if the intention is to take a further step towards harmonisation, I very much doubt whether that is spelt out. If it is not spelt out, it should be.
  To those who, unfortunately, interpret all these little debates as though they were great debates on whether the Common Market should continue, I say that they are not. I cannot see how the Common Market will be weakened if we do not approve a directive of this sort. Nor can I see how it will be strengthened. It is harmonisation for the sake of harmonisation. If the simple purpose is to try to enforce two decisions of the European Court, I say that the directive is unnecessary. The simple way in which to resolve the problem is for the countries of Europe—three of them—to agree to the decision of the court, as I am sure and confident the British Government will agree to the decision that has been made on beer.
  Mr. Lawrence: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is better to negotiate more favourable terms for ourselves than to pack in the negotiations and sit down under whatever the court imposes?
  Mr. Taylor: The court has made the decision. It made a decision on unfair discrimination against whisky. That was a long time ago, and the decision has been ignored by the three countries concerned.
  Mr. Lawrence: It was an interim judgment.
  Mr. Taylor: We have an interim judgment in relation to the British proposals.
  It would certainly help a great deal to resolve this and other problems if we were not put in the position of constantly being the mugs of Europe and always being the chaps to obey the court decisions while the other countries of the EEC do not. My hon. Friend knows that that is the
  390
  case. He knows that the decision has been made and that three countries ignored it. Surely, it is for all the member countries to obey the law. I should be glad if the United Kingdom would agree to abide by the European Court decision in this case and for the three European countries to agree to it. If that were to be done and this was no longer an issue, there would be no need for the regulations, because that is all that the directive implies.
  Let us not approve the directive or the new regulations. Let us simply make an appeal to three of our Common Market partners, who have ignored a legal decision to obey that decision, and then we may have a sounder basis for understanding and confidence in the EEC.
  12.51 am
  Mr. Michael English: This must surely be a late night, pre-Christmas joke. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) was right in saying that it is not a question of whether we are in the Common Market. Of course, we are in the Common Market, and, of course, the referendum resulted from our joining. It is not a question of whether we do or do not like being in the Common Market. It is this document that we are discussing. It begins by saying that it is signed by the Irish Commissioner. That seems appropriate in relation to anything concerned with alcohol. Its subject, believe it or not, as we all know, is the excise duties on beer, wine and alcohol.
  I thought that the Minister of State was trained in the law, a profession that believes in a fair use of precision in words. He stands here in his professional capacity—
  Mr. Peter Rees: No, not my professional capacity; my political capacity.
  Mr. English: I am sorry, I did not know that Ministers of the Crown were unprofessional. I gather that the moment the hon. and learned Gentleman became a Minister of the Crown he ceased to be a professional. He said that he was not here in his professional capacity. We should take note of that. I know that the organisation to which he used to belong is going out of business, but I did not know that he was.
  This whole matter is a joke. Surely, we are not seriously suggesting that beer and wine do not contain alcohol. I am aware that the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) agreed with the French Government that the French language should be used as the drafting language of European documents, and I can see some sense in that. It is clearly true that the most limited language in Europe should be used as the drafting language, because obviously it should be possible to translate from a language that has a smaller vocabulary into languages that have larger vocabulary. It should have been the German language, because I think that that language has a slightly smaller vocabulary than the French language. However, the right hon. Member for Sidcup agreed that the French language should be used for drafting, I presume on the principle that since it had a smaller vocabulary it would be easy to translate into English.
  We are taxpayers, and we all know that one of the reasons for the considerable costs of the Commission's bureaucracy is translation. That cannot be helped. If we are to have a multilingual Community, there must be translation. The translators cost money, and we pay money to have translations made. We have here a translation that

  391
  speaks of excise duties on beer, wine and alcohol. In other words, whoever translated the original French draft into the English language had never heard of the word "spirits".
  It is worth looking at document 7854/79. The first sentence on page 2 reads:
  "The Commission's original proposal for an excise on wine was a logical"
  —I hope that hon. Members will note the use of the word "logical"—
  "consequence of its proposal that the Community excise system should include excises on beer and alcohol."
  That is a splendid sentence, and I hope that whoever speaks after me will endeavour to interpret it. I submit that in the English language it has no meaning.
  Is the Minister of State, who has apparently given up his profession, seriously putting before us on behalf of the Government something as meaningless as that? Did anyone in the Foreign Office or the Home Department who goes over to Brussels ever mention that the document had no meaning in English? We know that the President of the Commission had so little knowledge of French that he could not even get his first speech translated into French when he made it. He made it in English and could not get it translated into any other Community language—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is labouring the point. He is not dealing with the document as such.
  Mr. English: I was quoting from the document, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do not know what it means. The House of Commons cannot seriously be expected to deal with something that it cannot understand. It purports to be written in the English language, but it is not. I suppose that it is a translation of something written in another language, and it is a bad and inaccurate translation. The ultimate result is meaningless. I suggest that the Minister of State should revert to his professional capacity. He knows perfectly well that he could tear this document to pieces if he were standing in court.
  12.58 am
  Mr. Selwyn Gummer: I declare an interest in this matter. I believe strongly that it is important in the discussions that are now to ensue that we should be perfectly clear about one or two points that seem to have been mis-stated during the debate.
  First, it is not true to say that the European Court has delivered a final judgment on the subject of Scotch whisky. It has delivered an interim judgment, and none of the countries concerned has to accept that judgment until it is final. It is not acceptable for my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) constantly to mis-state the position. The court has given the interim judgment in order to enable the kind of discussions described by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State to continue. Surely, that is the sensible way to sort out problems between the members of the Community.
  Although it is possible to argue about the wider range of the Common Market, we are dealing this evening with specific matters and there are certain issues at which we on the Conservative Benches would like my hon. and learned Friend to look carefully when the negotiations come.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is what is stated in the document incorrect? It refers to the four particular member States
  392
  which discriminated in respect of whisky being found against by the Commission, and in the case of the United Kingdom the judgment being an interim one. My understanding was that it was a final judgment in the case of whisky but an interim judgment in the case of beer. If I am wrong I shall apologise, but I point out that paragraph 5 of the explanatory memorandum is quite specific.
  Mr. Gummer: In the judgment that is stated, it is held that the judgment will not be executed until these negotiations have been concluded. Therefore, that is quite clear. I think that it will be found that that is so.
  Mr. Taylor: It is not. My hon. Friend is wrong. He should apologise.
  Mr. Gummer: If my hon. Friend is right, I should be happy to apologise. But the fact remains that the issue which lies before us brings this country into a number of problems which I do not think my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has discussed with the detail that we would expect.
  First, there is a British wine industry. Much of it is in my constituency. We are very concerned about not only the arrangements that my hon. and learned Friend may come to when dealing with discrimination against wine coming into this country but the present discrimination against the British wine industry. The fact is that his Department has for some time discriminated against British-produced wine. We would hope that while this is being sorted out English wine will be placed on all fours with the wine which is coming in from other member States. I hope that he will not forget that point in his discussions.
  Secondly, it is surely perfectly reasonable to say that wine and beer are consumed with a certain amount of reference one to the other, and that if one has a very much higher excise duty on wine than one has on beer it must be accepted that people will be more likely to drink beer than to drink wine.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East is right in saying that if one changes the duties so that there is a narrower gap between them there may be some trend towards the drinking of wine rather than beer. However, I thought that we on the Conservative Benches belonged to a party which believed in the consumer making choices. It seems to me perfectly reasonable for people to be able to make a resonable choice and not find their choice dictated by decisions from outside which suggest that in some way or other wine is a less pleasant and less suitable drink than beer. It is perfectly right that these two things should be placed on all fours with each other.
  The third point that seems reasonable would be to ask a serious question of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). I hope that he will reconsider what he said about the court. It is perfectly reasonable for my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East to complain about member States which do not obey the court. If I have misrepresented the position, I apologise to him. But we are all at one on the position that, if we have a court and that court decides, that court should be obeyed.
  I believe it to be a very serious statement by the right hon Member for Llanelli to suggest that courts fall into two kinds, those of which he approves and those of which he does not approve, and that countries and people are supposed to obey them only if he gives them the

  393
  imprimatur. This is a very serious matter to have arisen in what is a much less important debate. Out of this has come a very large matter.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the French or the Italians refuse to accept the judgment of the court we should not agree to this directive?
  Mr. Gummer: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is moving from the point that I put to him. I would not like him to move quickly on to that. The point which I put to him very clearly was not whether we should do something about the directive if they did not obey the court. What he said to the House was that we should not obey the court, which is a different matter altogether. What he is therefore saying is that because the French do not obey it—if that is true—we should not obey it. The same argument in this country would obtain. Evidently, if one individual does not obey the court, the right hon. Gentleman will suggest that other individuals should pray in aid that decision. This is a very serious matter. It means anarchy.
  The reason why we agree to the court and the reason why we shall press with great vigour against any infringement of the court is precisely on that ground.
  Mr. English rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I am coming to a conclusion.
  What I put very seriously to the right hon. Member for Llanelli is that he represents a party that believes in international order. Labour Members are constantly telling us how important it is. They are constantly saying that in the United Nations and elsewhere we should come to international agreements and should hold to them and believe in them. If anyone has entered into a solemn, binding agreement to obey a court and then he says "I voted against a very novel judicial position arises, and it is a very dangerous one. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to look at this document in a slightly confused way and say that it is unimportant. It is not unimportant, even at this late hour, and I hope that he will Look at it again and perhaps, at the end of the day, withdraw what he said.
  1.5 am
  Mr. Frank Hooley: I agree wholeheartedly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) that the key issue here is the exercise of control over revenue-raising powers and taxation of a British Government. We should resist that and go on resisting it until we free ourselves from the shackles of this institution.
  I want to deal with a slightly different aspect, though not in any way wishing to undermine my right hon. Friend's argument, which is of fundamental importance and which I am sure we shall go on discussing.
  The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) was right to draw attention to the sentence on page 2 of the main document:
  "the Community's policy must be to secure some reduction in the overall level of taxes levied on wine, in order to improve outlets for wine production."
  It is saying, in effect, that given, as a result of a totally absurd agricultural policy, that there is a massive over-production of wine which the Community does not know what to do with, it tries to force it on the consumer by
  394
  cutting taxation to the minimum possible level, making the stuff as cheap as possible, without regard for the social consequences of such a disastrous policy.
  I can understand why the Community is so worried. It faces the entry of two of the main wine-producing countries—Spain and Portugal—and it knows that in those circumstances the common agricultural policy is a total lunacy, as it has been all along. So it is trying desperately now—this document admits it—to devise various financial fiddles which it is hoped will mitigate the consequences of a system which is inherently absurd anyway. That is what lies behind this so-called harmonisation proposal.
  A little earlier, the document says:
  "Excises on these drinks already generate in all Member States considerable tax revenues and are in any case justified on social grounds."
  That is very important. But what is disastrous about the document is that at no other point does it examine the social consequences of the financial proposals that it contains. It does not suggest that for social reasons excise should go up or down or that it is reasonable that in certain countries which by culture, history and tradition drink more beer or drink more wine there should for good social reasons be variations in the ratio of taxation. There is merely the fundamental point that the Community wants to solve the wine lake problem and this obsession with harmonisation without regard for the wider social consequences.
  The social consequences of excess consumption of alcohol are disastrous. They are in this country, they are in other countries of the Common Market, and there is a slow but increasing realisation of the appalling consequences of the ever-rising consumption of alcohol in our society.
  At this hour, there is no need for me to detail all those consequences. On the roads, we know the death and destruction that are caused by drinking and driving. We know the violence that occurs and the crime that occurs. We know, too, that the terrible disease of alcoholism is increasing year by year.
  I had the task of sitting on one of the Select Committees of the House a few years ago which discussed preventive medicine. One of the aspects that we considered at that time was alcohol and the appalling and rising problem which the increasing consumption of alcohol was causing.
  The document simply says that excise duty should be justified on social grounds and then makes no attempt to discuss the social consequences of the financial arrangements that are proposed. On that ground alone, the House should reject the document and the financial arrangements proposed until there is a serious examination by the Commission of the problems of alcohol and of the restraints, controls or benefits that might arise from different fiscal or taxation policies. As the document makes no attempt to examine those problems, which are of the gravest social consequences, it should be rejected.
  On the fundamental problem of the interference with our own tax affairs, I wholly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. The House would fail in its social duty if it (lid not adopt the amendment and reject the document.
  1.10 am
  Mr. Roger Sims: I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) has left the Chamber, because I should have liked

  395
  to congratulate him on his robust defence of the EEC and on his point that the House must support my hon. and learned Friend the Minister in his negotiations. It seems illogical that, having said that, the right hon. Gentleman should then say that he would vote for the amendment rather than the motion.
  However, the right hon. Gentleman was right to emphasise the international implications of the document. We must consider not only its effect on the trade and the consumer in the United Kingdom but its effect on our trade in the EEC, which is a matter of considerable importance. Shipments of Scotch whisky to EEC countries in 1979 were to the value of £168 million, so it is an important aspect of our export business.
  The document is part of a long story. Two of the most recent developments were the judgment in February about the discriminatory practices, particularly against Scotch whisky, as regards both taxation and advertising, not only in France but in Denmark, Ireland and Italy. The Scotch whisky industry naturally welcomed the judgment, but unfortunately the relevant countries have yet to abide by it.
  Mr. English rose—
  Mr. Sims: We have very little time left, and several of my hon. Friends still wish to speak.
  I hope that in his discussions later this month my hon. and learned Friend will strongly emphasise that we expect those countries affected by the judgment to comply with it.
  The United Kingdom has also been proceeded against on the question of the wine duty compared with the beer duty. We are waiting for the final judgment, but the interim judgment is not particularly helpful, suggesting that the final judgment, if the matter proceeds, could go against us. We could finish up having to have either a lower wine duty, with a loss of revenue to the Exchequer, or a higher duty on beer, which would be unpopular both with the brewers and with consumers. It is the Government's natural anxiety to try to reach an agreement so that the situation does not develop along those lines.
  I speak tonight in my capacity as secretary of the all-party Scotch whisky industry group — a most distinguished office. The industry's fear is that an agreement disadvantageous to it may be reached.
  I should like to make several points briefly. First, the document proposes a relationship in duty between wines and beers, and a particular ratio is suggested. Why is it only between wines and beers? Surely, it should be between wines, beers and spirits. I urge my hon. and learned Friend to suggest to his colleagues in the ministerial Council that spirits be included.
  Secondly, the document proposes the harmonisation of a rate of excise duties on all spirits — presumably, whether they be imported or domestically produced.
  Mr. English: The document does not say so.
  Mr. Sims: No, but presumably that is so. If it is a harmonised duty within a territory, it will apply to spirits whether imported or domestically produced. The expression used is "single specific rate." It appears that this is to be a rate of duty on volume. That does not seem to be a satisfactory rate. Surely, the duty should be on
  396
  alcohol content. If we are working towards a degree of harmonisation, we should start in the way that we intend to continue and decide that the basis should be alcohol content.
  The document proposes that the same rate of VAT on wines and beers shall apply within each country. No reference is made to spirits. It appears that each country could charge a higher rate of VAT on Scotch whisky. That would defeat the object of harmonisation. That gained on one hand would be lost on the other. Surely, the rate should be the same on all alcoholic beverages.
  In principle I support harmonisation, not of duties, which is not the aim at this stage, but of the structure of duties. We must be sure that we neither perpetuate the disadvantages suffered by this country's second largest exporter — the Scotch whisky industry — nor replace those disadvantages with others equally unfortunate for that industry. I urge my hon. and learned Friend to ensure that that does not happen. I hope that he will have a pleasant and useful pre-Christmas visit to Brussels. I venture to suggest that he might take for his fellow Ministers a suitable Christmas gift. I am sure that I do not need to suggest what form it should take.
  Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appeal to you. A misconception has strayed into the debate—that a judgment in the European Court is the same as a judgment in a British court. That might be so in Britain. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) introduced the misconception. It is specifically stated in the Treaty of Rome—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman surely does not expect me to answer his question. He is trying to make another speech. That cannot be a point of order.
  Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Treaty of Rome specifically states that no State is justiciable.
  1.19 am
  Mr. Peter Rees: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) for his deep learning on high constitutional points. The debate has fluctuated between points of high technicality and high constitutionality. In the brief time left, I shall not be able to deal with them all.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) wanted reassurance about the whisky industry, wine produced in the United Kingdom as opposed to British wine, and cider. Cider is safeguarded. We shall endeavour to safeguard wine produced in the United Kingdom. The prohibition on the use of VAT to discriminate against whisky will be high on our list. I hope that that will give reassurance to my hon. Friend and the interests that he represents.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: Nothing in the directive prevents VAT from being discriminatory against Scotch whisky. Will the Minister seek an arrangement under which, if the directive is accepted, there will be no VAT on Scotch whisky?
  Mr. Rees: We are discussing proposals. Nothing is final.
  If I might correct my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, (Mr. Taylor), this is not a directive but merely proposals which are the basis for negotiation. I

  397
  indicated the points that I regarded as important to the interests of Britain. As the House will appreciate, there must be a certain amount of give and take in negotiations. The fact that that particular point: is not found in the latest compromise proposals does not mean that I shall not press it strongly.
  Mr. Ron Leighton Mr. Ron Leighton(Newham, North-East) rose—
  Mr. Rees: I have no time to give way as there are only six minutes left. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acquit me of discourtesy if I continue and deal with some of the technical points before coming to the points of principle.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East indicated that there was no need for the proposals. That viewpoint rests on a slight misunderstanding of the decisions of the European Court. The decisions in the case of France, Denmark and Italy were final, although a period of time was given to them to adjust their domestic arrangements, as we would expect if a decision involved alterations in our domestic legislation. That is the reason for the delay. My hon. Friend may take a different view, but I have no evidence that there is any intention on the part of those countries to flout the judgment of the European Court. If there was, and if that affected a vital British interest, we should make the strongest possible representations to the European Commission. As regards the infraction proceedings against Britain, that is a matter of a temporary, interim decision only. We might say in the English courts that it is an interlocutory judgment. There is a period of time for Britain and the Commission to see whether we can reconcile our differences.
  We are not under duress. That was a bad point made by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). An agreed application from both the Commission And ourselves for an extension of time has gone to the European Court. We shall not be negotiating under duress. We hope that we can reach a conclusion at the next Council meeting on 22 December. That may render it unnecessary for the European Court to give a final decision. I hope that that will reassure the right hon. Gentleman and the House—
  Mr. Denzil Davies Mr. Denzil Davies rose—
  Mr. Rees: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be brief because there are only four minutes left.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: The Minister is negotiating under duress. If he does not agree to the directive, the court will give a final decision which will say that we are discriminating against wine and that we must reduce the duty on wine. That is the sort of duress under which he is negotiating.
  Mr. Rees: I am negotiating under no more, duress than that under which the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) negotiated, because the proceedings in the European Court had already begun when he last attended a fiscal Council. The right hon. Member for Lanelli assumes too much. I do not understand how he knows with such utter certainty what the final decision of the court will be. I certainly could not advise the House about that.
  In view of the time left, I must now turn to the points of constitutional principle raised by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). We are concerned to try to harmonise the structure of excise duties. Of course, to a degree that
  398
  involves a circumscription of the rights of the House and the Government. However, that was always implicit in our adherence to the Treaty of Rome. Some right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House take a fundamental view on that point. They have never voted for adherence but have consistently opposed it. I respect their point of view, although I do not share it. In this debate we must start from the premise that we have adhered to the Treaty and that there are various provisions in the Treaty and, so far as lies within our power and without prejudicing fundamental British interests, try to reconcile them with what we are doing on this occasion.
  That does not preclude a British Chancellor of the Exchequer from deciding the rates of duty. The right hon. Member for Llanelli misunderstands the position. It could happen on certain broad limits on the wine-beer ratio. Some hon. Members were worried about the effects on the brewing industry and British beer drinkers. I must say—not for the first time, but for the second or third time—that there are about three or four possible permutations. Even supposing that the conclusion of negotiations or the decision of the European Court were that a British Chancellor of the Exchequer had to observe a wine-beer ratio of three to one, that could be achieved in a variety of ways. In the time-honoured phrase, I could not possibly anticipate my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget. This is all to negotiate for.
  I hope that the House, having listened to the constitutional arguments and the detailed arguments, will recognise that there can be advantages not only for British drinkers but for important British industries in bringing back an agreed series of measures. I hope that it will recognise that this is entirely consistent in principle with the decision of the House, taken not once but twice, that Britain should remain a member of the Economic Community. Although it may be difficult for me to reconcile all the views expressed in this evening's debate—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business.)
  The House divided: Ayes 34, Noes 91.

  Division No. 9]

  [1.25 am

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Hooley, Frank

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cowans, Harry

  Leighton, Ronald

  Cryer, Bob

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Marlow, Tony

  Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Deakins, Eric

  Molyneaux, James

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Dixon, Donald

  Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

  Dormand, Jack

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  English, Michael

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Foster, Derek

  Spearing, Nigel

  Freud, Clement

  Welsh, Michael

  Golding, John

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Haynes, Frank

  Mr. George Morton and

  Homewood, William

  Mr. Hugh McCarney.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Ancram, Michael

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Best, Keith

  399

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Blackburn, John

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Brinton, Tim

  Myles, David

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Neale, Gerrard

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Newton, Tony

  Butcher, John

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Parris, Matthew

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Penhaligon, David

  Cockeram, Eric

  Rathbone, Tim

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Renton, Tim

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Dover, Denshore

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Sims, Roger

  Gorst, John

  Speed, Keith

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Speller, Tony

  Grist, Ian

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Heddle, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Stevens, Martin

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Waddington, David

  Knox, David

  Wakeham, John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Ward, John

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Warren, Kenneth

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Watson, John

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Wells, Bowen

  MacGregor, John

  Wheeler, John

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Wickenden, Keith

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Mates, Michael

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Mather, Carol

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Lord J. Douglas-Hamilton and

  Mellor, David

  Mr. John Cope.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7854/79, together with the supplementary memorandum by HM Customs and Excise dated 17 November, and would support acceptance by Her Majesty's Government of arrangements for the harmonisation of the structure of excise duties on alcoholic drinks which are compatible with the maintenance of a satisfactory excise duty system in the United Kingdom.

Legal Aid (Care Proceedings)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Morrison.]
1.35 am
Mr. Leo Abse: It is a cardinal principle of British justice that every person should have the right to a fair trial. No one should be deprived of the right to answer allegations made against him or suffer a penalty without having his case heard. Yet this is precisely what happens to parents in child care cases.
More than 17,000 children are in care in England and Wales because the court has decided that their parents were ill treating or neglecting them or neglecting another child in the household. In most of these cases the parents have effectively been denied the opportunity of stating their side of the case.
400
Allegations of child abuse can be more damaging to character than criminal charges. Yet in our legal system they can and do go unrefuted, and the end result can be devastating: a family unit fractured and a child sentenced to grow up in an impersonal institution.
Why do parents have no right to be heard? It is simply because they are not parties to the legal proceedings in the magistrates' court. Under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, if the local authority proposes to take a child into care, it must bring that child before the juvenile court. In care proceedings, legal aid is available only to a person brought before a juvenile court under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. In other words, legal aid is available only to the child, not to the parents.
Because the parents are not parties, their rights are strictly limited. They have no right to choose a solicitor who is to act for the child under legal aid. He can refuse to take instructions from them, and must do so if he feels that there is a possible conflict between the parents' interests and the child's. Although the magistrates have power to allow them to cross-examine witnesses, the parents have no right to do so. They have a limited right to give evidence and to call witnesses to answer allegations against them, but this right is more apparent than real.
Few, if any, parents involved in care proceedings would have the confidence, the skill in advocacy or the knowledge of evidence and court procedure to pit themselves against the combined resources of the local authority legal department and the social services department, and few have the means to pay a solicitor to do it for them.
If a man is said to have stolen a can of beans from a supermarket, he may obtain legal aid and a solicitor to defend him in the court. If a local authority decides to take a child away from a mother, accusing her, rightly or wrongly, of neglect or claiming some inadequacy on her part rendering her unfit to retain her parental rights, she can obtain no legal aid to give her representation in the court.
These cases go to the heart of family life. They often require the judgment of Solomon. Yet these decisions are taken too often with a mother being seen but not heard, a mother often inarticulate, deserted, desperately poor and harassed, not the most intelligent and under severe stress. The decision to put a child in care can mean the break-up of families for ever and substitute institutional for parental care. All the panoply available to a local authority may be utilised to take away a child from a mother. Solicitors may present to the court evidence from doctors, social workers and neighbours, but the parent has no right with aid to help her to put her side of the case.
Worse, the pressures on local authorities to put children into care are increasing enormously. Everyone wants to be certain that no child is left at serious risk in a home, and the most severe criticism falls upon any social service department that has erred. One tragic case, such as the Lucy Gates case this week, means inevitably that every social worker fears to err in favour of a parent, and will, if the local authority has a scintilla of doubt, move to take the child into care.
But the very pressures and the criticisms now falling on social work departments make it more essential than ever that the parents' side of the case is heard. Decisions taken amidst the clamour of an aroused public opinion — perhaps justifiably aroused — or opinion caused or

401
precipitated by indignant judges, however justifiable the indignation may be, increase inevitably the likelihood that a grave mistake may be made. There has never been a time, given the existing aroused public opinion, when a mother has been given the right to legal representation to plead her case to keep her child.
I doubt very much whether the Minister will gainsay much of what I have said. It has been said in another place very eloquently. It has been said in clear terms by the Lord Chancellor's advisory board on legal aid. It has been said by lawyers and by social work organisations. It has been recited in strong editorials in The Times. I suspect that all the Minister will say is that the price of justice is too high and that even partially to activate sections 64 and 65 of the Children Act 1975 so that separate representation of the parent, and hence legal aid, came into effect would cost too much.
Let me say first, to prevent the Minister from tilting at windmills, that although in every other respect I adopt the vigorous arguments of The Times editorial of 17 November, it is a fallacy to suggest that legal representation of the 4,500 to 5,000 parents that I have in mind as likely to apply for legal aid would be paid for by a possible drop by 2 per cent. in the children taken into care. I do not base my arguments on cost, which is so evidently an ill-founded base. I do so on other grounds, to which I hope that the Minister will direct his mind.
If we examine even the work within the Minister's own Department, with which he will be familiar, we can see clearly the consequences that arise once a solicitor—or legal aid in some form or other — is provided. The evidence contained in the report of the Royal Commission on legal services, and in the supplementary benefit appeals and their outcome, shows that an attendance by an appellant without representation results in 26 per cent. favourable decisions. If the appellant has legal representation, the favourable decisions amount to 37 per cent. Or, again, there is the evidence available from national insurance local tribunals.
The Minister may be familiar with a paper by Professor Kathleen Bell showing what occurred when a man was represented or not represented. From a sample examination of national insurance local tribunals in Scotland, it was clear that non-represented cases had a success rate of 16 per cent. whereas there was a 39 per cent. success rate once legal representation was obtained.
Those of us who have the privilege to be lawyers are only too familiar with the figures which have repeatedly been given concerning the consequences for those who have been awarded legal aid and those who have not. It has been said in some studies that defendants who are legally represented and who plead not guilty to criminal charges are twice as likely to be acquitted. Most people are aware that 40 per cent. of applications by lawyers before a High Court judge are successful whereas 13 per cent. are successful when the Official Solicitor passively provides the paperwork. It is inevitable, even on the question of costs, where there are about 4,500 cases, that if there were partial activation of the relevant sections of the Children Act a substantial percentage of cases would be likely to be successful.
In considering the question of a child in care, we have to bear in mind the cumulative costs involved. That child may be in care for up to 16 years. Each child in care costs £50 a week. It is clear that, out of the sum of, perhaps, £1 million that may be required for legal aid, a substantial
402
deduction would have to be made to take into account the money which would be saved in the event of successful applications.
I do not rest my case on cost alone, although it is an important factor. It is my judgment that, at a time when public opinion is as inflamed as it is now, when there is a greater sensitivity to cases of child abuse and neglect, when there are demands for special inquiries and so much clamour against social work departments, decisions are being taken in magistrates' courts in an environment which must impinge upon the judgment and concern of magistrates. This must mean that proceedings are brought in cases where, perhaps, there are issues of doubt. I am deeply concerned, as so many' representative bodies are, that no attempt is being made to activate the relevant sections of the Act to provide legal aid.
It is a long time since I went to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) when he was Home Secretary and pleaded with him to set up an advisory committee dealing with adoption and other relevant problems. My right hon. Friend answered my plea, and for two years I sat upon that committee, the recommendations of which formed the foundation of the Children Act. The years go by. One needs stamina for these issues. The Children Act was placed upon the statute book, but it is disappointing that so many of its sections are not activated.
No greater dismay has been caused than that brought about by the non-activation of that part of the Act which would help the hapless woman who finds herself faced with the possibility of having her child torn away from her and who has no one to speak for her. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something which will give reassurance to all those who feel anxiety about the present position.
1.50 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) for bringing this subject to the attention of the House. Care proceedings—which can lead to the removal of a child from his parents — are of immense importance to the people concerned and it is right that the law should seek to give proper regard to the interests of all concerned. The hon. Gentleman made a forceful and impassioned speech. The recent leader and correspondence in The Times have focused attention on the question of legal aid for parents in care proceedings. I welcome this debate as it allows me to spell out the Government's position in this matter and to correct some misconceptions about the savings which might occur if parents are given legal aid.
I should like to make it quite clear from the start that there is no disagreement on the principle which is at stake. As the hon. Gentleman implied, I do not seek to gainsay the forceful case that he made about the principle of legal representation for those involved. The Government fully recognise the justice of the case for granting parents legal aid in care proceedings. We have every intention, when more money becomes available, of giving this cause high priority against other competing demands on legal aid expenditure. There should be no doubt about our position on this.
The legislation to provide legal aid for parents already exists in section 64 of the Children Act 1975, which has been only partially implemented. That section, if fully

403
implemented, would provide that in care or related proceedings the court should consider whether there is a conflict of interest between the child and his parent or guardian. If so, it may make an order—a separation order—that the parent or guardian shall not represent the child in the proceedings. The court would have discretion to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the child if it considered that this would be in the child's interests. When a separation order had been made, the parents would become eligible for legal aid, subject to the usual requirements.
At present, the only part of section 64 which is in force relates to proceedings arising from an unopposed application for the discharge of a care or supervision order—which would deal with the Maria Colwell case. Thus, in the great majority of care proceedings parents are not at present eligible for legal aid.
Neither we nor the previous Administration have been able fully to implement section 64 and so give parents legal aid—because of the costs involved. A working party drawn from my Department, the Welsh Office and the local authority associations has recently presented a report on the likely costs of bringing in the remaining unimplemented sections of the Children Act 1975. A copy of the report is in the Library and copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office. The report shows that the cost of implementing section 64 would be about £850,000 a year for local authorities, £280,000 for the probation service and between £800,000 and £870,000 for the legal aid fund. These figures are at November 1979 prices.
It has been widely suggested in the last few weeks that full implementation of section 64 would lead to a drop in the number of children placed in care and that there would be a saving of over £2 million a year in the costs of keeping children in care. In other words, it has been suggested that separate representation and legal aid for parents in care proceedings could be provided at no additional cost to public funds. From the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I think that he distanced himself a little from that proposition.
I believe that the figure of £2 million derives from a booklet published by the Family Rights Group entitled "Lost in Court—the Case for Legal Aid for Parents in Care Proceedings". I only wish that the estimates it put forward were true. In my view, its figures are a gross overestimate. Let me explain why.
In the year ended 31 March 1979, some 40,000 children came into the care of local authorities in England and Wales. But the great majority of these children were either placed voluntarily in care under the Children Act 1948 or were subject to care orders because they had committed an offence. The number of proceedings each year in which parents might be granted legal aid if section 64 were implemented would be only between 4,000 and 5,000.
We can only speculate on the effect which legal aid for parents might have on the outcome of care proceedings. The Family Rights Group seems to think that there might be a reduction of 2 per cent. in children made subject to care orders if parents were granted legal aid. Two per cent. of 5,000 is only 100, so that we might perhaps see 100 fewer children coming into care each year if section 64 were fully implemented.
Thus, on the Family Rights Group's own figures the savings would only be about £300,000 a year for local
404
authorities. Even this is likely to be an overestimate as local authorities would probably still feel it necessary to work with a family which was giving them so much concern that they had instituted care proceedings. So, I do not accept that providing legal aid for parents in care proceedings could be achieved at no public cost.
For the immediate future, I think it is clear that there will be very real problems in finding resources to bring in legal aid for parents. However, during the coming months my Department will be having talks with the local authority associations to see whether agreement can be reached about bringing into force further sections of the Children Act 1975. In the first instance, my priority will be to try to bring in provisions which have no costs, or only very limited costs, as soon as possible.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned fostering and adoption. A few weeks ago I announced that next year we would implement those sections of the Children Act dealing with fostering and adoption that could be implemented at no cost. I cannot claim that section 64 falls within either of these categories, but I hope that we shall also be able to explore with the associations and other interested parties where our priorities should lie for bringing in those sections which would have costs, as and when resources become available. I very much regret that I cannot be more encouraging than that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the success rates when a person was legally represented. I am not sure whether the cases that he mentioned are directly comparable to the cases that we have before us. In these cases the parents are not defendants—they have not been accused of anything—whereas the cases that he quoted were of people who had been accused of something and were being defended. In care proceedings the parent is not being accused of anything. The parent does not stand before the court accused of any offence.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if a child is taken into care as a result of an allegation of neglect by a parent, that is thereby something of what the parent is accused, and because he is accused of something he is entitled to be represented, if it is possible, through the legal aid fund?
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right, and I shall come to that.
I adhere to what I said earlier, that there is not a direct parallel, because in care proceedings what is being decided is what is right for the child, whereas in the cases referred to by the hon. Gentleman the person concerned was accused of an offence. The hon. Gentleman was trying to compare legal aid for that person with legal aid for the parent who is not a party in the care proceedings. I do not think that one can compare the success rate in those proceedings with the success rate, as the hon. Gentleman referred to it, in care proceedings where the parent is accused of an offence.
Mr. Abse: I quoted some cases relating to criminal offences. I cited cases within the hon. Gentleman's Department of people who were not accused of a criminal offence making applications under appeals. The woman who is accused of neglect or of child abuse is surely in a similar situation to someone who has been accused of an offence.
Sir George Young: The two cases are not directly comparable, as I hope the hon. Gentleman, with his legal

405
experience, will agree. The woman who is accused has certain rights, even under the existing procedure, to make representations to the court and to defend herself.
What one has to do is to try to ensure that the care proceedings work as effectively as possible within the existing arrangements and constraints. The second thing that we have to do is to encourage local authorities to develop measures to support children and their families and so reduce the necessity to seek to have care orders made.
On the first point, I should like to see that children are properly represented in care proceedings and to ensure that those who are appointed to carry out this task are made aware of where their true responsibilities lie. There have, unfortunately, been cases where a solicitor appointed under the legal aid provisions to represent the child has seen his role in the proceedings as representing also the child's parents and has put their views to the court rather than the child's. In a few cases this has had tragic results. I welcome recent guidance from the Law Society on the solicitor's role in care proceedings. This makes it clear that solicitors should not take their instructions from parents, whose interests are often in direct conflict with those of the child.
Where a solicitor who has been appointed under, the legal aid provisions to represent a child decides that he should not take his instructions from the parents, there is nothing to prevent the parents from employing their own solicitor, but they must be prepared to pay for this themselves. Parents can obtain legal advice under the green form scheme, but they cannot be legally represented under this scheme.
Here, I turn to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander). Of course, parents normally participate in care proceedings. They, or their solicitor, if they employ one, can meet any allegations made against them by calling or giving evidence. That includes the right to cross-examine other people's witnesses on any matter relevant to the allegations. Where the court is able to make a separation order prohibiting the parents from acting on behalf of their child, parents also have the right to make representations to the court at the conclusion of the evidence on. behalf of the child and the local authority. They now have that right in unopposed proceedings for the discharge of care or supervision orders but do not have the right in other cases at present.
We are considering, in conjunction with the Home Office, whether the court rules should be amended to give them that right, in which case parents would be able to put their views to the court in the same way as if section 64 were fully implemented. They would not, of course, be able to qualify for legal aid in their own right, but in cases where there was no conflict of interest the solicitor acting for the child could also act for the parents. I hope that that meets some of the criticisms put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark and by the hon. Member for Pontypool.
Mr. Frank Haynes: I served as a magistrate for many years, particularly in the juvenile court. I think that the Minister will agree that there is much unfairness in the matter that we are discussing. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) put forward a good case for the Minister to answer. The cost would be a drop in the ocean. During the election, campaign the Conservative Party spoke about there being much unfairness in the
406
nation. If the Government agreed to the suggestions of my hon. Friend, they would put a little fairness into the arena, On behalf of my hon. Friend, I beg the Government to move in that direction and to find this minimal amount of money and put a little fairness into the system.
Sir George Young: I would not dissent from the view that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) has expressed. I said earlier that this was a high priority for the Government the moment more resources become available. However, at present the legal aid fund is overspent. I have to remind the hon. Gentleman that in six years his Government failed to implement this section of the Children Act 1975. I hope that this Administration will be able to implement it, and I have no disagreement with hon. Members on either side of the House about the principles that are at stake and the issue of equity. But, in fairness, we should ensure that parents have the right to legal aid in proceedings of this sort.
The Law Society has also dealt with the question of how the solicitor for the child should get his instructions when a child is too young to give them or to express a view. It has suggested in its circular that solicitors might seek guidance on the social work aspects of a case from social workers or other people with suitable child care qualifications who are independent of the local authority or who could advise the solicitor on those aspects of the case which he may feel he is not qualified by his training to decide. I agree that such advice for solicitors can be useful in the light of our present inability to implement the remainder of section 64. However, I regard this as a second-best, interim arrangement, pending full implementation of section 64 and the appointment of guardians ad litem by the court in appropriate cases.
Reverting to a point that I made earlier, I recognise that decisions about removing a child from an unsatisfactory home in his own best interests are difficult, whether in care proceedings or in criminal proceedings. Removal from home is undoubtedly sometimes the right decision, but it is the decision of last resort. I am keen to encourage measures to support children and their families in their own homes. There are many steps that can be taken to help children and their families to overcome their problems without taking a child into care, by giving appropriate professional help and support.
I have a particular interest in intermediate treatment for children who have offended or are at risk of beginning a delinquent career, and I wish to encourage this positive way of tackling the problems of juvenile crime. Indeed, I am pleased to be able to note some good news on juvenile delinquency statistics in the criminal statistics for 1979 that were laid before Parliament last week. The rate of offending per 100,000 in the age group fell by about 8 per cent. between 1978 and 1979 for boys between 10 and 16 years of age and by slightly less for girls. The number of sentences to detention centres and borstal also fell by 5 per cent.—the first sign of a halt in the steady rise in the number of custodial sentences for juveniles. The number of care orders in criminal proceedings continued to decline, but the number of supervision orders for 14-to 16-year-olds increased. One swallow does not make a summer, but these statistics indicate that our community-based measures, including intermediate treatment, are having some effect in reducing the need to remove children from home.

407
As far as younger children are concerned, voluntary and statutory bodies have done much to develop schemes to help families under stress and to prevent children from coming into care. I believe that those schemes, such as Homestart in Leicester, and the work of the NSPCC special units can do much to provide justice for parents and for children, and they can do that now. For the longer term, the hon. Gentleman can be assured that his points
408
about the justice of providing legal aid for parents in care proceedings are well taken and that we shall bring section 64 of the 1975 Act fully into force when we have the resources to do so.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at five minutes past Two o'clock.

Employment
  Greater London
  Greater London
  European Communities Act (Legislation)
  European Communities Act (Legislation)
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
  West Yorkshire
  West Yorkshire
  Disabled Persons (Quota)
  Disabled Persons (Quota)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Frizington Benefit Office
  Frizington Benefit Office
  Basildon (Job Programmes)
  Basildon (Job Programmes)
  Youth Unemployment
  Youth Unemployment
  Job Creation (Development Areas)
  Job Creation (Development Areas)
  Propane Gas (Storage)
  Propane Gas (Storage)
  Keighley
  Keighley
  Consett
  Consett
  Apprenticeships
  Apprenticeships
  Calderdale
  Calderdale
  Special Programmes
  Special Programmes
  Craft Apprenticeship Training
  Craft Apprenticeship Training
  National Minimum Wage
  National Minimum Wage
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
  Divorce
  Divorce
Trade
  Sanitary Tampons
  Sanitary Tampons
  Export-Import Ratios
  Export-Import Ratios
  Manufactures (Exports)
  Manufactures (Exports)
  Origin Marking
  Origin Marking
  Quangos (Report)
  Quangos (Report)
Defence
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Service Personnel (House Purchase)
  Service Personnel (House Purchase)
Scotland
  Untreated Milk
  Untreated Milk
Overseas Development
  United Nations Relief and Works Agency
  United Nations Relief and Works Agency
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
Energy
  Electricity (Industrial Consumption)
  Electricity (Industrial Consumption)
  Nationalised Industries (Purchasing Policy)
  Nationalised Industries (Purchasing Policy)
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
Civil Service
  Public Service Pensions
  Public Service Pensions
  Disabled Civil Servants
  Disabled Civil Servants
Wales
  Beef, Lamb and Pig Production
  Beef, Lamb and Pig Production
  Pig Producers (Returns)
  Pig Producers (Returns)
  West Glamorgan (Rateable Values)
  West Glamorgan (Rateable Values)
Home Department
  Police Authorities (Reports)
  Police Authorities (Reports)
  Suicides
  Suicides
  Holloway Prison (Visiting Hours)
  Holloway Prison (Visiting Hours)
  Metropolitan Police (Purchasing Policy)
  Metropolitan Police (Purchasing Policy)
  Detention Centre Releases (Reconvictions)
  Detention Centre Releases (Reconvictions)
  Trinity Crescent, Tooting
  Trinity Crescent, Tooting
  Prisoners (Correspondence)
  Prisoners (Correspondence)
  Political Asylum
  Political Asylum
  Prison Discipline
  Prison Discipline
  MUFTI Squad
  MUFTI Squad
  Wormwood Scrubs (Inquiry)
  Wormwood Scrubs (Inquiry)
  Firemen
  Firemen
  Mr. Abdul Kahar
  Mr. Abdul Kahar
  Corporal Punishment (Isle of Man)
  Corporal Punishment (Isle of Man)
  East Kent (Radio Station)
  East Kent (Radio Station)
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Madrid Review Conference
  Madrid Review Conference
  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  European Commission of Human Rights (Right of Individual Petition)
  European Commission of Human Rights (Right of Individual Petition)
  Kampuchea
  Kampuchea
  Iraq-Iran Situation
  Iraq-Iran Situation
  Mr. Paul Stephenson
  Mr. Paul Stephenson
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  British North America Act
  British North America Act
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Southern Africa (Transnational Corporations)
  Southern Africa (Transnational Corporations)
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Lebanon
  Lebanon
  President-elect Reagan
  President-elect Reagan
  Passports
  Passports
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  International Convention on Torture
  International Convention on Torture
  North-South Dialogue
  North-South Dialogue
European Community
  Council of Foreign Ministers
  Council of Foreign Ministers
  Portugal (Accession)
  Portugal (Accession)
National Finance
  Charities (Budget Effects)
  Charities (Budget Effects)
  Sterling M3
  Sterling M3
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Gold and Currency Reserves
  Gold and Currency Reserves
  Companies
  Companies
  Economic Policy
  Economic Policy
  Petroleum and Oil Products
  Petroleum and Oil Products
  Exchange Rate
  Exchange Rate
  Currency
  Currency
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  European Community Budget (United Kingdom Contribution)
  European Community Budget (United Kingdom Contribution)
Social Services
  Psychiatric Patients
  Psychiatric Patients
  Pharmacists
  Pharmacists
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Blind Persons (British Talking Book Service)
  Blind Persons (British Talking Book Service)
  Deodorant Tampons (Health Hazards)
  Deodorant Tampons (Health Hazards)
  Pensions and Benefits
  Pensions and Benefits
  General Practitioners
  General Practitioners
  Vaccine-Damaged Children
  Vaccine-Damaged Children
  National Health Service (Royal Commission Report)
  National Health Service (Royal Commission Report)
  Disabled Persons (Telephones)
  Disabled Persons (Telephones)
  Perinatal and Neonatal Mortality
  Perinatal and Neonatal Mortality
  Public Expenditure Programmes (Report)
  Public Expenditure Programmes (Report)
Industry
  Gas-gathering Pipelines
  Gas-gathering Pipelines
  Post Office and British Telecommunications (Equipment and Services)
  Post Office and British Telecommunications (Equipment and Services)
  British Telecommunications Bill (Crown Office Facilities)
  British Telecommunications Bill (Crown Office Facilities)
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
  Departmental Reports
  Departmental Reports
  Canadian Constitution
  Canadian Constitution
  Taiwan Students
  Taiwan Students
  Claire Wilson
  Claire Wilson
  International Year of Disabled Persons
  International Year of Disabled Persons
  Hong Kong Students
  Hong Kong Students
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  East Timor
  East Timor
  European Security Review Conference
  European Security Review Conference
European Community
  Budget
  Budget
Northern Ireland
  Regional Councils
  Regional Councils
  Ulster Defence Association
  Ulster Defence Association
  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973
  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
  Departmental Reports
  Departmental Reports
  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce
  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce
  Marginal Land
  Marginal Land
  Grants and Subsidies
  Grants and Subsidies
Environment
  Housing Priority Groups
  Housing Priority Groups
  House Building
  House Building
  Pollutants
  Pollutants
  National Building Agency
  National Building Agency
  Tyne-Wear Structure Nan
  Tyne-Wear Structure Nan
  Water Industry (Surplus Property)
  Water Industry (Surplus Property)
  Military Developments (Objections)
  Military Developments (Objections)
  Camping and Caravanning Sites
  Camping and Caravanning Sites
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Housing Investment Programme
  Housing Investment Programme
  Public and Private Projects (Environmental Effects)
  Public and Private Projects (Environmental Effects)
  Local Authorities (Private Sector Purchases)
  Local Authorities (Private Sector Purchases)
  Housing Development Directorate
  Housing Development Directorate
  Areas of Special Scientific Interest
  Areas of Special Scientific Interest
  Insulation Grants
  Insulation Grants
  Stansted Airport
  Stansted Airport
  Local Authorities (Sales Schemes)
  Local Authorities (Sales Schemes)
Transport
  Concessionary Bus Fare Schemes
  Concessionary Bus Fare Schemes
  British Railways (Equipment and Services)
  British Railways (Equipment and Services)
  Motorways (Repairs)
  Motorways (Repairs)
  British Railways (Electrification)
  British Railways (Electrification)
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Employment
  Greater London
  Greater London
  European Communities Act (Legislation)
  European Communities Act (Legislation)
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
  Disabled Persons (Quota)
  Disabled Persons (Quota)
  West Yorkshire
  West Yorkshire
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Frizington Benefit Office
  Frizington Benefit Office
  Basildon (Job Programmes)
  Basildon (Job Programmes)
  Youth Unemployment
  Youth Unemployment
  Job Creation (Development Areas)
  Job Creation (Development Areas)
  Propane Gas (Storage)
  Propane Gas (Storage)
  Keighley
  Keighley
  Consett
  Consett
  Apprenticeships
  Apprenticeships
  Calderdale
  Calderdale
  Special Programmes
  Special Programmes
  Craft Apprenticeship Training
  Craft Apprenticeship Training
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  National Minimum Wage
  National Minimum Wage
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
Divorce
  Divorce
  Divorce
Trade
  Sanitary Tampons
  Sanitary Tampons
  Manufactures (Exports)
  Manufactures (Exports)
  Export-Import Ratios
  Export-Import Ratios
  Origin Marking
  Origin Marking
  Quangos (Report)
  Quangos (Report)
Defence
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Service Personnel (House Purchase)
  Service Personnel (House Purchase)
Scotland
  Untreated Milk
  Untreated Milk
Overseas Development
  United Nations Relief and Works Agency
  United Nations Relief and Works Agency
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
Energy
  Electricity (Industrial Consumption)
  Electricity (Industrial Consumption)
  Nationalised Industries (Purchasing Policy)
  Nationalised Industries (Purchasing Policy)
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
Civil Service
  Public Service Pensions
  Public Service Pensions
  Disabled Civil Servants
  Disabled Civil Servants
Wales
  Beef, Lamb and Pig Production
  Beef, Lamb and Pig Production
  Pig Producers (Returns)
  Pig Producers (Returns)
  West Glamorgan (Rateable Values)
  West Glamorgan (Rateable Values)
Home Department
  Police Authorities (Reports)
  Police Authorities (Reports)
  Suicides
  Suicides
  Holloway Prison (Visiting Hours)
  Holloway Prison (Visiting Hours)
  Metropolitan Police (Purchasing Policy)
  Metropolitan Police (Purchasing Policy)
  Detention Centre Releases (Reconvictions)
  Detention Centre Releases (Reconvictions)
  Trinity Crescent, Tooting
  Trinity Crescent, Tooting
  Prisoners (Correspondence)
  Prisoners (Correspondence)
  Political Asylum
  Political Asylum
  Prison Discipline
  Prison Discipline
  MUFTI Squad
  MUFTI Squad
  Wormwood Scrubs (Inquiry)
  Wormwood Scrubs (Inquiry)
  Firemen
  Firemen
  Mr. Abdul Kahar
  Mr. Abdul Kahar
  Corporal Punishment (Isle of Man)
  Corporal Punishment (Isle of Man)
  East Kent (Radio Station)
  East Kent (Radio Station)
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Madrid Review Conference
  Madrid Review Conference
  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  European Commission of Human Rights (Right of Individual Petition)
  European Commission of Human Rights (Right of Individual Petition)
  Kampuchea
  Kampuchea
  Iraq-Iran Situation
  Iraq-Iran Situation
  Mr. Paul Stephenson
  Mr. Paul Stephenson
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  British North America Act
  British North America Act
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Southern Africa (Transnational Corporations)
  Southern Africa (Transnational Corporations)
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Lebanon
  Lebanon
  President-elect Reagan
  President-elect Reagan
  Passports
  Passports
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  International Convention on Torture
  International Convention on Torture
  North-South Dialogue
  North-South Dialogue
European Community
  Council of Foreign Ministers
  Council of Foreign Ministers
  Portugal (Accession)
  Portugal (Accession)
National Finance
  Charities (Budget Effects)
  Charities (Budget Effects)
  Sterling M3
  Sterling M3
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Gold and Currency Reserves
  Gold and Currency Reserves
  Exchange Rate
  Exchange Rate
  Companies
  Companies
  Economic Policy
  Economic Policy
  Petroleum and Oil Products
  Petroleum and Oil Products
  Currency
  Currency
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  European Community Budget (United Kingdom Contribution)
  European Community Budget (United Kingdom Contribution)
Social Services
  Psychiatric Patients
  Psychiatric Patients
  Pharmacists
  Pharmacists
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Blind Persons (British Talking Book Service)
  Blind Persons (British Talking Book Service)
  Deodorant Tampons (Health Hazards)
  Deodorant Tampons (Health Hazards)
  Pensions and Benefits
  Pensions and Benefits
  General Practitioners
  General Practitioners
  Vaccine-Damaged Children
  Vaccine-Damaged Children
  National Health Service (Royal Commission Report)
  National Health Service (Royal Commission Report)
  Disabled Persons (Telephones)
  Disabled Persons (Telephones)
  Perinatal and Neonatal Mortality
  Perinatal and Neonatal Mortality
  Public Expenditure Programmes (Report)
  Public Expenditure Programmes (Report)
Industry
  Gas-gathering Pipelines
  Gas-gathering Pipelines
  Post Office and British Telecommunications (Equipment and Services)
  Post Office and British Telecommunications (Equipment and Services)
  British Telecommunications Bill (Crown Office Facilities)
  British Telecommunications Bill (Crown Office Facilities)
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
  Departmental Reports
  Departmental Reports
  Canadian Constitution
  Canadian Constitution
  Taiwan Students
  Taiwan Students
  Claire Wilson
  Claire Wilson
  International Year of Disabled Persons
  International Year of Disabled Persons
  Hong Kong Students
  Hong Kong Students
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  East Timor
  East Timor
  European Security Review Conference
  European Security Review Conference
European Community
  Budget
  Budget
Northern Ireland
  Regional Councils
  Regional Councils
  Ulster Defence Association
  Ulster Defence Association
  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973
  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
  Departmental Reports
  Departmental Reports
  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce
  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce
  Marginal Land
  Marginal Land
  Grants and Subsidies
  Grants and Subsidies
Environment
  Housing Priority Groups
  Housing Priority Groups
  House Building
  House Building
  Pollutants
  Pollutants
  National Building Agency
  National Building Agency
  Tyne-Wear Structure Plan
  Tyne-Wear Structure Plan
  Water Industry (Surplus Property)
  Water Industry (Surplus Property)
  Military Developments (Objections)
  Military Developments (Objections)
  Camping and Caravanning Sites
  Camping and Caravanning Sites
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Housing Investment Programme
  Housing Investment Programme
  Public and Private Projects (Environmental Effects)
  Public and Private Projects (Environmental Effects)
  Local Authorities (Private Sector Purchases)
  Local Authorities (Private Sector Purchases)
  Housing Development Directorate
  Housing Development Directorate
  Areas of Special Scientific Interest
  Areas of Special Scientific Interest
  Insulation Grants
  Insulation Grants
  Stansted Airport
  Stansted Airport
  Local Authorities (Sales Schemes)
  Local Authorities (Sales Schemes)
Transport
  Concessionary Bus Fare Schemes
  Concessionary Bus Fare Schemes
  British Railways (Equipment and Services)
  British Railways (Equipment and Services)
  Motorways (Repairs)
  Motorways (Repairs)
  British Railways (Electrification)
  British Railways (Electrification)
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget

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

The Lord Bishop of Lichfield
Kenneth John Fraser, Lord Bishop of Lichfield—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Worcester and the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool
David Stuart, Lord Bishop of Liverpool—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Derby and the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

Message from The Queen
2.34 p.m.
Lord Maclean: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The Message is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament".

Diego Garcia: Future
2.35 p.m.
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 conclusions have been reached in the discussion with Mauritius regarding the future of Diego Garcia.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, recent discussions with Mauritian Ministers covered political, economic, and cultural matters, including the subject of Diego Garcia. The Government of Mauritius know that Diego Garcia will be ceded to Mauritius when it is no longer needed for defence purposes. This was confirmed by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the 11th July in answer to a Question in another place.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, while appreciating that Answer, may I ask this: Is not Diego Garcia historically associated with Mauritius, and was it not transferred before Mauritius obtained its independence so that the nation could not take a decisive view? Would it not be possible for Her Majesty's Government to take the initiative to secure the neutralisation of the Indian Ocean so that the island would no longer be necessary for defensive purposes?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is, I would suggest, another question. Consideration of the proposal to make the Indian Ocean a zone of peace, for example, which is one of those proposals currently being canvassed, is something we shall be ready to undertake in the right forum—but in the context of 85,000 Russian troops encamped in Afghanistan, just a few hundred miles to the north. As to the sovereignty of Diego Garcia, the position is quite clear. The United Kingdom has full sovereignty over that island.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, while agreeing with my noble friend as to the desirability of zonal neutralisation in the Indian Ocean, may I put this specific question about Diego Garcia to the noble Lord: Have the Government of Mauritius responded favourably to the suggestion by the United Kingdom that when Diego Garcia is no longer needed for technical purposes it will be handed over to them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Mauritian Government are certainly aware of that position and are content with it.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, the Minister said that the question of the neutralisation of the Indian Ocean is separate, but is it not the case that the reason for its retention separately from Mauritius is its use as an American base? The Minister says that the British would consider the neutralisation. If this Government really believe in world disarmament, as they say they do, can they not take the initiative in this great step?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the fact is that the security situation in that part of the world requires the availability of Diego Garcia and its facilities to maintain our security and peace. Unilaterally to proceed along the lines that the noble Lord suggests would be most unwise.

EEC Sheepmeat Régime and Trade
2.42 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: 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 has been the effect of the introduction of the European Community's sheepmeat régime on trade with other member states of the Community and with third countries.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the United Kingdom's exports of sheep and sheepmeat have been substantially reduced since the introduction of the régime, mainly because of the clawback charge, and we have made strong representations about this to the Commission. As a result, we have secured exemption from clawback for our exports to countries outside the Community until 31st March next year. Exports to Belgium and Germany have fallen since 20th

391
October, but those to France have increased. Trade to third countries has virtually ceased, but should recover under the new arrangement.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, in thanking the Minister very much for that reply, may I say that I am delighted that he has managed to get some alteration in the clawback for other countries. May I hope that the Minister of Agriculture, in the process of further discussions, will be able to increase that to include the European countries?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her observations. It is our desire—and we have stressed this upon the Commission—that alleviation should be made over the transport part of the clawback charge for trade with members within the Community. May I remind my noble friend that although this was one of the disadvantages of the régime which we have come up against, the régime has enabled France to keep the system of intervention that she likes, it has enabled the United Kingdom to keep the variable premium which we like, it has kept the price to consumers low and allowed the price to producers to go up, and has prevented anything from going into intervention and has all been funded by FEOGA.
Lord Hawke: My Lords, is it not the case that whatever the complications of the sheepmeat régime may be, at least it has enabled the British consumer to buy British sheepmeat at a reasonable price and cheaper than imported New Zealand meat?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hawke is right. It is interesting to note that in November of last year the retail price of sheepmeat was 133p per pound and that this year it is 129p a pound. That means that the price to the consumer has gone down substantially; and I am sure that all noble Lords will be grateful for that.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, would my noble friend consider whether it would be possible for exporters to deduct the price of their exporting from the clawback they have to pay to the EEC?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this is one of the points that my right honourable friend the Minister is taking up with the Commission. He is hoping to get the Commission to agree to that, but so far they have not done so.

The Disabled: Improvement of Services
2.52 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: 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 steps they have taken to help the position of the disabled.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, despite the restraints on public expenditure, the Government have been able to introduce a range of significant improvements in benefits and services for disabled people. As the economy improves, we shall be able to do more.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that encouraging reply, may I ask him whether he could identify the areas of major contributions that the Government have made over the past 18 months?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: Well, my Lords, out of a long list of examples of help that we have given to disabled people f would suggest a few: VAT was removed from the purchase price of "motability" cars; important concessions were made in the 1980 Budget in favour of donations to charity which will undoubtedly help disabled people; substantial help with fuel costs has been provided; three new series of high-powered hearing aids are now available; and recipients of supplementary benefit can, from the 24th of last month, qualify for the long-term rate after one year instead of two years, provided that they are not required to register for work. There are many others.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that I am sure that the Government will be very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for asking this Question and giving the Government an opportunity of saying something that is reasonably helpful in our society at the present moment? Are the noble Lord and the Government aware that the disabled are among the weakest and most needy groups in the community? It is not so much the financial benefits which they are receiving—which is of great importance—but the fact that so many of them need aids to get from one part of the house to another. It is now taking a long time to get these. Would it not be in the interests of the disabled if the Government attached a little more importance to seeing that the physical aids which the disabled need are provided instead of having to wait, as many of them do, an interminable time?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that, although there has been a restriction on building, adaptations for disabled people are given high priority, and the Government have made this very clear to local authorities.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as we are approaching 1981, which is the International Year for the Disabled, will my noble friend confirm that Her Majesty's Government will be making a significant contribution of which the nation can be proud towards helping the disabled in that year? Will he also confirm that his original Answer includes help given to the mentally handicapped, and to what extent?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I am not sure that I can answer the last part of the noble Lord's question. So far as the International Year for the Disabled is concerned, the Government are subsidising

393
and helping the groups in each of the four countries in the United Kingdom. They expect most of the action on this International Year for the Disabled to be taken by voluntary organisations, and they are supporting those voluntary organisations.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when spot checks have been made in the past on the employment of disabled persons by local authorities and public bodies—including some of the largest local authorities—they have been found to employ fewer than the statutory quota of disabled persons? One of the major contributions that the Government could make is in monitoring the performance of all public bodies and urging them to fulfil their duties in this respect.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, there is a certain complication about this matter of the quota, which is supposed to be 3 per cent. for employees of all organisations employing more than 20 people. Unfortunately, over the years recently many disabled people have not registered and many disabled people do not like the stigma of being known as disabled people and also do not see any particular advantage in registering. So the figures are better than they look. In fact there is monitoring of this quota scheme being carried out by the Manpower Services Commission at the moment.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, is the Minister in a position to say how much money the Government are proposing to make available to help the various organisations to which he made reference a moment or two ago to plan the International Year for the Disabled, and to help them to undertake some of the essential things which require to be done during that year?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I begin to feel that this really should have been an Unstarred Question rather than a Starred Question. We were really talking about what the Government have done and not what they will be doing in the future.
Lord Rhodes: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the growing disparity between awards given in civil courts for disablement and the awards given by the Government for disablement which occurs as a result of service in Her Majesty's forces?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I am very sorry, but I did not get the drift of the noble Lord's question.
Lord Rhodes: My Lords, may I draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that there is a growing disparity between awards given in civil courts as distinct from awards given by Government for disablement in Her Majesty's Government's forces? Is that plain, my Lords?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I fully understand the noble Lord's question, but I am afraid I cannot answer it.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, will the noble Lord say whether or not it is correct that consideration is being given to closing the 27 rehabilitation centres which are at present training some 7,500 disabled persons? If it is correct, will the noble Lord appreciate that this is a move that will be deplored?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I know that that matter is being looked into. I understand that it is possible that in the North-East the number of centres will be reduced from three to two, but it is under consideration at the moment.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he is saying that the Government have not yet made up their minds as to how much money they are going to give in order to make our contribution, as a United Kingdom, to the International Year for the Disabled? The previous Government made a substantial contribution financially when we had the International Year of the Child. The noble Lord, Lord Soames, indicates that it was a very small amount; as I understand it, this Government are not going to do anything.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I am very sorry, but I am afraid that I cannot answer that question. I am not prepared for it and I do not know the answer.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government have taken any steps to make further education more accessible for the disabled, where they are at a great disadvantage? Also, have the Government considered making some of the grants for courses that disabled people take mandatory rather than discretionary?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: No, my Lords. I do not think I can answer that question.

Woodhead Tunnel Route (BR)
2.51 p.m.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I wish to apologise for an error that has appeared. The name of the tunnel concerned is Woodhead, and not Wardhead as appears on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any information on the proposed closure by British Rail of the Woodhead tunnel line between Manchester and Sheffield and what possibilities exist for a public inquiry to be held on the matter.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the British Railways Board announced on 7th October that they had decided to withdraw freight services from the Manchester/Sheffield/Wath line—that is the Woodhead tunnel route—from 1st June 1981. Since only freight services are involved, ministerial consent is not required to the closure, and there is no provision for a public inquiry.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for those facts. Is he aware that not many years ago British Rail went to vast expense boring a completely new tunnel through the Pennines at that site, electrifying it and laying track that would take wagons with European containers? The line is also used as a detour when other tunnels through the Pennines are under repair. Finally, if it is absolutely decided beyond all question that the line must be closed, is it possible that the track can remain, together with the electrification equipment, so that the line can be reactivated in the future?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the system of electrification on the Woodhead route is already outdated; it was actually put in in the early 1950s. I am informed that there has been no expense on the tunnel, other than routine expense, since that time. As the electrification is now outdated it is in need of renewal, and this would cost about £23 million. It is in view of this that the Railways Board have decided on the closure of this route, which will save them some £2·5 million a year; and I believe that this is the best option.
Viscount Sidmouth: My Lords, can the noble Earl the Minister say whether the decision to abandon the line between Sheffield and Wath indicates that all hope has been given up of recovering the traffic which caused this line to be opened as recently as the 1950s?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, if I heard the noble Viscount right, he said Sheffield and Wath. This has nothing to do with the Hadfield/Penistone line about which the Question is asked.
Viscount Sidmouth: With respect, my Lords, that is the section of line which contains the Woodhead tunnel between Sheffield and Wath.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have a map in front of me and there is a lovely station called Hadfield, another called Penistone, and another called Wath, which is where the Woodhead tunnel is. You then turn right for Rotherham to get to Sheffield. With all respect to the noble Viscount, I do not think he is correct.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, in view of possible further closures on the railway system, can my noble friend confirm that in each case there will be a public inquiry before any closure takes place?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the answer to that is that when a passenger service is affected there is a public inquiry. When a freight service is affected there is not a public inquiry.

Business
2.55 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend the Foreign and Commonwealth
396
Secretary will repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the European Council meeting.
It may also be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time. This has been arranged in view of the very long list of speakers for the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Cathcart, and I very much hope that as many noble Lords as possible will take advantage of this facility.

Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Bill [H.L.]
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bellwin, I beg to introduce a Bill to make amendments relating to the winning and working of minerals in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

Trees (Replanting and Replacement) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Somers: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to oblige local authorities to plant trees in their areas to replace trees felled or destroyed by them; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Lord Somers.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

Sound Broadcasting: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting:

Cathcart, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Phillips, B.

Winstanley, L.

That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time;
That two be the quorum of the committee;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have power to join with any Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting that may be appointed by the Commons;
That the committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a chairman for any joint meeting.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Personal Bills: Select Committee
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on Personal Bills be appointed, to which all petitions for Personal Bills shall stand referred; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the committee:

Cross of Chelsea, L.

Hampton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Teviot, L.

Wilberforce, L.

—(Lord Aberdare.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Defence
2.57 p.m.
Earl Cathcart Earl Cathcart rose to call attention to the vital importance of the United Kingdom maintaining a full defence capability both at home and abroad; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I do not think that we should begin our debate on defence this afternoon without first paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, whose death last Friday we all regret and to whose service, both to the country and to the Commonwealth, we all owe so much. He had a very varied career, with a wide range of interests and activities. After long and distinguished service as a regular soldier, which included being ADC to Lord Wavell and being in Ord-Wingate's expeditions in Burma with the Chindits, it was in fitting recognition of his devotion to his regiment that in 1969 he should have been appointed Colonel of the Black Watch. But we must also recall that, in later life, he became Governor-General of New Zealand and also Lord High Commissioner of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Chancellor of St. Andrew's University and chairman of the British Council. Throughout his career he was a very distinguished author, not least of military history. He will be a great loss to your Lordships' House.
This debate comes at a time of great instability and world tension, when there is a clear need for this country to maintain a full defence capability, both at home and abroad. The importance of this debate is borne out by the large number of noble Lords who have put down their names to speak. Some of my noble friends who are taking part in this debate have agreed to deal with certain specific aspects of defence, rather than try to cover the whole range of this very large subject in one speech. By this means, we hope to keep our speeches short, while still doing justice to the subject as a whole.
If each speech averages 12 minutes, I calculate that
398
my noble friend the Minister will rise, by leave, to reply at 9.45, excluding time spent on the Statement. If that is so, I believe your Lordships will agree that we shall have given reasonable attention to this important subject today. If, however, the average length of your Lordships' speeches is increased by three minutes to 15 minutes each, he will not be able to rise until 11.30, excluding the Statement, and I think your Lordships will agree that we shall have done more than justice to the subject this afternoon.
There are three reasons why we need to debate defence matters today. First, there is the ever-growing size and strength of the Soviet forces on land, sea and air and in nuclear weapons, both tactical and strategic. Russia spends 14 per cent. of her gross national product on her armed forces, which even at this moment are deployed in action in at least one theatre of operations, if not more, and in no way in a situation of self-defence.
Secondly, inflation leaves its mark on all forms of national expenditure and this applies equally to defence. There is anxiety as to whether we can afford to continue spending such large sums on defence even though the need to do so does not appear to grow less. Can we afford to be in the "first eleven" on the Continent and at the same time to protect our sea routes? Can we afford the nuclear deterrent or should we simply provide our full defence capability within NATO in those spheres for which we are best suited? These anxieties are heightened by the Government's recent forecast decision to cut defence spending by £200 million. The third reason for this debate is the decision of the Socialist Party Conference at Blackpool to adopt a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament while still remaining in NATO and to ban the basing of American nuclear weapons in this country.
We shall almost certainly have to wait until next year's defence White Paper to learn what economies will have to be made to save the £200 million. One must hope that the cuts are only temporary measures. If they fall purely on domestic items, such as new buildings or savings in heating and light, then I am sure the reasons will be appreciated by the servicemen themselves, and indeed there will be relief that the services are playing their part in helping to overcome our present difficulties of recession. But there is anxiety that it will affect the operational efficiency of the armed forces. Already one hears of shortages of spare parts and the limitations on the use of petrol. Driving instruction is being curtailed and flying time for training pilots is greatly limited, just to give two examples. If we place our operational capability in doubt we cast doubts on our will to defend ourselves and we lose a major deterrent effect.
When we speak of "the deterrent" we are all inclined to think only of the nuclear deterrent, but of course the ability to deter is not the exclusive prerogative of nuclear weapons, although they are the ultimate in deterrents and almost certainly the most decisive. A sound home defence structure, for example, is also a vital deterrent in itself, and this must include the security of people and key buildings, air defence, protection against subversion and civil defence. To be effective deterrents, they must be seen to exist.
Many people have doubts about the policy of dual basing and our ability to mobilise and apply our

399
reserves and territorial units to their battle stations with the British Army of the Rhine during a period of rising tension leading to all-out war. For this reason the recent Exercise Crusader and the practice call-up of reservists a weekend or two ago were watched with interest because they show that we are determined that these two problems shall be overcome, and that in itself is a deterrrent. I hope that both these matters will be referred to in some detail in next year's defence White Paper.
To turn now to the Labour Party's decision on defence policy, taken at Blackpool, the decision means that the Labour Party, if returned to power, would not only scrap our existing British nuclear weapons but would also ban the positioning of American nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom. This would greatly weaken our contribution to NATO. But supposing Western Europe, including the United Kingdom, were threatened by aggression and the United States, as a member of NATO, tried to deter that aggression by the threatened use of its own nuclear weapons, would a Labour Government accept that protection or would they then withdraw from NATO? Perhaps if Western Europe was threatened by aggression, France who signed the North Atlantic Treaty, might join forces with the West and also attempt to deter the aggressor by the threatened use of her nuclear weapons.
NATO cannot defend itself against Russia by attempting to match the military strength of the Warsaw Pact countries. They must depend on the threat of use of nuclear weapons. NATO, which is a defensive alliance of collective security, needs the deterrent effect of the nuclear weapons to deter aggression from ever occurring. I believe it is a sounder and safer policy if nuclear weapons are possessed by two, or, in the case of France, three member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation rather than just by America.
When France left NATO and ceased to play any further part in its peacetime infrastructure it seriously damaged the defence posture of the alliance, and NATO cannot be weakened further at this juncture. Certainly we should like to see the bomb banned. Certainly we should like to be able to negotiate disarmament but, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, said last week in your Lordships' House, we must be patient; we must make full use of the existing fora of disarmament in order to achieve this most difficult target. If the bomb is to be banned and disarmament effective it cannot be achieved by the example of one nation alone; it can only be done by negotiation, and we cannot approach the conference table with any certainty of success if we have already effected the greater part of that disarmament by our own unilateral action.
I hope the message that will go forth from this debate will be that we continue to support NATO fully and in all its aspects of collective security; that we continue to maintain the balance of power, including the allocation of our nuclear weapons to NATO, while at the same time making it clear that if we receive a clear indication from Russia to discuss gradual disarmament of the two opposing pacts we shall always be very ready to join those discussions.
400
My Lords, I see that I am just inside my 12 minutes! I beg to move for Papers.
3.9 p.m.
Lord Peart: My Lords, first may I endorse the tribute which the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, paid to the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae. "Fergie", as he was known to many of us, was a distinguished author, a distinguished soldier and a remarkable man. I first met him in New Zealand when he was Governor General and we have been friends ever since. He was a kindly man, a brave man. He experienced tragedy when his wife was killed in an unfortunate accident and I do not think he ever really got over it. He was a great man, so I join 100 per cent. in the warm tribute that the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, paid today.
To turn to other matters, the noble Earl mentioned the views of the Labour Party, but I am going to leave that to my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa to reply to later because I believe that my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham answered it admirably when he wound up the debate the other day.
This is a debate on defence and I think we can all endorse the words of the gracious Speech. Indeed, I pay tribute to the two movers in what was virtually a defence day. I am thinking of the two proposers of the Motion who spoke admirably. However, I wish to deal with some policy aspects. First, I should like to say that I think we can become too much involved ad nauseam (if I may use that phrase) about whether or not one is a multilateralist or a unilateralist. To be quite frank, I have always believed in adequate defence. I believe that we should achieve disarmament by multilateral means, if we are going to do so. I would not accept a policy which would give carte blanche to a complete removal of the strength of our country. That is my view and I know that my noble friend will endorse it.
Indeed, my party as a whole over the years has provided many fine Ministers. For example, my noble friend Lord Shinwell was Minister for Defence. There have been many fine Foreign Secretaries like Ernest Bevin. All of them gave strength to the organisation that was created in Europe; namely, NATO. So, it would be very wrong if noble Lords sought to attack us for our attitude. We have always supported NATO and we believe that that is the right forum for most decisions to be taken in.
The Prorogation speech states:
"My Government attach the highest importance to ensuring the security of the nation and the maintenance of peace. They have played a leading role within the North Atlantic Alliance to ensure that the defence capability of the West is such as to deter any would-be aggressor. British defences have been strengthened and action has been taken to improve the morale of the armed forces".
It goes on to say:
"My Government have taken steps to maintain the effectiveness of Britain's nuclear deterrent into the 1990s and beyond. Realistic, balanced and verifiable arms control measures have been sought in the Committee on Disarmament and in other negotiations".
I basically endorse that. I do not think that this is a party issue. So, today's debate is important. As I have said, we can argue ad nauseam about unilateral and multilateral disarmament. But I recognise the sincerity of those who disagree with that approach.

401
After all, in my own party there are strands of Christian socialism—people who genuinely believe that they should not kill—and there are others who feel that arms can merely tempt people to have conflict. I disagree with that view and that is why, as I said earlier, I believe that it is right and proper that we should have a defence system coming under NATO and that we should make our contribution to the alliance in Europe.
I should like to ask one or two questions on many matters affecting defence, matters which may seem humdrum but which are really important from the point of view of our defence capability. We are committed to NATO, but when I think of the running-down of our railways which the Government have undertaken, I remember the part that the railways played in the last war as regards the important matter of getting goods and services to distant parts of the country. I understand that there is even a suggestion of selling off some railways. That affects inevitably the transport system which, in a period of crisis, is so important, as it was in the last conflagration.
What about the steel industry? I remember chiding noble Lords opposite about this matter. It is a key industry which is essential to the armaments industry. What are the Government doing? They are running down steel production. That, in the end, will harm the power strength of our nation as regards the armaments and the weaponry which we build. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Soames, that, as head of the Civil Service, he is responsible for the industrial Civil Service—the dockyards employing men and women who make a valuable contribution to any defence effort. I believe that at times their morale has been bad and that perhaps all parties have been to blame. However, when we discuss defence we are really discussing not just soldiers, but the skilled men in factories, ordnance factories and other institutions.
I have said that transport is essential. I believe that the attack on the steel industry will harm our armaments production. I should also like to ask about commodities. There was an interesting article in the Guardian the other day which dealt with metal production and minerals. The article says:
"The Materials Forum was set up in 1978–79 by a group of professional institutions concerned with metallurgical science and metals-using industries".
In other words:
"It reflected a growing anxiety about the availability of metals [to us], some of them of critical importance to the future of British industry "—
and important as regards defence. The article continues:
"The Materials Forum has just produced its first annual report. It summarises the proceedings of a number of conferences at which expert authorities analysed the dependence of industrial nations on imported metals. A number of countries, among them the UK, are totally dependent on a number of key so-called strategic metals.
"France, Germany, Japan and the US have identified their strategic metals, and have been creating stockpiles. As for the UK, the Materials Forum reports: 'In the UK little attempt has been made to identify strategic metals'".
I cannot understand why there has been such a lack, and I would like the Minister who is to reply to deal with this very problem because it is a key problem. These metals are essential to our weaponry, and indeed
402
to the development of our tanks, ships and other defence matters. So I would remind noble Lords of the importance of this. The article goes on:
"Sir Alan Cottrell, a former chief scientific adviser to the Government, is quoted as saying at a conference: 'As regards specifically assessing the assurance of future materials supplies, this country is largely sailing blind today'".
That really is a terrible thing to say. We should be strong in that regard because it is essential to the building-up of our defence organisation.
To move to another matter, I believe that we should also ask the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, who is to reply, what is the present position in relation to the armed forces. Is there to be a limit of 6 per cent. as regards their pay? I should like the noble Lord to spell it out in his reply. It is a very important matter, which of course, affects morale.
I have always argued that, if we are to have a proper defence policy, then in the modern world we must have allies in Europe. I believe that one of the best allies that we still have is Helmut Schmidt, who I am certain is anxious to play his part to ensure that we shall not have a battlefield in Europe, but will have peace. I believe that Helmut Schmidt has shown great vision. I hope that the British Cabinet will support him in everything that he has done so far. I think that he has been a credit. I believe that he does not want his Germany to be a battlefield for the two super powers of the United States and the USSR. However, I think that he is a realist. He fears that they will maintain their territorial sovereignty and might not use the inter-continental ballistic missiles against each other after they see the effects of the devastation of Europe.
Russia might be needing a move towards détente in Europe. Overspending of their GDP on armaments by the Soviet Union has resulted in consumer dissatisfaction even in the satellite countries like Poland and at home. The economies of the Comintern countries have also been affected by recession. We must not assume that all is strength there. The question of defence and interests in the Middle East and the China border are among the other problems which affect these countries in a very important way. Therefore, we ourselves can play our part in really seeking allies in Europe, strengthening men like Helmut Schmidt and the German people, and having a European forum which deals with defence matters—in other words, we should still pursue NATO and also continue in the way that I have suggested. I think that that is a reasonable approach.
So in this debate, in which we are to limit our speeches—I said that I would limit mine to 10 minutes and I think that I have spoken for 10 minutes—please do not let us have party claptrap; let us deal with the essential issues—those which I have mentioned. If we do that, then this debate will be well worth while.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I also would like to pay my tribute to that splendid Scot, Lord Ballantrae, who was, as I think, one of the great personalities of this House. My own most endearing recollection of him will be, as I thought, his incomparable mastery of the English language and his unfailing wit. We shall all miss him very deeply.

403
A week ago when I reproached the Labour Party for apparently—and I repeat the word "apparently"—hoisting the white flag alongside the red, I was upbraided by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, who said that I had not been in politics for very long—in fact it is about 15 years, I think—that I might not therefore know that party political decisions could be reversed; that anyhow the Liberal Party was just as divided as the Labour Party on this issue. Well, I have been long enough in politics to understand that decisions are always taken by majority vote. So I maintain that whereas the Labour Party by a large majority is for the moment at least in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament, the Liberal Party by a considerable majority is not. That is not to say that a Liberal minority is not in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament; indeed many Liberals are, and I think I am right in saying you will hear a Liberal spokesman for this school of thought later in the debate. Nor would I deny for a moment that if you are a pacifist—that is to say, somebody who would refuse to fight in any circumstances—it is a perfectly logical, indeed necessary, attitude to adopt. I think the noble Lord, Lord Peart, said this in his remarks. What I do resolutely maintain, alongside the Liberal majority, is that, unless you are a pacifist, approval of unilateral nuclear disarmament is highly dangerous and probably fatal, because as I tried to demonstrate last time, and certainly will not try to do so again, adoption of such a policy by the Government of this country would inevitably involve the disruption of NATO and the consequent placing of Western Europe at the mercy of the Soviet Union.
So let us assume, God willing, that we do not have a Government so committed in a few years' time, but rather a Government which, pending successful negotiations for disarmament and the limitation of armaments, are resolved to defend the country to the best of their ability. If so, the guiding principle, surely, must be that this country, whatever the sacrifices, is prepared, if necessary, to fight and is not simply relying for its safety on a deterrent, so-called, which, though it could well deter the use of nuclear weapons by the adversary and is therefore essential for that specific purpose, could not by itself be relied on to deter, still less to counter, any determined conventional assault. For the first kind of deterrent, that is to say the nuclear deterrent, however, we must, I believe, on the assumption that NATO survives, rely primarily on the Americans. For the second—namely, the deterrent to conventional war—we must to a large degree, surely, rely on ourselves. It follows that for any kind of safety we must not spend many billions of pounds on the first but rather on the second, and if we can afford the one, as the Government say, then we can certainly afford the other.
Supposing, therefore, that the Government go back on their provisional Trident decision and decide to spend the money, or much of it, on improving our conventional defences. What might they then profitably do? As I see it, much of the £500 million extra for defence each year during the next 10 years, which we are going to spend—or preferably, I would think, an extra £1,000 million for the next five years—which
404
comes to much the same thing, should be devoted to increasing and maintaining the stocks of conventional armaments of all sorts held in support of the British Army on the Rhine, which at the moment, as I understand it, are in fairly poor shape, indeed dangerously so. After that, a considerable sum should be reserved for the inevitable extra cost of any new weapons that may come into service during this period, since it is an unfortunate fact that they usually increase by two or three times after the order has been placed until they become available. This would especially apply to any new anti-tank or anti-aircraft weapons and devices, to say nothing of possible replacements for the Harrier and the Jaguar aircraft.
Next—this is quite an important point—for as long as our voluntary system continues we must presumably put by extra money for attracting suitable recruits out of a diminishing total number available in a few years time. And, lastly, if there is still a bonus, and I think there might well still be, we can suitably produce more vessels for the Navy and for the protection of our sea lanes generally, and more especially for the oil rigs in the North Sea. All this could almost certainly be done for less money than it would take to produce the renewed strategic nuclear deterrent, the expense of which will, of course, increase from year to year.
It is naturally evident that if such a policy is going to make the Russians think twice about engaging in war in the event of some crisis arising in the Middle East or elsewhere, it should in a general way be adopted by our allies as well. Is there any chance of this happening or moving in that direction? As I understand it, the Foreign Secretary would be well advised to get our European colleagues at least to consider taking some steps towards it by arranging to give some political direction to the "Independent European Programme Group", which for the past five years or so and in default of any such direction has been more or less languishing in Rome. What is clearly wanted here is that the Ministers of Defence of the nine, soon to be the ten, or such of them as wanted to do so, should occasionally meet with the Foreign Ministers in order to consider what should now be done in a general way. If one or more of the nine refused to join in, that would not matter very greatly. They would not leave NATO as a result.
In any case, some common European effort in this direction, in the direction of the production of the necessary modern defensive weapons, would take place, after all, in the context of the North Atlantic alliance, and would hence, I think, be greatly welcomed by the Americans. Anyhow, since such development would be outside the Treaty of Rome, there would be no legal objection to it, and even some legal justification, for the Ministers of Defence who might meet would probably be those representing countries already members of the Western European Union, a body which, after all, still exists and even from time to time passes meaningful resolutions.
The main point is that unless we can persuade our peoples that Western Europe must and can be defended by conventional means, which admittedly must involve some additional effort, but which I believe is perfectly possible, in spite of what the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, said—for, after all, we can defend ourselves conven-

405
tionally against very great conventional superiority and it is quite possible to have a conventional defence which would make sense without any very great expense—unless, in other words, we can give the impression that we can defend ourselves conventionally against the Russians, the spirit of defeatism and surrender, which is now making progress in many of our countries, more especially among young people, may well gain the upper hand. That would result in the departure of the Americans, who would then proceed, as the isolationists have always wanted, to organise what is called "Fortress America". I am afraid in the long run nothing is more likely than that to result in general nuclear war.
When I last spoke I was so rash as to intervene in an apparent struggle between the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and his conscience. The noble Earl was arriving at his conclusion—a very proper conclusion I think as such—that there were circumstances in which the British Government would be morally entitled to use nuclear weapons. At that stage I ventured to inquire whether such circumstances would include their possible use on a first strike, and I asked this because ever since the Russians achieved nuclear parity, and even superiority, it has always struck me that such action, using nuclear weapons on a first strike, if not morally indefensible, would be practically suicidal.
This is surely not a technical point, as the noble Earl suggested; it is a very real issue that is posed. As I see it, the reason for the possession of nuclear weapons is to deter their use or the threat of their use by other Governments, and in practice by the Soviet Government, and not to use them when their use, however justified, would undoubtedly result in our total obliteration as a nation.
This is a truth which ought to be accepted and proclaimed if only for the reason that, unless it is done, many of our young people, and perhaps a majority in the country, will conclude that nuclear war is a strong possibility and the only possible course if one is to survive is to become a pacifist—whereas if it were a clear question of fighting and even dying in a conventional war, if necessary, to defend our liberties and our way of life against unprovoked aggression, like the Afghans or conceivably the Poles, most would respond willingly, I believe, to the call of duty. Certainly it would be interesting to know whether, in addition to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, the Bench of Bishops has been addressing itself to the all-important, if philosophically difficult, point of what constitutes a just war in the horrible conditions of the late 20th century, and notably whether it believes that it would be morally right for the leader of this country ever to authorise the use of nuclear weapons on a first strike.
I revert in conclusion to the first premise advanced in my speech last week. The whole point of our defence, which must of course be a collective defence, is to make it abundantly clear to any adversary that no kind of war, whether nuclear or conventional, would be profitable to him. Besides possessing nuclear weapons as a second strike deterrent, the alliance must therefore, as I think, put itself in a position if necessary to wage a successful conventional war; and this it has not yet done though, as I repeat, it easily could.

European Council Meeting
3.32 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Carrington): My Lords, I will, with permission, repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is making in another place about the European Council Meeting which she and I attended in Luxembourg on Monday and Tuesday of this week. A copy of the Council's conclusions has been placed in the Library of the House.
"We were glad that the Greek Prime Minister attended for the first time and we look forward to full Greek participation in the Community from 1st January.
"The first matter we discussed was the tragic earthquake which took place last week in Southern Italy. We expressed our deep sympathy with the victims, and of course agreed that the Community would help financially with the formidable task of reconstruction.
"The Council then turned to the economic problems facing the Community, foremost of which is the rapid increase in unemployment. We were all deeply concerned about the effect of higher oil prices on our own economies and on the economic situation in the world as a whole. We agreed that they are the main cause of the world recession. We noted the particularly serious consequences which any further increase in oil prices would have on the non-oil-producing developing countries.
"We agreed that within the Community reduction in inflation rates and improvement in competitiveness were the most appropriate ways of achieving growth and combating unemployment on a lasting basis. Europe must also have regard to the extent to which the Community has fallen behind in the field of industrial development and innovation. The Council therefore agreed that the institutions of the Community should examine ways of improving incentives to innovation and of making the best use of the Community market. We welcomed the continued use of Community instruments to help reduce structural unemployment, and agreed that special efforts should be made with the training of young people and to assist them to find jobs.
"We agreed to extend the present phase of the European Monetary System. We stressed the importance of the work being done by the independent international financial institutions in dealing with the problems created by higher oil prices.
"We welcomed the decisions taken recently by the Council of Foreign Ministers on trading relations with Japan. These called for a wide-ranging dialogue between the Community and Japan, based on moderation in Japanese exports in certain sensitive sectors; allowing the yen to reflect the fundamental strength of the Japanese economy; and improved access to the Japanese market with the Community being treated no less favourably than other major trading partners.
"I drew attention to the problems created for our chemical and other industries by current American policy on oil and gas prices. I urged strongly that early decisions should be taken on continued access for New Zealand butter. I drew

407
attention to the very slow progress being made on questions such as insurance and air fares where the Community has yet to show its readiness to have freer competition in the service sector.
"In discussion of future problems facing the Community, we recalled the mandate which would fall on the new Commission to produce a report by next June on how the structure of the Community Budget should be changed so as to ensure that unacceptable budgetary situations do not arise again for any member state. The United Kingdom, along with Germany and France, emphasised that this will have to be done not only within the accepted principles of the Community, but also within the 1 per cent. VAT ceiling.
"The Council also discussed foreign policy questions: in particular East-West relations and the Middle East. We were deeply concerned about developments in Eastern Europe and in particular about the position of Poland. We agreed that events there have given a special significance to the language of the Helsinki Final Act about the right of every country to choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural system free from any outside intervention. The Helsinki principles are applicable to all states in all circumstances.
"The nine heads of Government therefore called upon all the signatory states to abide by the Helsinki principles with regard to Poland and the Polish people. They emphasised that any other attitude would have very serious consequences for the future of international relations in Europe and throughout the world. They also expressed their willingness to meet, in so far as their resources allowed, the requests for economic aid which have been made to them by Poland.
"On the Middle East, the Council took stock of the work done since the Declaration which we issued in Venice in June. We decided that the Presidency—which from 1st January will be held by the Netherlands—should conduct the next round of contacts with the parties concerned, with the aim of giving more precision to the main questions at issue: withdrawal, self-determination, security and the future of Jerusalem. Our hope is that the sustained diplomatic activity on which the Nine are now engaged will contribute to a narrowing of the differences between the parties in the Arab-Israeli dispute. Our objective is a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement based on the two principles stated at Venice: security for Israel and recognition of the rights of the Palestinians.
"In discussing these and other foreign policy issues in Luxembourg, the Council was conscious of the gravity of the various crises now facing the world. The heads of Government of the Community are aware that they have both the opportunity and the duty to play a significant role in the search for solutions to these problems. To this end they expressed in their agreed conclusions their determination to ensure that the unity of Europe was strengthened, and its voice heard."
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, the House would wish to thank the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary
408
for coming down to the Chamber to make this important Statement. One is interested in the reference to the attendance of the Greek Prime Minister, albeit in the position of art observer at the present moment, and one wonders whether the Community is seriously engaged in studying the implications of the adhesion to the Community at an early date of three largely agricultural countries—Spain, Portugal and Greece—with a view to making the necessary adjustments, especially in the area of the common agricultural policy.
We very much welcome the reference to the tragic occurrences in Southern Italy and the agreement in the Community to help financially as a group in the formidable task of reconstruction and of alleviating the terrible suffering of thousands of Italian people in that region. The Government will be very strongly supported by the Opposition in anything they seek to do, and certainly anything they seek to do in co-operation with our partners in the Community in this regard.
The references to the pressing economic problems facing the Western world, and indeed the rest of the world, are more in the nature of taking note of the gravity of developments, especially in unemployment. One would have wished to see a new note of urgency—certainly a suggestion of new initiatives—to tackle what is rapidly becoming a recession which, in magnitude and danger to the structure of the Western world at least, and possibly in danger to the stability of the world as a whole, is possibly without precedent. Apart from deploring the immense rise in unemployment, especially among young people, throughout the countries of Europe and beyond, and deploring the effect of higher oil prices on the third world in particular, is the Community engaged in any concrete initiatives to solve these problems? There is an absence of that sense of urgency and initiative in this part of the Statement and the communiqué.
One is intrigued by the phrase which indicates that the Community is in favour of allowing the yen to reflect the fundamental strength of the Japanese economy. I wonder whether the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary returned with a desire to urge in Cabinet that the pound should be allowed to reflect the reality of the British economic situation. The words of friendly adjuration to the Americans on the question of oil and gas prices—and especially on their implications for the third world—are I think well-pointed and are deserving of repetition. We are glad to see that efforts continue to ensure that there is continued access for New Zealand butter. We have a moral as well as a practical obligation to follow that course, and I welcome the reference to this point in the communiqué.
As to the Middle East, one wonders whether the Community has taken another look at the Camp David decisions and the recommendations flowing therefrom, that as soon as possible there should be free elections on the West Bank so that the true representation of the Palestinian people should be made available by democratic means. That may well be the way in which the well-founded objections of Israel to the inclusion of violent groups in any future conference may be allayed.
Finally, the Statement is positive and strong, which we welcome, on the question of intervention in Poland. It is coupled with an equally strong American statement

409
which was issued last night. I should like to ask whether there was proper consultation between the Americans and the other leaders of the Western world before the two statements were made. I hope that there was. I detract in no way from the strength of this language, which is a clear warning to whoever may be contemplating intervention in Poland that, if they do so, the possible consequences to détente may be fatal. With that goes the imperilling of the success of important discussions, notably SALT 2—to which the American President-elect has indicated he would in certain forms be willing to adhere—the MBFR discussions in Vienna, and, of course, CSE in Madrid. It is a warning that not only would détente be imperilled, but the various instruments of discussion might grind to a halt because the rest of the world would see no point in continuing them. One hopes that whoever is considering interfering in Poland will take these warnings very much to heart.
The stress on the validity of the Helsinki Act is well put. I am not sure whether in the communiqué as distinct from the Statement there is an equal stress on the validity of the United Nations' Charter. All who are concerned with these matters are signatories, not only of the Helsinki Act—which binds them to nonintervention—but also to the United Nations' Charter.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, we, too, should like to thank the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary for repeating this obviously very important Statement, and for giving us an account of what, on the whole, I feel sure was a rather fruitful meeting, in the sense that all the great problems of the day were discussed and investigated at the highest level. I was rather impressed by the emphasis given to the oil situation in this Statement. It says:
"We are all deeply concerned about the effects of higher oil prices on our economies".
I should think so. The other day I attended a meeting of the Atlantic Institute in Paris where some of the greatest experts in the world were speaking on that matter. They made a very great point of saying that if the price of oil is raised in the fairly near future an extremely grave situation will arise. I rather take the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, that it is one thing simply to deplore that, but it is another thing to have some plan for coping with it if it should happen. If it really happens, I suppose that some plan will have to come into operation in the fairly near future—given that there is only a certain amount of oil available—as to who will get what, notably in the Community. It is a terrible problem, but I think that experts are well-advised to give it great attention now. I do not know whether the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary would agree with that, but I hope he would.
Of course we welcome the new structure for the budget. Clearly, that will be a great question in a year or a year and a half's time, and we must try to get the common agricultural policy reviewed in connection with that restructuring. Whether in the long-run it will be possible to do that within the context of the maintenance of 1 per cent. VAT, as is emphasised now by Britain and more particularly by Germany and
410
France, I rather doubt, but that is a question for the future.
For the rest, like the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, we greatly welcome the emphasis put on Poland, and I imagine that behind the scenes again some thought is being given to what we would actually do if the Russians were so rash as to invade that country. It is not evident what we could do in the military sense; probably nothing, as Mr. Luns has said. But there may be other actions that could be taken, and they should be prepared in secret if need be.
Finally, on the Middle East, I think I am right in saying, generally speaking, that there may be a division of opinion between the policy of the Council of Foreign Ministers—of which we Liberals approve—and the new incoming American Administration. It is possible that there may be a real division of opinion there. That is something which must be avoided at all costs. At the very earliest stage I hope that the Community will be in touch with President-elect Reagan in order to discover whether there is not some kind of common ground on a matter about which at the moment we seem to be rather far apart.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords for generally welcoming this Statement, and also for the support they have given to the passage on Poland. I agree with them about the gravity of the situation. It is obvious that if there were an intervention in Poland certain things would inevitably follow, and it would in effect, as has been said on a number of occasions, mean the end of détente, at any rate for a very long period of time.
The noble Lord opposite asked me whether or not we have been talking about enlargement. The Community is very conscious of the problems of enlargement which are taking place at the same time as the restructuring of the budget. I do not think we see any reason why negotiations with Spain and Portugal should not go ahead in parallel with the discussions on the restructuring of the budget, although of course there will have to be a decision about the latter before the former can finally be decided. I am quite sure that it would be wrong, at a time when we seek to reform the com m on agricultural policy, to suggest that the 1 per cent. VAT ceiling should be broken, because I do not believe that there could be any financial discipline on the Community if that were the proposal.
I would only say to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, that if he will read the communiqué he will see that it reflects clearly the sense of urgency that the Community, the heads of Government in the Community, felt about the economic situation, and there are one or two proposals there which I hope very much will help. I do not believe that there is a magic solution to this, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that probably the most important factor which has led to the grave economic situation confronting us all is the rise in the price of oil. We must do everything in our power to persuade the oil producing countries that it is not in their interests to have another increase in the price of oil which will make the situation, at any rate in the short term, very much worse than it is already.

411
Whatever the noble Lord opposite may feel about the value of the pound and whether or not it reflects the British economy, what the value of the pound does is to reflect what other people think of Britain. It is extremely difficult to see what you do about that. He and I may think it is too high, but other people do not. We certainly took into consideration, and have been taking into consideration in the Community, what is happening in Camp David, and of course keeping closely in touch with the United States, although the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, will know that the policy which President-elect Reagan will pursue on the Middle East is not known to us. We do not even know who are the people concerned, but of course we shall keep very closely in touch.
I would only say about the idea on elections that of course we examine all these things, but I think at the moment it would be unlikely that elections could take place. Of course the difficulty about having elections solely concerned with those who live on the West Bank is that there are a great many Palestinians who live outside the West Bank. These are complicated problems which we shall have to go into in greater detail as we go more and more into detail in the European initiative.
Lord Caccia: My Lords, while also welcoming the Statement made by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, may I ask him a particular question? He made some welcome remarks about what Europe felt they could and should do to contribute in regard to the various crises that may occur in the Middle East, or in Europe over Poland. But in speaking earlier about what happened last year over Afghanistan he himself said that he did not think that Europe at that time, at any rate, had the mechanism and the methods for what might be described as crisis management. Is there anything that he could usefully say about the situation as it has developed during this last year?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I made some suggestions about a better mechanism for political co-operation in Europe which are, so to speak, in the machine at the moment and have not come up for discussion by Ministers. There are various proposals in addition to that which are being considered. But I can give the noble Lord the undertaking that the delay which took place in consultation among the nine Foreign Ministers when the invasion of Afghanistan took place on 27th December last year will certainly not take place again in any other eventuality.

Defence
Debate resumed.
3.55 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal): My Lords, before I make my initial response to Lord Cathcart's debate, I must pause for a moment to associate myself and other members of the Government Front Bench with the tributes which have been paid to my old friend Bernard
412
Fergusson, Lord Ballantrae. There can have been few soldiers with a more dashing and distinguished military record; fewer still who have earned a reputation as a writer and a poet. It must surely be unique then to have gone on and become a Maori-speaking Governor General of New Zealand. Those who knew him, and indeed those who did not, will realise that the world will be a poorer place for the lack of his wit, and indeed this is a particularly appropriate occasion for us to pay tribute to him. I have no doubt that he would have made a valuable and witty contribution to this debate had he still been with us.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, I intend, with the permission of the House, to touch upon three particular elements of Government defence policy at this stage, and then later, with the leave of the House, I shall do my best to answer some of the specific points raised during the course of the debate, although I cannot promise to do so when there is such an extensive list of speakers.
There is a growing interest in this country at large about nuclear weapons and particularly about our decision to buy the Trident system from America. I heartily approve of this trend and it is one which we in the Government wish to encourage and to stimulate. There is a tendency for the unilateralist lobby to catch the attention because they seem, anyway to the uninformed eye, to have the more attractive and indeed seductive case. We all agree that nuclear weapons are horrible. Of course we all hope that they will never be used. Perhaps we wish that they did not exist. But they do exist, we cannot just "disinvent" them, and we have to find a way of preserving our safety when potential enemies have nuclear weapons.
During the foreign affairs and defence debate last week the noble Earl, Lord Longford, posed the question: "Is the possession of nuclear weapons morally tolerable?" His answer was, "Yes, so long as they are needed to defend the way of life of our people". I entirely agree with that. The noble Earl dismissed the suggestion that one can evade the moral issue by Jetting the Americans do the job for us, and I agree with the noble Earl on that point too. But the noble Earl's dismissal of the moral case for relying on the Americans disguised a most important question which is at the heart, or at least at the heart of part, of the unilateralism debate.
We must first of all accept that this country is part of an alliance dedicated to the defence of common vital interests. That alliance perceives a threat from the Soviet bloc which includes the threat of nuclear warfare. I have to repeat that our policy is to deter, but deterrence must be across a very broad spectrum running from diplomatic activity, through the use of conventional weapons to resist an attack, to ultimate willingness to release theatre nuclear weapons and strategic nuclear weapons. It can be argued that the rest of the alliance can safely shelter beneath the American nuclear umbrella in providing the nuclear end of the spectrum. This Government have total confidence in the United States' commitment to the defence of Europe, but—and this is the significant point so often overlooked by the unilateralists—it is not how

413
we view the alliance which matters, but how the Russians view it; it is the Russian perception of our strategy which dictates whether or not it deters.
It is possible that the Russians might consider gambling, however mistakenly, that if they attacked Europe, the United States would stand aside. But because the United Kingdom has a nuclear deterrent, the Russians have also to take account of those forces in considering their gamble. This considerably reduces the chances of their miscalculating and so we believe immeasurably strengthens deterrence. And this is not just the view of the United Kingdom. The value which our allies place on the contribution to deterrence of our nuclear forces was reaffirmed only a few weeks ago in the communiqué from NATO's nuclear planning group. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has spoken on several occasions about this issue and I hazard the guess that he will do so again today. The gist of his argument is that he cannot conceive of a British Government using nuclear weapons at a time when the United States were not doing so. Thus, the possession of weapons which will not be used is a waste of money. But as I have said to the noble and gallant Lord before—and I say it to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, now—this argument ignores the perception from Moscow. What I must say to noble Lords who argue this line is that I hope the Russians do not have the same perception as they have. If they did, our deterrence would be weakened.
I do not intend to set out the circumstances in which I can conceive of our using nuclear weapons. But I can say to the House that I believe that the second centre of decision-making in London is a real and valid one, and I am sure the Russians think so too. Britain's nuclear forces have never absorbed a large part of our defence resources. The Trident programme at its peak is likely to absorb only about 5 per cent. of the armament budgets, thanks particularly to the favourable terms we have been able to agree with the United States. No other use of the resources involved in procuring the Trident system would, we believe, add so much to deterrence.
This leads me on to the way in which we allocate our resources within defence and to the question of the levels of the defence budget. Noble Lords will be aware from the announcement last week that next year's defence spending plan is to be reduced by £200 million. The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, in introducing the debate referred to the threat and I do not think I need elaborate on it. The decision that there must now be some temporary restraint—and I assure noble Lords that it is intended to be a temporary restraint—in the rate of increase in defence spending was not an easy one for the Government to take. But we must not lose sight of the fact that there will still be real increases in defence spending. The Government remain wholly committed to the task of restoring and maintaining the nation's defences at an adequate level. It is, however, of crucial importance that we should overcome our deep-seated economic problems to permit sustainable growth in defence spending over the longer term. The Government are convinced that restraint in public expenditure is a vital element in the conquest of inflation and it is simply not realistic to insulate defence totally from this objective.
However, I must emphasise again that there will still
414
be increases in defence spending, and the Government continue to adhere to the NATO aim of real growth in the region of 3 per cent. a year. We have made a good start. The 3 per cent. target was met in full last year, our first in office. This year and next year we now expect growth of around 2½ per cent. and we sincerely trust that economic circumstances will permit resumption of a full 3 per cent. growth after that. To achieve these levels, despite the economic difficulties, and when we already spend a higher proportion of our national income on defence than any other European ally, is, I think it fair to say, ample proof that Britain is playing her full part in the alliance.
But just as important as the absolute amount of money included within the defence budget is the way in which it is spent. Our aim is not simply more defence but better defence as well, and the tight restraint on expenditure means that all our spending must be subject to the most rigorous scrutiny. As noble Lords will be aware, we have already conducted a number of specific studies to look for ways of streamlining and improving defence administration. These have included studies under ministerial chairmanship into supply management, the Royal Dockyards and the research and development establishments, and I am currently chairing a study group into the future of the Royal Ordnance factories.
I hope it will not sound like a platitude if I say that our most important resource is manpower, the men and women who make up the armed forces. One of our first acts in Government was to fulfil our commitment to restore comparability for service pay. In April this year we maintained that comparability and we intend to do the same again next April. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, will be glad to hear that. We have also been looking carefully at other desirable improvements in conditions of service. We had, for example, hoped to introduce an assisted house purchase scheme for the Army and the RAF, and to extend the existing one in the Navy. It is now clear that we cannot give the necessary priority to this to justify the funds in the next financial year, and the scheme has been postponed. We also had in mind a scheme for selling married quarters to servicemen at a discount. Of course, our married quarters are not directly comparable to council housing. Also, we need to be selective in choosing which quarters are surplus and can therefore be disposed of.
Nevertheless, we had hoped to set up a parallel arrangement to that introduced by the Housing Act. But such sales at a discount would involve a significant loss of receipts to the defence budget. That in turn would mean that other higher priority projects would have to be forgone. So that scheme, too, has been postponed. We are also taking a critical look at the allowances payable to servicemen living overseas, to ensure that these compensate adequately, but not over-generously, for the extra cost of living which they have to meet.
But, my Lords, the important point is pay. I am sure that our commitment to comparability has been a major factor in restoring confidence and morale among servicemen—as well as, I may add, the reiteration of the importance that we attach to these servicemen in debates such as that taking place in this House today. The manning levels in all the three

415
armed services are continuing to improve, I am happy to say. With only one exception, 1979–80 was the best year for recruiting since the ending of conscription, and the current financial year looks as if it will be even better. Moreoever—and perhaps even more importantly—the number of men staying in the services is also improving, and the massive outflow of trained personnel experienced by the services over the years before we entered office has been largely staunched; and this is a record that I think we can be proud of.
I have said on many occasions that one of the important factors in ensuring the right conditions for servicemen is the provision of the right equipment. I do not propose to talk now about specific equipment issues, though I shall at the end of the debate do my best to try to answer any specific points which noble Lords raise. What I should like to do is to spend a few minutes on an aspect of defence equipment to which we wish to pay increasing attention: that is the question of defence sales.
First, some simple facts to get the issues in proportion. Our exports of defence equipment represent about 5 per cent. of the world market. Our share has declined in recent years, and we have been overtaken by the French. Our small market share means that our influence is limited; and in practical terms, if we decline a potential sale, perhaps out of moral scruple, there are almost always others who are only too happy to take the business. There is another point of principle: If we are to assert the right of a country to defend itself, then surely there is a case for not denying that country the material with which to carry out that defence.
At £1,200 million a year defence sales represent but 2 per cent. of total United Kingdom exports. We believe that we must do more. The contribution to employment, the reduction in our own costs which longer production runs can produce, the civil sales which often follow defence sales—all these are valuable benefits. But perhaps most importantly, the trading and the personal relationships that so often accompany defence sales lead to a mutual understanding and trust, the potential influence and value of which, however intangible, is difficult to overstate.
But to catalogue the potential gains is not to deny the difficulties. There are political problems attached to some potential defence sales. I have been criticised in the House, and outside, for the stance that the Government have taken on arms sales, particularly where the régime concerned has a poor human rights record. I have tried to make it clear that a human rights record is one of the factors taken into account before a decision is taken to allow a particular sale; and all such sales are most carefully scrutinised. But I have also made it clear that the potential use of the equipment is, arguably, a more important factor.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has criticised me over my use of the word "torture" on previous occasions. Perhaps I may restate our position in clear terms. We would not sell equipment which, in our judgment, could be used for internal repression, to a régime which is known to practise torture. But we would not rule out selling such a régime equipment for external defence. This, to me, is a perfectly respectable position,
416
and it reflects the realities that we face in finding every available market for British goods; and heaven knows! we need the business.
A second problem that we face in selling defence equipment abroad is what I might call the "gold-plating" problem. Our defence equipment is designed to be used against a highly sophisticated threat. It is inevitably complex, and expensive, and that inevitably puts a limit on the number of countries who are prepared to buy it, and are able to pay for it. That is a problem with which we have to live. Our armed forces will always look for the best—and I do not blame them for that. But what we, in the Ministry of Defence, must do—and I see this as an increasingly important role—is to ensure that we build a minimum of sophistication and expense into our equipment consistent with its doing the job that it has to do. We must avoid gold-plating; that is, over-sophistication for its own sake. That is important, not only in ensuring that we get the best value out of our limited defence budget, but also in increasing the chances of selling our equipment abroad.
Please, my Lords, let us not forget that defence sales involve difficult judgments. There are military, political and economic factors which need to be weighed carefully and which can vary from case to case. At the end of the day each case must be considered separately on its merits. What we in the Government must seek to do is to ensure that the best possible conditions are created for British industry to maximise their overseas sales and thus bring about the gains to the economy, to the defence budget, and to our foreign policy which I outlined earlier.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Hill-Norton: My Lords, as the first speaker today from the Cross-Benches, may I say that I am sure that I speak for all my friends on these Benches when I say how warmly we endorse the tributes just paid from the Front Benches to the late Lord Ballantrae. For my own part, and that of all my contemporaries in all three services, we shall remember with admiration and affection the splendid soldier whom we knew as Bernard Fergusson. He will be greatly missed, not least in your Lordships' House, to which he brought not only his military flair, but great distinction in three other important fields, which have been described today by other noble Lords.
If I may turn to defence, in the debate last week on the gracious Speech the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, referred to what he described as the "general philosophy of defence", and he expressed the view (which he has repeated today) that our defence moneys would be better spent on improving and extending our conventional arms, rather than on the Trident system. As I have said before in your Lordships' House, I do not agree with him, because I believe very strongly that we must do both. But rather than pursue that argument today, I prefer to devote my time to the heart of our defence policy, which must of course derive from a general philosophy. I must say at the outset that nothing in the gracious Speech, and nothing which the Government have said or done since we last discussed defence in May—or the May before, come to that—could lead anybody to suppose that they have yet hoisted in that the Soviet threat, which is the only

417
military threat we face, is now global, and demands a global strategy to meet it.
Surely the evident dangers of the remorseless spread of the Soviet empire must make it clear that this is no time to be penny-pinching on defence. In the 1950s the British people were prepared to spend 11 per cent. of their national income on defence because the Government of the day persuaded them that that effort was necessary. Today we spend about 5 per cent. to face a graver threat. I have no reason at all to doubt that the British people are prepared to play their part even at the price of some sacrifice, if the facts are put squarely before them. The assumption that they are not is still alive in Whitehall and, I begin to fear, in Westminster, too. I myself do not believe it.
What I believe is that defence policy in this country has been dominated for far too long by inaccurate Treasury guesses of what the nation is able to afford. Changes to these guesses, always downwards, are usually imposed at short notice to meet some particular financial crisis, which is precisely what we read is happening today. We even read that for the first time in five years the Chiefs of Staff have had to represent their personal concern about cuts in defence capability to the Prime Minister. It astounds me to read that some people think we have done well to cut our defences by only another £200 million. I certainly do not. We were spending too little before this latest squeeze.
The central point is that an increasing and changing enemy threat appears to have received no constructive recognition whatever from Ministers, who invariably expect the services to meet the same or a greater threat and commitments with steadily reducing actual military power. It is clearly impossible for them to plan a coherent and continuous defence programme against such an erratic budgetary background. I must say again that to project what is described, rather generously, as defence policy forward from year to year, based upon arbitrary and variable financial sums made available, and upon an almost sacrosanct share of the cake for each service year after year, will no longer do. The only respectable basis for our defence policy—or anybody else's, come to that—is to evaluate the global threat and then decide upon the measures you need to deter it, or, if that fails, to defeat it. The defence Vote should be based upon those considerations, and not, as today, on a process rather more akin to telling the Defence Ministry to buy as much defence as they can with what is an almost certainly inadequate share of the national income.
Of course we cannot meet the Soviet threat alone. Not even our most powerful ally can do that now; and that is why, as the noble Lord, Lord Peart, said, our defence policy must be based upon alliances with like-minded people who share the same hopes and fears. We have one such alliance in NATO, successful for over 30 years in its objectives, and I hope your Lordships will accept that nobody knows at first hand better than I how essential it is for us to support it. But it is now quite clear that NATO is no longer sufficiently broadly based to serve as the only basis for our strategy in the years to come. Nor should the size and shape of our contribution to that alliance be regarded as set in concrete for the rest of time. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said last
418
week, whether we like it or not we are living in a different world.
I have said today that we must study what I have called the global threat if we are successfully to play our part in shaping western strategy to counter it. What is it? It is a threat to interrupt the trade which brings our own country and the rest of Europe most of its energy, nearly all its raw materials and, at least in our case, half our food. This trade can be interrupted in two ways: one by positive interdiction and the other by the subjugation, either economically or by force, of our suppliers. Many of them are under-developed countries; nearly all of them are at present defenceless; none of them is naturally inclined to communism; and all, including the nouveaux riches Arabs and other oil suppliers, trade exclusively by the sea. It seems clear enough to me, my Lords, that even the most cursory study of that short catalogue must indicate the nature of the threats against which we should now be preparing. But it is time to do the business properly and to get our priorities right. Yesterday's policies will not do for tomorrow's problems. Defence is a dynamic, and not a static, business.
You do not need to wear a dark blue uniform to perceive that the facts of life positively demand that we should now look first to a maritime strategy on a global basis if we are not to be starved or frozen to death, or strangled industrially and thus economically. Fortunately, the means to police the oceans are already to hand, and we have been expert at the sea affair for centuries. What is required is vigorous political and diplomatic action, to co-ordinate and organise all the West's combined defences in this element, and not just those of NATO. No one is better placed than are we in Britain to take the lead in such an enterprise.
It is my personal view that this problem would be much more easily managed if tackled first on a regional basis, possibly with ourselves and some of our NATO allies responsible for the whole of the Atlantic—all of it, not just down to the Tropic of Cancer—and the northern waters and the Mediterranean, too; Australia, Japan and the ASEAN countries for the South China Sea and Western Pacific; and ourselves, the French, the Dutch and the Americans, together essentially with South Africa, for the Indian Ocean and Arabian seas. As I have said before in your Lordships' House, we need all the help we can get, however much we may dislike apartheid, more particularly as South Africa will continue to be the only secure source of many minerals vital to our defence, and to our industry more generally.
In such a general reorientation of our defence efforts we should also make a further significant military contribution in the Indian Ocean. An intervention capability there is essential, and the Government's intention to restore a modest parachute assault force is a small step in the right direction. To question the relevance of a battalion group, or better still a brigade group, in this area, as some people do, is to betray ignorance of the post-imperial successes of the modest British fire brigade in East Africa, the Gulf and Malaysia. It is often forgotten, too, that when the British forces left the area it was done of our own volition. The official story at the time, that we were no longer wanted, was untrue. Most of the countries

419
from Tanzania to Brunei had reason to be sorry to see us go. Some were even prepared to pay for us to stay. Perhaps they still are; it would be interesting to find out.
There remain two other essential elements that I should like to mention in the defence strategy that we should pursue, one external and one internal. Externally, we and all our friends in the West must play the card of deterrence robustly and openly on a global basis, and be a great deal more positive in declaring which we consider to be the interests that we are determined to defend. In short, we must in future act to deter in advance perceived threats, rather than waiting, as has become our habit, to react after they have become realities. This will be convincing only if we are seen to have the military capability to deliver, the means to make good our promises—the means, in short, to deter. Above all, perhaps, we must leave no shadow of doubt in the minds of the Russians that we and our allies have not only the military means but the political will to use them; and here I agree warmly, for once, with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. At home I implore the Government to show much greater determination in the education and mobilisation of public opinion. They have failed in large measure to convince the man in the street that there really is a threat and, moreover, that the threat could well be terminal.
The Motion today refers to capability— "a full defence cability both at home and abroad", to be precise. I regret to say that it is my view that our real capability to deter, and, if that fails, to defend the realm, is now probably diminishing day by day. Our own armed forces know it, our friends know it and our only potential enemies, the Russians, know it, too. I will not be persuaded otherwise by being told that we are spending more on defence than we did last year. It is not only the level of spending on defence that matters but, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, has just told us, it is the military capability that you buy with it. It is not surprising that morale in the Ministry of Defence is low, whether the Minister is aware of it or not. This unhappy state of affairs can only be put right by a serious reassessment of defence policy; and it should be based upon a global strategy to meet what is now a clearly global threat.
I have deliberately said nothing at all about the detail of such a policy in terms of our essential, continuing support for NATO, for weapon procurement, the conditions of service for the reserves, for the strategic deterrent, much less for unilateral nuclear disarmament—upon all of which I have no doubt that other noble Lords will have much to say. It is my view that the extent of none of those can usefully be decided until we have made up our minds on the broad canvas and the size and shape of the forces that we need to fill it. It is sadly evident that we are not in that essential position today nor may we have much time left in which to reach it.
4.32 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I followed one Admiral of the Fleet into membership of your Lordships' House and that must be some comfort to
420
me in not being overwhelmed by following another in this debate. Nor do I mean to follow the noble and gallant Lord in all that he said in his powerful, important, and if I may say so, stimulating speech. My subject is what he touched upon in the end—deterrence. I have it in mind to say as much about the philosophy of it as about the practice. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, made in his speech was to the effect that the essence of deterrence is to make the other side think that it is not worth while to attack; that he has to balance the value of what he may gain by doing so against the risk that he has to run in trying to get it.
It is important that that risk is one that he should never be able accurately to assess, because, if he can assess it, he is then able to formulate his strategic policy with equal accuracy in order to overcome it. The way to deterrence, therefore, is doubt. That is the key—not fear, but doubt. Nations are not deterred by fear. Naturally, an adequate level of defence is required but once that level has been reached, to raise it further is not particularly useful. Above that level, defence is an affair of mental and psychological factors, not of improvement or multiplication of armaments. If God is on one side or the other, which I do not believe, it is not on the side of the big battalions but of the resolute and the brave, of David rather than Goliath.
Deterrence for us means making the Soviet leaders think that we in NATO are not only able but prepared to retaliate with unacceptable force—and by "retaliate" I mean to retaliate against any kind of threat, whether nuclear or otherwise, which was the point made by my noble friend Lord Cathcart. The same principle applies to the United Kingdom by itself. Do we, then, need a nuclear deterrent of our own, independent of the Americans? Yes, we do. Some noble Lords may remember that about a year ago, in the debate on an Unstarred Question of my noble friend Lord Kimberley I said that I thought we did not. I believed then that if we ever found ourselves menaced on our own, when our allies were not, an independent nuclear deterrent would be effective in our defence, but that, as I said, I could not see any way in which such circumstances could arise. Since then various things have happened to make me change my mind. I need not particularise but they include certain developments at home, a subject to which I shall return in a moment.
Our independent nuclear deterrent is the Polaris submarine force, to be up-dated in due course with new boats and the Trident missile. I am not certain as to the necessity for the Trident. It appears to me that Polaris is probably adequate for the purpose. This is a controversial subject into which I do not wish to enter, but, in either case, the risk of being hit by a salvo from even one submarine of our nuclear force is something that no nation in its senses would conceivably accept. Very well. But the deterrent is useless without the will to use it. Have we that will? I believe that we have, and this brings me to another belief that I have heard expressed in public by persons whose words carry much weight and who, in my opinion, ought to know better. I refer to the belief that we would never use—or never commit national suicide by firing—our own rockets. This argument

421
is one which I deplore. It is irrelevant, misleading and dangerous.
Certainly we should never commit suicide; what we might do is take the risk of national destruction. Committing suicide is one thing; facing death, even probable or certain death, is quite another. National suicide, so far as I know, is unknown in the history of nations, but a readiness to risk death is quite common. Nationally speaking, Belgium did it in 1914. The Poles live, more or less permanently, on the brink of it; and they are on the brink of it now. We did it in 1940 and I have no doubt that we would be prepared to do it again rather than surrender, if the circumstances were to arise.
It might be said that the danger now is greater than it was 14 years ago, but whether that is true depends upon the efficacy of the deterrent. Whenever it is said that nuclear weapons will not or cannot be used by us, the value of that deterrent is thereby diminished—and diminished in proportion to the standing and authority of the speaker. On the contrary, when the opposite belief is stated, as I have stated it now, then the value of the deterrent is increased however marginally—and no matter how insignificant the speaker. They must read Hansard in the Kremlin.
I believe that we have the will to use our own independent nuclear deterrent. How are we to persuade the potential enemy to believe it, too? I do not think that he will believe it so long as we can be seen to be taking no steps to counter the possible consequences of using it. In other words, it is incredible so long as we have no civil defence. There are people who apparently have only to hear the words "civil defence" in order to lose the power of rational thought. "You cannot", they cry, "protect more than a few people against the nuclear holocaust. It would be better to forget the whole idea and spend the money on something else". But if a nuclear onslaught is coming, bringing annihiliation with it, what else is there to spend the money on? Tombstones?
It is the business of responsible people not to sit and wring their hands and cry "Woe", but to do what they can to ensure that the nuclear onslaught does not come. The way to do that is to make it clear to one and all that we are not safe to attack. Without civil defence we shall succeed in doing no such thing. In short, civil defence is a vital component not so much of defence as of the deterrent. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister of State a question. It was said in the course of the Conservative Party Conference (by Mr. Brittan, I think) that a person of high standing would be appointed to co-ordinate and harness voluntary effort on a national basis. The appointment, he said, would be announced in the near future. This promise was also being given, I think, as long ago as 1st August. Would the Minister tell us how soon we can expect this appointment to be announced?
There still remains the necessity of persuading the likely aggressor that in certain circumstances we may be prepared to use our deterrent and to use it independently, notwithstanding the events and developments at home that I referred to just now. I speak of what has happened in and to the Labour Party. I do this with distress, particularly when I think that my words are going to reach the eyes of the noble Lord, Lord Peart, who made a particularly fine speech, if I
422
may say so with respect. Whether or not he thinks that what I am going to say is to be classed as party clap-trap, I will leave to his decision and that of the House. But I think that I must say it. I am not sure how many people realise even now the extent of the full horror of what has happened at and since the Labour Party Conference.
First, there is the now all too familiar matter of the two contradictory resolutions on disarmament: multilateral in one case and unilateral in the other. There are still some people who try to make out that the multilateral will in some way reduce the significance of the unilateral. This, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, said a week ago, is nonsense. Who is going to sit down and negotiate disarmament with us if we have proclaimed in advance that we are going to disarm in any case?
The fact is that the Labour Party have pledged themselves to unilateral disarmament. That means unilateral disarmament by Great Britain, not by NATO. What does this mean? The present Government might fall; it is not likely, but such things are possible. We might then be governed by a party pledged to the destruction of NATO. They have also passed a resolution to stay in NATO. But are we not to suppose that this also may be nonsense? They have proclaimed their intention to withdraw from any defensive policy based on nuclear power. NATO's defensive policy is based on nuclear power. So it means a withdrawal from NATO. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, or anybody else to say that party decisions might be changed. They might; but they might not. The point we have to consider is what things are like now and what the Russians see in them.
Without our membership, I believe that NATO would collapse among the European nations. If that happened, I have no doubt at all that the United States and Canada would withdraw into isolation beyond the Atlantic. About that I do not think there can be any argument at all. The Labour Party are committed to the destruction of the Atlantic alliance and the betrayal of our friends and allies. I am certain it is not what the majority of the party want or intend, but the parliamentary party has also ratified it by electing in a free and formal vote as their leader a man who has confirmed his adherence to their policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, described it as a policy of surrender; and it is. But should the surrender be allowed to mask the betrayal? What then does an inimicably disposed person see as he gazes at us across the water? He sees a nation in difficulties, with what he takes to be an alternative Government anxious to take power—or at any rate pretending to be anxious to take power—with a declared intention of dismantling the Western defences, committed in fact to a line of conduct that can benefit nobody but the USSR. The question now is: How are we to convince the hostile watchers in the Kremlin that the Welsh, English and Irish are of the same mind as the Scots, whose motto is:
"Nobody assails me with impunity"?
We cannot do it primarily I believe by building more and better armaments. Those are for defence proper, for use after deterrence has failed. Deterrence itself

423
is largely an affair of the spirit or, if you prefer it, my Lords, of the heart, so smaller nations than ours cannot talk on equal terms with Soviet Russia through the mouths of men in uniform; nor, alas!, at this moment can it talk through the mouths of members of the party that apparently—and I stress "apparently"— appears to be selling out to the enemy. Let the rest of us, then, be heard, and let the message go forth that the British people have not forsworn their honour; that valour dwells among us still, and that freedom is to be wrested from us only at a price too high for any sane adversary to pay. That is the way to peace; and I think the message will be understood.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just resumed his seat has made a strident demand for clarity about our defence philosophy. I agree with him. Every word in his demand I accept, and I make my contribution in this fashion: unless we are prepared—without accepting every line of the speech we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hill-Norton—to accept the general trend of his philosophy, then all our talk about defence is just humbug. I have wanted to say that for some time. I say it now. Let us have no more hyprocrisy about it. Apparently, apart from some members of your Lordships' House, we all agree that defence is essential for a country like ours, and that every country in the world has some measure of defence. If we are to have defence, it must be adequate. It is no use coming along and saying, "Let us compromise, let us reduce our defence expenditure". I would rather have none at all. If it is not going to be adequate it is going to be useless. It would be neither a deterrent nor practicable if an emergency arose.
Ever since the Blackpool Labour Party conference the press and television media—and even members of your Lordships' House—have joined in the game of demanding what the defence policy of the Labour Party is. Even the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in the debate last Wednesday demanded from my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham that he should announce from the Front Bench what the defence policy of the Labour Party was. My noble friend, with his usual diplomatic skill, referred him to a speech made by his right honourable friend Mr. Peter Shore. He then went on the explain certain aspects of the Labour Party's policy on defence, but—I am bound to say this—so far as I am concerned, although I admired his speech and I appreciate his skill in these matters, I did not accept it and I shall tell your Lordships why.
The Labour Party is almost hopelessly divided on this question of defence. We have those who say, "Let's have no defence: it is useless; it is immoral; out with it!" Whether it is conventional or nuclear, they will have none of it. I understand them and I accept their convictions: undoubtedly they are genuine. This is a free country and we can express ourselves, unlike in Russia, where they are not able to quarrel with the President as some of my colleagues in another place quarrelled with Black Rod the other night, demonstrating that at least in this country we have got freedom—something which the people in some other
424
countries could do with.
The Labour Party has been divided ever since it was formed in the year 1906 and it so happens—forgive the autobiography—I joined the Labour movement three years before the Parliamentary Labour Party was formed. I joined the Independent Labour Party and I had no recourse in 1906 other than to accept the Labour Party. I accepted it because I detested unemployment, the slums, the squalor and the impoverishment that surrounded me, some of which affected me personally, I disliked it intensely.
In those days—let me put it personally, not only in regard to myself but about others—Ramsay Macdonald did not care much for Keir Hardie, and Keir Hardie did not care much for Philip Snowden, and David Shackleton, the trade union leader, did not care for any of them. The party was torn asunder on the question of defence because it was thought at the time that a war with Germany was imminent and bound to occur. And what did they do, those who were against war?—they passed resolutions. They are still doing it. Even in the Council of Europe the other day, when it came to the question of Palestine, what did they do?—they passed a resolution. They keep on passing resolutions. That gets you nowhere.
Let me come back to the Labour Party. They have always been divided on the subject of defence. We had it when Gaitskell was the leader of the party; we had it when Wilson was the leader of the party; we had it when Attlee was the leader of the party; and we had it, God knows! when Lansbury was the leader of the party. There has always been a difference of opinion in the Labour Party and there still is.
I would add just this: when it came to the crunch in the First World War, although there was division in the Labour Party, the majority of those who were associated with the Labour movement were in favour of engaging in conflict with Germany or with any other possible aggressor which might have existed at that time. In the Second World War, they backed Churchill almost to a man. There were some passively inclined, and, as I have said, they were entitled to their opinions and still are—but they backed Churchill and they detested Hitler and were ready to fight against Hitler, as they did. If it comes to the crunch again—and this I assert without equivocation—if we are faced by an aggressor, if that unfortunate event should occur, the Labour movement in general, perhaps with some exceptions, will stand by this country and its allies. Let there be no mistake about that. So I say to those noble Lords who have been demanding what the Labour Party's defence policy is that the Labour Party, when it comes to an emergency, will be as loyal as any Member of your Lordship's House. Let that be clearly understood.
Now I come to the dispute between the "nuclears" and the "conventionals". I am very conscious that I am surrounded by quite a number of "anti-nuclears". Indeed, they are going to follow me in this short speech of mine, and I know what they are going to say. They are going to repeat what I have heard so often. They are going to scare the life out of me by saying, "If you have a nuclear conflict, there will be only 15 million people left." I can imagine, of course, what that is going to mean for my children, my grand-children and my great grand-children. I dislike it intensely for

425
them. As for myself, it does not matter in the least. I doubt whether I shall see anything of that sort. But let me remind them of something: before the First World War, if the people of our country had been told that we were going to lose a million young men on the Somme and elsewhere, in the fields, the dirty mud-ridden fields, of France and Belgium, they might have said, "We cannot have conflict with Germany". And if the Russians had known they were going to lose 20 million men as a result of the German attack on Moscow and Leningrad, they might have wondered whether it would not have been better to have had détente, just as some people now are saying that the remedy for everything is détente. Even the Foreign Secretary said the other day in an interview somewhere or another that if there is trouble in Poland and if the Russians dare to invade Poland, it will have a terrible effect on détente. That is what he said: I challenge contradiction. That is what he said, or words like those. There is no doubt what he meant.
But what about détente? It died long ago. It died the death it deserved when the Russians said "no verification". In other words they told us not to trust them—as if we did not know! That was the situation then and it still remains the situation. I can understand this diplomatic desire, and this human desire—morality at the highest level. I can understand the desire for discussion and negotiation and trying to prevent trouble. I can understand it but, after our experiences of recent years with Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan and the possibility of a Polish invasion, together with the threats and the build-up of matériel, which are overwhelming and which constitute a threat not only to this country but to the whole world, to talk about détente is just mere nonsense.
What is the alternative? If I had my way, I would rely on conventional weapons if we had the manpower—and, by the way, we could have the manpower if the Government would do what I have been advocating for years in your Lordships' House, as I did in the other place and in the Ministry, by building up reserves. Something is being done in that direction now. Young people are coming in and more can come in. We should welcome them in, both men and women. A vast body of reserves is a very handy thing to rely on if you are in an emergency, so long as you provide the mobility at the same time and, of course, the requisite weapons. So I should prefer conventional conflict, if there is to be conflict. But I should rather that there was none. In that respect, I am as pacific as any pacifist. But if there is conflict, I prefer that it is of a conventional character. However, I do not rule out the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons, even cruise missiles, although I deplore them.
Do not let us forget that we have at the present time, in our country, 21,000 American airmen in three or four camps situated in Norfolk, Suffolk and elsewhere. It is upon those people, and also our own, that we have to rely in the event of an emergency. We have allies, so let us be friends with them. Even when, sometimes, we do not like what is happening in the United States of America, even when, sometimes, they are exporting into our country fibres which means that we suffer from more unemployment, do not argue too much with them. Rely upon them and be friendly with them. Be friendly with everybody, if you can, but if
426
you cannot with some—as in the case of the Russians—then you have to rely on our allies.
I come now to the speech of my noble friend Lord Hill-Norton. NATO is the base of our defence policy. Some time ago, there was a policy declaration by NATO that they were focussing attention, solely and exclusively, on Europe. That is what they said: "We cannot go any further." In fact, they abandoned the Mediterranean, which used to be our parish. What is the position now? We are actually sending odd vessels out to the Indian Ocean, to the Pacific and to the Gulf in suport of the Americans.
Defence must be global in character in the world as it is, with the threats that exist. That is essential and inevitable. It must be global in character. I do not suggest that every proposition that has been made by my noble friend is acceptable to Members of your Lordships' House, but, for Heaven's sake! accept the general line of thought, the policy that is embodied in it and the thinking that is behind it. Either we are prepared for action or we are not. If we are not, let us say so.
I now come to a point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, which, if I may say so modestly, has been mentioned by me many times in your Lordships' House. "Surrender" is a word that is not in my vocabulary and I hope it is not in yours. That does not mean that we are going to be nasty with the Russians, offensive to the Russians. I see that Canada is providing them with grain. By the way, that is a possible way out. They need more food. They need more equipment. Let us provide them with the things that they need, which they ought to have been able to provide for themselves, if they had not embarked on their military adventures.
I ask your Lordships to consider their potential and what they could have done. Instead of men marching and threats and all the rest of it, they could have been the greatest industrial country in the world. But now they do not have an agricultural policy that is worth very much. They do not have an industrial policy. There is not the quality and the quantity of goods that people want. Sometimes they are short of bread. Let us give them bread. That is a better line of détente than sitting around the table discussing balanced forces. Let us try that on.
I conclude by this last observation on the subject. It is the one that I started with. Either you believe in defence or you do not. If you do not—all right. Accept the consequences. But if you believe that some defence is essential, let it be adequate and try to find the money for it. We are going to spend next year nearly £11,000 million. This year we are spending £10,000 million. It just occurs to me, as a kind of casual thought, that a country which can afford to spend £10,000 million cannot be in such a precarious position as is demonstrated, even by the newspapers of our country.
We cannot be so badly off if we can afford to spend £10,000 million. Even if it is only on defence, it shows that we are not so hard up as they are trying to make out. Perhaps the money would be better spent on education and the disabled, but never mind—we need defence. Let us pay for it. Let us not grumble about it. And do not start attacking the Labour Party, because there is some trouble in the Labour

427
Party emanating from Blackpool, as a result of a rush for leadership. Do not bother about that. If it comes to the crunch, the Labour Party will be there alongside those who are loyal to their country.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, it is a bit of a challenge to rise immediately after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, but none the less I do so. He has painted a very ambitious picture. Indeed, as I listened to the words of my noble and gallant friend Lord Hill-Norton, I realised that what we are really talking about is precisely the same problem that we have been facing for all these years not only, as the noble Earl, Lord Carthcart, said, of inflation, but also in a period when we have to face the inevitable consequences of the technological arms race, as a result of which a unit of resources buys less defence every year.
This trend leads to what I once called the irrevocable law of defence research and development. In essence, what this law said—and I was encouraged by a previous Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, to publish it—is that since the cost of developing a weapons system of a given degree of sophistication is much the same in all advanced industrialised societies, considerations of the absolute size of the economy come into play when a country wishes its forces to live up to the standards set by the arms race between the two super powers.
If we suppose that the percentage of the gross domestic product which can be devoted to defence remains roughly the same from year to year, and that the GDP is rising steadily, it inevitably follows that the greater amount of money that goes to defence each year will be unlikely to buy more defence. It sounds paradoxical as I put it. A more expensive offensive system is countered by an even more expensive defence. The net result is an increase in expenditure on defence equipment by both parties and, usually, an increase in the security of neither.
I was talking, of course, about the eastern and western blocs, but I also pointed out that, as fast as the gross national product rises, so there is a corresponding rise in the cost of providing for the men in the services, and, assuming that the proportion of the GDP that goes to defence remains constant, this means that, at best, not more than the same proportion of the defence budget will be available each year for procurement and research. Because of that, I concluded that there are only two alternatives. We are forced to choose either to alter our commitments so as to avoid the need to introduce the most expensive new weapons systems, or to make our forces smaller—or a combination of both those measures.
That all seemed clear 20 years ago, and what has happened since is a foretaste of what will happen at today's—that is, 1980's—survey prices. A GDP standing at something like £190 billion is about 60 per cent. higher than it was 20 years ago, while the proportion of the GDP that has gone to defence has fallen from a level of 6·5 per cent. in the financial year 1960–61 to 5 per cent. today. In standardised money terms the defence estimates have decreased from the level of £10·3 thousand million to £9·6 thousand million, and the consequences were to be expected.
428
Since the overall cost of keeping a uniformed man in the field has on average risen from £18,500 20 years ago to not far from £30,000 today, the total number of uniformed men, excluding reserves, has fallen from 559,000 in 1960 to 329,000 today, and because the percentage of the budget accounted for by personnel has been kept much the same, the amount of money that has gone to procurement has fallen only slightly, from just above to just below £4,000 million. But the Chieftain tank costs twice as much as the Centurion; the Seawolf guided weapon costs seven times as much as the Seacat; a Jaguar aircraft costs three times what a Hunter 60 cost, and a Spitfire of the Second World War cost a fortieth of what a Tornado would cost today. Even if the defence budget had risen instead of falling, and a higher proportion of it had been allocated to procurement, we still would not have been able to keep up with the super-power Joneses. It is not surprising that there are complaints about the equipment of our forces.
The second consequence of what I call the irrevocable law of research and development has also come to pass; we have had to reduce our commitments worldwide. For example, we have withdrawn from the Far East, from the Gulf, from the Middle East. Even the super powers cannot escape the consequences of the technological arms race. They, too, can be bankrupted. Deterrent systems today cost tens of times more than they did 20 years ago, when the political state of deterrence was just as operative as it is today. The noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, said last week—and it is true—that the technological arms race may well force the Russians and the Americans to a serious negotiating table. At the least a balanced disarmament programme would pay a handsome economic dividend.
There is another consequence of the arms race—I am speaking of the technological arms race. From the very start of warfare new weapons have transformed the pattern of warfare. New weapons dictate new tactics; new tactics have to be fitted into new strategy; new strategies determine new political policies. We argue, as we have today in your Lordships' House, about the place of nuclear weapons. They were certainly not an operational requirement called for either by the military or by our political leaders. They came about because basic research into the structure of the atom had reached a particular stage and because some nuclear scientists implicitly believed that destructive power determined the outcome of wars. But these weapons, we now know, not only represent limitless destructive explosive power; they also entail secondary consequences, due to radioactive fallout, which are every bit as devastating and enduring as the basic effects.
I am not going to discuss the verbal camouflage which cloaks the nuclear armoury. The facts of destruction are merely disguised by some of the terms used in your Lordships' House today; also by terms like "massive retaliation" or "deterrence", "mutually assured destruction", "counterforce and counter-value strategies" and now, so-called "flexible targeting policy". In the end they all add up to the same thing. Are our nuclear weapons weapons which can be used in the military sense or are they political weapons?
Let us say that the average sized nuclear weapon

429
has a yield of one megaton—it is probably a little less today. Some nuclear weapons men equate the burst of a such weapon not with the number of deaths that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, was talking about, but with a million deaths. That could happen. It would depend on circumstances.
Some official studies which I initiated 20 years ago were incorporated in the first United Nations' statement on the effects of nuclear weapons and gave the figure of 300,000 immediate deaths were a one megaton bomb to burst over the city of Birmingham, with thousands dying soon after, of course, from the secondary effects. Comparable figures have been published recently in official documents in the United States, where analyses have been made of what would happen given this or that burst with this or that yield over this or that American city. For example, Detroit turned out to be practically the same as Birmingham.
Let us imagine that a one megaton bomb were to detonate without any warning over Fleet Street or Trafalgar Square. Your Lordships' House and the rest of the Palace of Westminster would, I fear, be in flames and ruins and this debate at an end, and I imagine that most of us would be dead. The whole of Whitehall would be in the same state and, sadly, too, Buckingham Palace and the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery. There would be no St. Thomas' or Westminster hospitals. Polluted water would be rushing from broken mains and sewers and from the Thames. Waterloo station would be gone and the underground would be flooded.
There is no point in my going on. I am referring here to what would happen if only one bomb were to detonate. It is just conceivable that the state of deterrence, if it were to break, might do so with only a single strike from both sides, although I am not so hopeful. Whichever way the exchange started, I believe it would rapidly get out of control and for one good reason alone—the conditions which would immediately be created would not allow of any control. I think this applies to both sides. Imagine not just London but Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester struck more or less at the same time. If I were to need authority for making such a statement, I would quote General Richard Ellis, who is the Director of Strategic Target Planning in the United States at the moment, and who has recently stated publicly that while there is always the possibility of ending an exchange before the worst escalation and damage have occurred, avoiding escalation to mutual destruction is none the less not likely.
An all-out exchange would mean the explosion of thousands of nuclear warheads between the USSR, Western Europe and the USA. I wonder whether the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, was aware of that fact. Whether one calls it a counterforce strike or a countervalue strike, or any other fancy name, it would leave hundreds of millions dead, and the resultant conditions would certainly make the reconstruction of Western civilisation highly unlikely. That, my Lords, is the reality that lies behind the concept of mutual deterrence.
In 1960 Harold Macmillan wrote that even the most ambitious or the most ruthless statesman would not consciously enter upon so unrewarding an adventure—
430
an adventure which would involve the wiping out of his country. He said this when the nuclear arsenals of the two sides did not include a twentieth, or perhaps a hundredth, of what they now contain. Twenty years ago the level of nuclear arms on the two sides was adequate to enforce a check on nuclear war. It has risen enormously since then, for no rational military or political reason, but simply because of the inner momentum of the technological arms race.
There is no defence against a so-called strategic nuclear exchange. Nuclear weapons deter; they cannot defend. There is no defence against nuclear weapons. They are political weapons, not instruments that can be controlled in war.
And that is also true for tactical or theatre nuclear war, a matter which I shall not discuss, but where my views have the added authority of a series of ex-Chiefs of the Defence Staff, and of a number of retired top American military chiefs.
It is totally illogical to suppose that when the Russians also deploy nuclear weapons those we have can compensate for any inferiority in conventional forces. Those who were in at the start of the military nuclear debate will remember that the thought behind the concept of massive retaliation was that a strike against the Russian homeland would save Western Europe from the devastation of another world war. The devastation that would result today from a nuclear exchange in a theatre war would be immeasurably worse. One could well ask whether Europe and the West or the USSR would ever recover from a nuclear exchange. The fact is that the invention of nuclear weapons has painted us into a corner; the consequences of their use, whether deliberate or because of some false signal, would mean disaster. And to rely on the threat of their use is to gamble with disaster.
None the less we cannot pretend that they do not exist. I recognise that there are those in this country who believe sincerely in what is called unilateral disarmament. I do not share that view, not only for the reasons given last week by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, not only because I believe that such unilateral action would be irrelevant to the progress of the arms race—who would follow our example?—or because I believe it would significantly reduce our vulnerability, but because there is something else which we could do with whatever political leverage we still enjoy on the international stage.
I begin by saying that it is undeniable that the level of nuclear armaments on both sides is far higher than is necessary to sustain the state of mutual deterrence. We must have negotiations that lead to a gradual reduction on both sides. We do not want unilateral disarmament from either of the two super powers, because that would also bring about a most unstable state. We can only hope that the new American Administration will find a way to reopen the SALT talks as speedily as possible. The phrases "balanced reduction" or "negotiation from a position of strength", thrown about very easily in debate, must be viewed with caution. There is a great deal which can be done on both sides which would not erode the deterrent threat the weapon now poses, but which would lighten the nuclear peril under which the world now lives.

431
The question is: Can we help? The Government have taken the decision to replace Polaris with Trident. If we can afford to do this, so be it. I myself do not believe that this step is likely to alter whatever view the Russians have of us as a deterrent power, which our Polaris boats could certainly sustain for some years. On the other hand, it is just possible that since comparing numbers in the nuclear inventories of the two sides has become a central part of negotiation, the multiplication in the number of our warheads which Trident implies might cause certain complications.
Where I feel we could help in the process of nuclear disarmament and in reducing the fear of nuclear war by misadventure is this. While holding on to what we have got we ought to consider declaring openly, as have two or three of our partners in NATO, that the much vaunted policy of flexible response is a dangerous game of bluff. We could help those of our NATO partners who already accept this to persuade the others, as well as the Russians. What we want is a strategy of defence whose consequences, if it ever had to be put into operation, would not imply the total destruction of the Western part of the Eurasiatic continent. This would be the inevitable price that all would have to pay because of a supposed reliance on tactical or theatre nuclear weapons, if a policy of flexible response were pursued to its logical conclusion.
In my view, such new resources as can be devoted to defence should be earmarked for our relatively starved conventional forces. If we could deploy an additional armoured brigade or division in NATO Europe, I am sure it would be far more likely to help to deter any intrusion into NATO territory than our possession of Polaris boats or Trident. It would not be a cheap policy but it would be a realistic policy, and it would help the Russians off the hook on which they as well as we are now impaled by SS20s, cruise missiles, Pershing IIs and so on. The fruits of success, both in terms of security and in lightening the threat that hangs over our civilisation from nuclear weaponry, would be well worth the attempt. May I, in conclusion, apologise that I am not able to stay until the end of the debate.
5.27 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I am very happy indeed to follow the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, whose authority in these matters is recognised by us all. I believe that everyone in this House will agree with the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, about the importance of maintaining full defence capability, but the question is, in what manner are we to do this, what means are we to use to secure our defence? I am no expert and I intend to speak only—shortly, I hope—about the use of the nuclear deterrent in this context, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, has so aptly said, the nuclear deterrent strategic nuclear weapon cannot be a weapon of defence at all; it can only be a weapon to threaten somebody as to what will happen if he does not pipe down.
I am bound to say that the general view that somehow the balance of the nuclear capability of the two great powers, or rather the NATO alliance on the one side and the Warsaw Pact on the other, is a guarantee of peace has always been something which strikes me as
432
very doubtful. Would I not be right in thinking that there is a long time lag in the development of new weapons and weapons systems, and that therefore at any one moment one or other of the groups will be in the stronger position? Is there not a real danger that, if at some such time there was an issue between the Soviets and ourselves which would in ordinary conventional terms be a casus belli, the party which at that moment happened to have the superiority would be sorely tempted to make use of it before that superiority was lost as a result of developments over the subsequent two or three years?
As my noble friend Lord Gladwyn explained, rather with a sideways look at me, I do not accept and I am sorry I cannot accept the Liberal Party's formal policy on this matter, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. I confirm that that is basically because I regard the use of nuclear weapons in any circumstances at all as wicked. I should like to recall to your Lordships the debate which we had on 23rd April on a Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, and a very remarkable maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee. I wish that the conventions of the House allowed me to call him my noble friend because his predecessor in this House was a very dear friend of mine. With that speech I found myself in complete agreement.
One of the points that he made—I made a note of it at the time and it has recurred to me often since—was that the troubles in which we find ourselves have arisen largely because we have relinquished our individual human responsibility. That set me thinking, particularly in regard to nuclear weapons. Suppose the following situation arose—and this is an imaginary scenario, as I think it is now called. Let us suppose that we are being attacked—and we all know the power we have in mind—in a conventional war. Let us suppose that we are being hard pressed and the enemy is seeking to impose upon us a government of a type we should all abhor. As I have said, we are being hard pressed and we have at our disposal a weapon which we could project into the heartlands of the enemy and a single strike would kill, I was about to say, 100,000 men, women and children, but as the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, said it might well be many more than that. However, 100,000 is good enough for my example. Let us remember that those men, women and children in that country have no opportunity of influencing their government in what they do, so they would be, in every sense, innocent men, women and children. Let us further suppose that we knew that if that were done the enemy would abandon their plan and would give in. Your Lordships may say that that would be very improbable and I agree that it would be very improbable, but it is the most favourable outcome that we could possibly expect. In those circumstances, and knowing that, I asked myself: Would I be prepared to press the button and send that weapon off?
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I would not either!
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I am glad to hear that the noble Lord agrees with me because my answer was certainly, "No". I hope that there are many other noble Lords who would say "No". Yet, if we say

433
that, then we must say that we cannot expect our Government to do that in our name. And, although I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, will confirm that the Government have no intention of doing anything like that, we must remember that, in the course of a conventional war, the conduct of the war is in the hands of a small group—it may be in the hands of a single commander-in-chief, the president or somebody else—and under those conditions there is no opportunity of discussing with the people whether something should be done. Indeed, nobody was consulted outside Government circles before the first nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. I should have thought that there was a real danger that the temptation to make use of this in order to secure freedom from tyranny, in order to save the country from slavery, would be a very powerful temptation.
In those circumstances, what are we to do? I wish to point out that I shall not advocate, and am not advocating, unilateral nuclear disarmament in the sense in which it is usually put forward and which has been mentioned several times today. My noble friend Lord Gladwyn has spelt out the difficulties into which this would land us and our allies were we to do it. We have a treaty of alliance and through that we have responsibilities to not only the Governments, but the people of our allies. We must not let them down. It would be wrong, and it would certainly not be in the interests of this country to devalue international agreements.
What I should like to see—and this probably sounds much too simple, but I would hope that some noble Lords would like to give thought to it—is all the countries of the alliance getting together (and I hope that it might be a movement instigated by our own Government) to consider, and eventually to agree, to renounce the use of nuclear weapons and to dismantle them over a stated, but reasonably short, period of a few years. To clarify the position, I have in mind that perhaps we could agree to dismantle 10 per cent. in the first year—I am referring to the whole alliance-20 per cent. in the second year; 30 per cent. in the third year; and the last 40 per cent. in the fourth year, to complete the process. Naturally the detailed arrangements would have to be considered by people who understand the technicalities much better than I do. However, if we could make a gesture of that kind I cannot believe that a decision by the alliance to do just that would not evoke an immediate response from the Soviets. I know that we all tend to think of the Soviets as governed completely by wicked men. But surely it is as much in their interests as ours. They must be just as worried about the task of keeping up with our nuclear forces as we are about keeping up with their nuclear forces.
Your Lordships may wonder why an obscure Liberal Back-Bencher should come forward with a proposal like the one that I have put forward. I shall tell your Lordships. Over the past few years I have been talking to a number of young people—not only young people in this country. I am absolutely convinced that the vast majority of them would favour a move of this kind. Of course there are risks involved, and I do not suggest that there are not risks; but I believe that the risks are very much less than those that we are
434
taking all the time we pursue our present policy.
So, because in the nature of things youth is rather under-represented in your Lordship's House, I have ventured to speak for millions of young people in this country, in Europe, in America and, I suspect, in Russia too who, if they were given this chance to choose for themselves, would say that they would take the risk. And, in taking the risk, they would lift off their backs and off the backs of their children not only the appalling cost of armaments—and my goodness! what we could do with that money to help people in this country or in other parts of the world who are less fortunate than us—but they would also lift off their backs and the backs of their children the burden of fear and, in the case of sensitive souls, the burden of guilt.
I wish to raise one more matter. If we do not do something on these lines, if the young are told that the values we cherish can be defended only by the use of these horrible weapons, may they not come to the conclusion that these values are not really worth maintaining? And if that disease gets a hold I am afraid that it will spread very rapidly.
5.38 p.m.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Cathcart for enabling us to have a separate day to debate defence. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend the Minister Lord Strathcona on speaking from the Front Bench at the beginning of this debate and for speaking as my noble friend Lord Mount Royal, by leave, at the end of this debate!
Last week during the Foreign Affairs and Defence debate there were 27 speakers: today there are 34. Therefore, it is obvious that defence well deserves an extra day. It is also very gratifying to know that just over 90 per cent. of today's speakers are members of the all-party Defence Study Group started by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. As your Lordships all know, we have had peace in Europe for 30 years. In my humble opinion that has been entirely due to the nuclear power balance. Now we have a great controversy that rages all over the place merely about modernising NATO's nuclear weapons and in particular the counter-measure—the ground-launched cruise missile—against the Russians' SS20. I maintain that the opponents of this modernisation are either misguided, in which case they have my full sympathy and understanding, or, if they are not misguided, they must, to my mind, be active—even if well camouflaged—supporters of the Kremlin, whose policy is manipulated from the so-called World Peace Council.
So many of us seem inclined to forget that the Soviets have a decreed policy of world communist domination. They also do not seem to realise that the balance of power of NATO is now very largely at risk, and of course two of its disadvantages, hardware-wise, are, as I have already mentioned, the Backfire bomber and the SS20. Do not let us forget that there is one SS20 deployed each week, which means that at present there are about 120 of them, and by 1985 there will be in the region of 350. In addition, the Soviets have about 600 intermediate range ballistic missiles and Western Europe has none.

435
So what happens? Soviet military superiority is used to promote their domination policy, if they think that they can get away with it. They have tried it in Afghanistan. But why should Western Europe also not be on their list? In addition to their military superiority, their integrated strategy includes psychological blackmail, subversion, misinformation, agitation and propaganda, terrorism, power by proxy—again, as in Afghanistan—and mercenary forces of Cubans and East Germans in Africa.
Therefore, I maintain that NATO must strive for much closer co-operation, and I think that the United Kingdom could take the lead in Europe in promoting that co-operation. To my mind, we have no other way of restoring the balance of power, and it is only by doing this that we may negotiate at all in the future on a gradual and mutual reduction of forces, both nuclear and conventional.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, spoke about the young people of the world. Alas! he is not present at the moment. We must remember that a whole generation has grown up with no personal experience of war or knowledge of what it is like to exist under a totalitarian régime. This may well account for some of the thinking of the supporters of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. But, as I think I have mentioned once before in your Lordships' House, many of these young people at school only ever hear one side; they always hear the side of what will happen, that we will all be vaporized, and everything else. But very few of them are ever told of the danger which they will actually have to face if we ever lowered our guard so that we were colonised by the Warsaw Pact countries.
On 1st September last year Dr. Kissinger said:
"If present developments continue, the 1980s will be a period of serious crises for all of us.
Never in history has it happened that one country has acquired such a superiority in weaponry of every kind without using it for gaining an advantage in its foreign policy".
The United States cruise missiles will not be ready until about 1983 or even later, but the Soviet weaponry is already operational. So let us look at the situation from a very bad point of view.
What would happen if the Soviets did invade Europe? Would we opt for unconditional surrender and rule out all armed resistance?—not according to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. Can we even—if only armed with conventional defence—rule out the fact that the Soviets may still use nuclear, chemical or bacteriological warfare against us? If the unilateralist disarmament supporters want to press for that, why do they not press for total disarmament?—let us do away with every weapon. We have to choose what we want—Soviet dictatorship of the free world or our own democratic way of life I have said many times in your Lordships' House that détente can only be détente if we are in a strong position, for otherwise it means nothing. The Soviet idea of détente is winning battles or wars, preferably without fighting.
The Soviets claim that they fear the West, yet they have the mightiest war machine that the world has ever known. They already have power and influence worldwide—in Cuba, the Yemen, Ethiopia, Afghanistan and, who knows, perhaps tomorrow in Poland.
436
So why do they run terrorist training courses in the Soviet Union? Why is it that the Left-wing demonstrators always protest about Chile and South Africa? Why do not these people also protest about the Vietnamese boat people and the genocide in Cambodia? Not a word comes from them over that. Surely if we were aggressive, would we have not been prepared ourselves for chemical and bacteriological warfare?
Unfortunately, many citizens in this country adopt an ostrich-like posture. In the past we have closed our eyes to the killing of millions in communist countries; and we closed our eyes once before40-odd years ago—to Hitler, with nearly disastrous results. I should like to maintain that the Marxist dictatorship, as I call it, in the Kremlin is more evil than Hitler, and also much more dangerous.
So what are we to do? I think that we should fulfil the following contingencies. First, I think that we should certainly keep our own nuclear deterrent. Secondly, I think that we should prepare for chemical and bacteriological warfare, and its antidotes. Thirdly, we should increase our conventional capability on land, sea and air. Fourthly, we should mobilise our defences against airborne attacks and fifth columnists. Lastly, we should bolster up civil defence.
Hopefully, under President-elect Reagan the Americans might resuscitate the B1 supersonic bomber as another countermeasure to the Backfire, and we in this country might well set an example by updating our Vulcans to carry air-launch cruise missiles, which could and should be made by the British Aerospace Dynamics Group at Hatfield. If we do not have nuclear deterrence in Europe, conventional warfare is much more probable.
Therefore, the logical answer is for us to lead Western Europe so that Western Europe can itself be a credible deterrent. Once that happens, we can take our seats at any further strategic arms limitation negotiations and not just be left in the middle like the filling in a sandwich. This would entail narrowing the conventional gap, and building and buying modern mobile missiles; and refurbishing the air force to incorporate air-launch cruise missiles. I should also like to suggest that we start urgent research and development on stealth aircraft technology, as are the Americans.
Yesterday I had the privilege of going on "Invincible"; it is a wonderful ship and it works, and everybody who sails on it and works in it is proud of it. I am told that it is also the envy of the United States of America. But it has one great drawback, which is not in its design but in the fact that, like all our forces, the economies that have to be made—the amount of fuel and that sort of thing—cut down the time that the ship should be at sea, and perhaps have even prevented it paying a visit to America, where no doubt it would even be a great sales pitch. But I hope that we shall have more of them.
The plain fact is that the West, which includes us, can easily afford to match the Soviet forces. The NATO countries are far more profitable than the Warsaw Pact ones and, in fact, the arms race could well cripple the Warsaw Pact countries. But it need not cost us any more than just a few luxuries—luxuries which we may not live long enough to enjoy if we do not meet our own needs for defence. Therefore, it is

437
vital that we keep our promise to NATO of our 3 per cent. increase. I should like to repeat to anyone who thinks that I am a warmonger, that it is only from a position of strength that the whole world will be able to negotiate with the Soviet Union on a mutual and balanced force reduction.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, the House of course is grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, for introducing a topic of such overwhelming importance as I think in many of its consequences to be almost a terminal one. It is the question as to how—by what political means—there can be an avoidance of the holocaust of another war. As the House will remember, Clausewitz said that war is the continuation of politics by other means. I would presume to offer the pacifist case as the other means by which war can be once and for all forgotten, and that the political measures which will be included in that pacifist programme will be adequate to save the world from that kind of disaster.
I expect that I am probably the only speaker committed to this pacifist case, although I should be grateful for any support I might attract. But, at the same time, with your customary indulgence, as the word pacifism has been greeted somewhat in the course of this debate already, I am sure it will not be out of court for me to press what I believe to be not only an ideal which I suppose a great many people cherish but in fact a programme which I believe can be operated if only we put our hearts and minds to it.
I have been a pacifist for many years, and in the earlier days was regarded as a sort of moonbeam from a larger lunacy, but if I made these pious noises it probably did very little harm, but it was a case which could not be demonstrated in practical terms. I want to press the case tonight that in the intervening years pacifism, which seemed to so many people to be an impossible dream, now acquaints itself in much more concrete fashion and attracts a new kind of support which I think it would be dangerous for this House or anybody else to neglect.
In the first instance, there are many people today, perhaps more than ever before, who realise that we live in an unprecedented kind of world, in which the categories even of our vocabulary are largely inadequate, if not obsolete. I listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. I found that 90 per cent. of the words he used belonged to an age which was past and in fact did not represent the realities of the present time. Let me give one of them. He argued for what was called an adequate defence. The word "adequate" today carries with it all kinds of penumbra of thought which were quite unknown to those who first thought in terms of standing at your own front door with a meat chopper and defending yourself against an invader; or indeed the kind of world in which conventional weapons were indeed conventional and not as they are today, on the highroad to being thoroughly unconventional and unpredictable except in the total effect that they may produce.
I heard Lord Shinwell's speech when I was a very young boy before the First World War. I heard the same speech before the Second World War. I have heard it again tonight. I believe that speech represents
438
something which is totally out of character with the needs which are increasingly being available and recognised, particularly by some of the young people to whom reference was made by the noble Viscount. It is that sense of unreality about so much that belongs to a debate even of this character that I believe is persuading more and more people to face this issue of war not in terms of domesticating it, or preventing it by deterrence, but by obliterating its possibility by an altogether radical and new approach to its problem.
Not only is this sense of unreality growing apace, but it is accompanied by the difficulty in coming to terms with the various propositions for disarmament which are advanced alongside those preparations, and in fact constitute in the minds of many people what those preparations and defence measures should be. Multilateral disarmament is offered as a means. It is nothing of the sort. It is an end. You cannot proclaim the end of disarmament by a multilateral process which in fact is not likely to precede but to follow unilateral action on the part of somebody who sets that process going.
I do not believe that one fine morning we shall all wake up to find that the various contending parties in the various countries of the world will have had some vision during the night and will all come to a table and say, "We are now prepared for multilateral disarmament". I do not believe that for a moment. I believe that multilateral disarmament, which of course is highly desirable, which is imperative, can only come when there is an initiative taken on the part of one prepared to take a risk and to hope that others will respond to it.
It is that which causes so many people who are attracted to the prospect of multilateral disarmament to give pause and to say to themselves, "Perhaps it is not the kind of programme. It is only what a programme might produce, but a very different programme will be required". I find myself in similar difficulty with unilateral nuclear disarmament. I share the fears—and I read in today's Times the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, expressing these fears quite cogently, and I agree with him—that if you are prepared to get rid of one sort of weapon in the environment of total lying which belongs to the armaments race, you may be encouraging the proliferation of other weapons. Nobody tells the truth about them. Was it not Mr. Winston Churchill himself who said that in wartime lying is an indispensable ally? Of course it is. Nobody tells the truth about the arms they have or that anybody else has got. We do not know. Therefore, it might be that if nuclear weapons were prohibited, or there came some agreement whereby they would be renounced on the part of the two great powers, I believe that it might well be that by other means the gauge of war might be regarded as more suitable and probable in having the results of victory.
Furthermore, and I speak here with a certain diffidence, I am not satisfied with the labelling of Russia as the universal enemy. I find this a most dangerous exercise. I do not condone for one moment the invasion of Afghanistan, although in my judgment it was promoted by fear of the 75 million Moslems in their own country and the kind of turmoil that that would create. It is perfectly true that they are closing in, so I understand the New Standard to say, on Poland.

439
I do not know what will happen. This I do know; there is a difference between the attempt to maintain within the fabric of that particular régime, the Warsaw Pact countries, a codified and unified system, and, shall we say, the projected invasion of these islands if we were to disarm.
It is for those reasons and for many others that I would turn now briefly to the positive case that I believe the pacifist can bring to bear on the contemporary situation. It is that we are now faced with an unprecedented world in which one man can carry on his back more fire power than was possessed by a brigade of guards at the battle of Waterloo. A world in which countless new issues arise when you consider the nature of the weapons which the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, has so graphically described. The results are incalculable, except in terms of almost total disaster. I could have wished that I had had the opportunity as a bishop of saying something in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. I believe that the concept of a just war is utterly untenable, because there is no justice which can in fact be promulgated by the use of thekind of weapons which now belong to modern warfare.
Ultimately, the moral issue for the pacifist case seems to me to be this: If there is a moral code I believe that war breaks every incidental characteristic of that moral code. There is nothing that can be done in war that will not be justified by the prospect of victory. It is in this relationship that I believe that there are more and more people who find the calculations as to the possibilities of preventing the next war in terms of the use of violence are denying something which they would much prefer to cherish. I prefer to cherish it.
My time is nearly gone, and you will not object to a man wearing the collar I do making, humbly, I hope, the kind of witness which I believe has to be made even in a debate of this character. I am no Luther, but I concur with his proposition: "Here I stand. I can do no other." Not on the prospect that I or other Christians have the necessary wisdom to create a world of peace and contentment, but that in obedience to what I believe to be the law of God is the surest method of releasing into a situation which now seems bound in terms of violence new opportunities of good. I cherish the belief that if we were unilaterally totally to disarm, we should remove the need to lie; we should encourage millions of people in the rest of the world who likewise would cherish the ideals for which we are prepared to pay the price. It would be a tremendous price. I believe it would be infinitely preferable to the price of preparing, as I believe we now are, for a future holocaust. In that regard, the pacifist case is, I believe, not only the right one but the most practical. I thank noble Lords for allowing me to make this declaration of faith in a condition which I believe is desperate, and, unless we are bound to that course which is fundamentally right, I believe it may be terminal.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, the sincerity and eloquence with which the noble Lord, Lord Soper, puts forward the pacifist case raises the debate to a height with which I find it difficult to compete. His case really rests
440
on the injunction in the Gospels that if a man smite you on the right cheek, you offer the left cheek also. I would with humility remind him that in the version of the Gospel of St. Matthew in which that occurs, it is preceded in effect by the words, "I say unto you, resist not evil", and I am afraid that all my experience, and I think the experience of many of your Lordships, is that if evil is not resisted it unfortunately prevails.
We are all grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, for tabling the Motion, which enables us to discuss all the various aspects of defence at greater length than would have been possible in a foreign affairs and defence debate on the gracious Speech. In that, I was glad to see the emphasis laid by the Foreign Secretary on the importance of confidence-building measures. While the ones which have so far come out of the Helsinki pact are not very impressive, they are a hopeful beginning. The existence of satellite photography is by far and away the biggest confidence-building measure and is of immense value, and, when we look forward to disarmament and to trying to get a more reasonable world in this world of armaments, confidence-building measures are of great importance; and I am glad that the French, in the proposals they have put forward for a European disarmament conference, have put them as a first priority.
I am happy to support the Motion, but with some strong reservations as to what is meant by—
"a full defence capability both at home and abroad".
I think we had a description of a full defence capability by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, who I suggest is not only a belted Earl but a belt-and-braces Earl. To the surprise of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, I do not propose to get involved in answering his well-worn arguments with my well-worn arguments about the independent deterrent. I would only say that I am in substantial agreement with almost everything my noble friend Lord Zuckerman said on the subject. I shall say no more on it, except that the dilemma which one faces in this nuclear age is simple and is this: how to maintain the fact that, whether or not we like it, the existence of nuclear weapons in the hands of both super powers is a strong deterrent to them fighting each other and therefore to a major world war, yet this is in a world in which the other side may answer back, "If you threaten to pose an unacceptable risk to the other man, you pose an unacceptable risk to yourself".
To return to the problem of a full defence capability, since the end of the last war successive Governments of both colours have struggled with the problem of what our defence capability should be. They have tried to evaluate the global threat to which my noble friend Lord Hill-Norton referred, and they have always found it very large. Each time, after much travail and argument—within the Ministry of Defence, between the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury, with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office joining in—they have been through the system and drawn up a plan on which the Chiefs of Staff and others within the defence machine have based their programme for future years. But as soon as, even before, the ink was dry on those plans, the economic situation turned out less favourable and the cost of the programme greater than forecast, while claims on the public purse by other services increased, until after an interval, generally of about six years

441
(during which we heard the same remarks as we have heard today about the need for temporary restraint) the Government have been forced to conduct a major reappraisal.
Mr. Churchill had to do it when he found he could not sustain Mr. Attlee's rearmament programme, and the brutal task was left to Mr. Macmillan to carry out with the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, as his relentless hatchet-man. Mr. Wilson's Administration struck again, Mr. Healey wielding the axe. Mr. Heath's Administration was facing the same problem when they fell in 1974, and it was left to the Labour Administration who followed to carry out the defence review which that Administration had been contemplating. Now the present Administration, in spite of all their brave words before and since they came to power, are in the same position. Each one of those major reappraisals produced a plan which reduced the size of our armed forces. That has been possible without seriously affecting the security of this country by a wholesale shedding of commitments outside Europe, but now there are hardly any of those left. Those there are do not absorb much and are very difficult to get rid of. Our commitments have been reduced, as I said some years ago, to absolute bedrock.
Why has this state of affairs come about? My noble friend Lord Zuckerman explained most of them. The first is because the real wealth of this country has declined. Although we have spent a higher proportion of our GNP on defence than allies with a similar population, France and Germany, the real amount we have spent on defence, and obtained for that expenditure, has been less; we are very low down on the list of defence expenditure per capita. The second reason for our present state is that new defence equipment has been, and is, subject to a double inflation—to the inflationary trends that have affected everything else and, on top of that, as Lord Zuckerman explained, to the need to produce equipment which is certainly as good as, and preferably superior to, that of a potential enemy who is devoting enormous resources both to research and development and to the productive capacity which enables him to exploit that at comparatively frequent intervals. The third reason is that the cost of employing and looking after the man and woman in uniform has risen in line with the cost of employing their civilian counterparts. Their expectations have risen very significantly. And finally, because the demands on Government expenditure of other services—education, social welfare, the nationalised industries—have dramatically increased.
I sympathise with the Government in facing these intractable problems, although they are partly of their own making. They encouraged the idea that the defence programme would be significantly increased; they have tried to take credit for it with their supporters, allies and others. Now they are having to eat their brave words and they do not like the taste of them, just as I do not like the way they are setting about things. They seem more interested in the appearance rather than in the reality of strength. The story of the 3 per cent. increase in real defence spending illustrates this. To begin with, the base from which the increase was calculated was below that which would have resulted from the plans of the previous Administration: £200 million at 1980 survey prices, if my figures are
442
correct. Since then, the base for subsequent years has not been what was planned, but the actual cash outflow which then was lower. Each year, therefore, the Ministry of Defence has had to step its programme down to adjust to this, and over a period of 10 years—the time it takes to develop and produce most items of equipment—the cumulative difference between that and a programme based on a real 3 per cent. increase amounts to a great deal.
The Government do not now even pretend that they are going to achieve it. Once again, a programme has to be mucked about to meet short-term demands for cuts. This is a highly unsatisfactory way of managing the armed forces and their future programme. It comes on top of similar cuts imposed by the previous Administration immediately following a major defence review and on top of this year's extraordinary, nonsensical exercise designed to stop the forces spending anything until the end of the financial year in order to keep within cash limits; and it appears that the Defence Secretary, speaking in another place yesterday, would agree with me in that description.
If reports in the press about how the Government are to seek to achieve the £200 million cut are true, the current effects of bad management will be made even worse. Instead of admitting that they have encouraged the overloading of the programme, they propose to add even further to the recent measures of Pecksniffian parsimony which they have inflicted on the armed forces. Measures like cutting spares orders and restricting the use of fuel directly affect the lifeblood of the forces, their training, which is already interfered with by having to deal with civil emergencies. If aircraft cannot fly, if ships cannot go to sea, if fighting vehicles cannot exercise on their training areas, or if weapons cannot be fired on the ranges because of lack of ammunition, expertise will suffer, and standards will fall. The pay of servicemen will be affected since they will not be able to be upgraded in their trade or skill, and their morale, their sense of purpose, will decline. Those are the accusations which the party now in power made time and time again against their predecessors. And now they are going down the same road themselves.
Ideally, I should like to see the Government restore the £200 million cut and make their claim of a 3 per cent. increase in defence spending in real terms a reality. But I believe that if they are not prepared to do that, whether they like it or not, the Government will be faced with the need for a major reappraisal, a defence review, certainly by the middle of next year; and I suggest that they should start preparing the ground for it now.
Well, what should such a review consider? It must be crystal clear to the Government that they have no hope, as they suggested in their Defence White Paper, of creating additional capability to meet new commitments outside the NATO area. Within it the only area that I can suggest is that of what are called specialist reinforcement forces and the air transport, fixed-wing and rotary, that goes with them. I have never been impressed by their military capability in the context of a European war.
We have heard it said today—and the Economist made a point of it a few weeks ago—that we may have to make a choice between a maritime and a continental

443
strategy. That choice, my Lords, is not open to us. If we, of all the nations of Europe, given our geographical position and our history that has stemmed from it, did not make a significant contribution to the defence of the North Atlantic, how could we expect our European allies to believe in American assurances that they would come across the ocean to help us? And how indeed could we persuade the Americans to do so?
But equally, if we were not firmly committed to the defence of Europe on land and in the air by the presence of a significant force on the continent, again how could we persuade our allies in Europe and in North America that we are firmly committed to the defence of Western Europe? We do not make these commitments out of altruism. With the weapons of the late 20th century, these islands cannot be defended from our own shores, within our own airspace. A Battle of Britain by itself is no longer possible. Talk about home defence is meaningless.
Our efforts, and those of our European allies in NATO, must be concentrated on convincing the United States that we are making a fully adequate contribution in the conventional field, so that if deterrence fails and war breaks out, they are not faced with the awful decision as to whether or not to use nuclear weapons, just because we are not prepared to provide adequate conventional forces. We must convince them that the forces that they station in Europe, or send in reinforcement, stand a good chance of success, and that therefore they should continue to remain committed.
That must be the prime aim of our defence policy—not pursuing policies which, whatever the curious gloss put on them in official statements, imply distrust of the United States, policies which imply that in the last resort we could do without them and that, with our so-called independent strategic deterrent force, we could face the Soviet Union alone. We cannot.
With their proposed cut in defence expenditure, the Government cannot possibly now maintain that replacement of that force by four or five Trident-carrying submarines can be accommodated within the defence budget without detriment to our conventional forces. The Government can tell that to the horse marines! I urge them to reconsider that decision for the sake of maintaining a defence capability which is a real contribution to the deterrent to war. By persisting in it they will not only damage their capability, but will be playing into the hands of the misguided idealists of the Left, whose eloquent voices have been heard already and will, I am sure, be heard again.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I fear that if I were tempted to reply in detail to all those arguments, I would bore the House and poach on the time of those noble Lords who are yet to speak. I join with others in expressing the debt of gratitude owed to the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. I think that he has chosen a most appropriate moment for our debate, partly because at present the Soviets are threatening Poland. They have invaded Afghanistan in the last year, and clearly the threat to the peace of the whole world is very real.
The second reason why the debate is timely is that
444
the Government's defence budget is currently being drawn up. As the ex-CDS who has just sat down will know, it has to be finalised by Christmas, and therefore if we have any chance to influence Government thinking, this is the right time to try to do so. The third reason why the debate is timely is that the Opposition has a new leader. Under him the Opposition has taken a lurch to the Left, and he seems to be espousing the cause of unilateral nuclear disarmament. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, said that we did not want any political claptrap. On the other hand, we have a duty to probe the question of where the official Opposition stand in this matter. That is our duty towards our country and our allies.
The timing of the debate is reflected in the fact that 32 Peers are speaking; it is a very considerable turnout. We claim in the House of Lords that we have people with balance, experience, and wisdom on any single subject. This claim is evidently abundantly true in the field of defence. We have 13 Peers of General rank, or above, (made up of seven Generals, five Admirals and one Air Marshal and there are two ex-Chiefs of the Defence Staff, both of whom have given most interesting and stimulating speeches. They and others have recently retired, but I am sure that they are in touch with the friends they have made during a lifetime of service in the services, and therefore they keep their knowledge up-to-date.
Government policy on defence has been stated and re-stated by Francis Pym and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and therefore I want to spend a little time probing and questioning the Opposition. I think that the country and our NATO allies are naturally anxious to know what is the position, now that the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party has fallen under Left-wing control, and the party has a temporary Left-wing leader who could be confirmed in permanent office.
We have had very sensible and moderate speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, last week, and the noble Lord, Lord Peart, today. I should like to take up one point. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, said that the Labour Government had always supported NATO. But I think that he must reflect that there has been a very considerable change in Labour Party policy. We have an entirely new position where the Left wing of the Labour Party is becoming ever stronger, in the constituencies, in the Commons, in the National Executive Committee of the Party, and in the leadership. At the same time the Soviet threat has become considerably greater, not least, incidentally, in terms of subversion. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Airey of Abingdon, and the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, are, I understand, to touch on the subversive actions of the Soviets.
We must all agree that the increasing pace at which the Soviets are producing and deploying their aggressive arms means that Britain and her allies have to make sacrifices to strengthen their defence forces. Here I so agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, in what he said. I believe that the country is ready to make sacrifices if we can continue to tell them the truth. We always are ready to match sacrifices, and we have a duty to bring home the dangers. I am glad that Francies Pym said yesterday that he was anxious

445
not to accept the cut of £200 million in a defence budget of £11,000 million; and he is clearly still fighting his corner.
Britain's trouble is that we have the largest public sector in the free world, the largest number of nationalised and quasi-nationalised industries; and I include British Leyland as a quasi-nationalised industry. These industries are imposing an intolerable burden of cash requirements on the Government. That is why the defence budget has to be trimmed, cut and distorted. The wealth-creating private sector is struggling manfully to support this swollen public sector. In a world recession, our exports in the private sector have really held up astonishingly well. Public sector prices have gone up by 25 per cent., but, where competition exists, as in food supply, the price increase in the last year has been only 11 per cent. and in clothing and shoes it has been only 7 per cent. So the public sector prices have gone up at more than double the rate of those in the private sector.
Our defence needs are being curtailed by the cash requirements of our nationalised industries, which in the current year total £3,000 million. British Steel are taking £1 billion in the current year. British Rail, which Lord Peart mentioned, is getting more than £600 million of subsidy in the current year, and it is forecast that subsidies next year will need to be at the rate of £700 million; that is, £2 million a day. British Leyland has already had £300 million this year, and it is reported that Michael Edwardes will shortly be asking the Government for between £800 million and £1,000 million over the next two years. British shipbuilding made a loss of £110 million last year.
Here I should like to make a constructive suggestion to my noble friend. Why do we not employ our shipyards in building small naval vessels? We can build them "on spec", minesweepers and the like. All the underdeveloped countries want this sort of vessel to patrol their coasts, sometimes against illegal immigrants, as in the case of Hong Kong, sometimes for other police and Customs purposes. Would it not be better to do exactly as the French do?—that is, lay some ships down, keep our shipyards usefully working and, if the ships are not bought by overseas customers, then they can be incorporated in the Royal Navy for fishery protection and a whole host of other important duties.
In the last 35 years we have had four Labour Governments. In all, they have lasted 17 years—just about 50 per cent.—and, despite this desperate track record of the nationalised industries, each successive Labour Government has nationalised another section of British industry. At Blackpool it became Labour Party policy to introduce an Industry Bill to put into effect further nationalisation. Tony Benn, replying for the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, accepted, among other things, the further extension of public ownership, the reflation of public sector service spending—and that means more cash—a substantial cut in arms expenditure and the abolition of the House of Lords. Incidentally, all those things are to be done in the first few days of any Parliament in which he serves. So there is to be more nationalisation, more money for the nationalised industries and less money for defence. That is a desperate programme to put before our country and our allies.
446
Thirty years ago Hugh Gaitskell struggled to get rid of Labour's two albatrosses. The first was nationalisation (Clause 4) and the second was unilateral disarmament. This was 30 years after that "fight, fight and fight again" speech, which was courageous. His democratic successors are still struggling and sadly some of them feel that their struggles are useless, and they are leaving the party. No party should willingly lose people like Shirley Williams and others of that calibre.
I now turn to the second albatross, the multilateral or unilateral disarmament. No one can "disinvent" nuclear arms and it is worth remembering that if the big powers ever agreed to dismantle—and I am afraid I cannot go along with the noble Lord, Lord Soper, that, if we did disarm unilaterally, anyone would be likely to follow, though we must go on trying to dismantle and run down the whole of the nuclear weaponry of all the world—then we would be left with the horrors of conventional, biological and chemical warfare. Let us not forget that 50 million people died in World War II as a result of conventional, not nuclear, warfare.
Last week, Lord Stewart quoted—and I think I approved—Lord Mountbatten's statement: "We must preserve the balance". Many of my friends would go along with that. Lord Mountbatten made the point that:
"security will only come when there is balance",
and I would go along with that. We all believe in balance. Of course we want it at the lowest conceivable level. Every democratic nation particularly desires that, but so far the Soviets have never responded, and a police state like theirs can never agree to detailed verification. That I think is one reason why the Mutual and Balanced Force Reduction conference in Vienna has been going on for years and years and seems to be hopelessly bogged down. But we must go on trying and trying and trying again to get people round a table on a multilateral disarmament agreement. However, let us not deceive ourselves, and above all let us not deceive our electorates that these efforts are actually going to achieve results until those results come about.
Critics say—and Lord Carver is one (I see he has already gone, and I am sure he has a dinner commitment, judging from his dress)—that our strategic deterrent is too expensive. When I was a Minister at the Admiralty in 1963 there was one thing that I got absolutely plumb accurate and that was when I forecast that the cost of the Polaris fleet would not be more than 3 per cent. of our defence budget. I am delighted to read that even today it is only 1½ per cent. of our defence budget, and, as Lord Chalfont has pointed out, our strategic nuclear fleet costs less than the annual budget of the London Borough of Camden. I therefore think that it is giving excellent value as an effective deterrent in helping to preserve the peace. It is fortunate too that the Labour Government, with supreme secrecy but with great guts, spent £1,000 million in fitting a new Polaris head, the Chevaline, to our Polaris force. Because of that initiative, that force will be effective until the 1990s.
Having examined the alternatives, I believe that the Trident will be the most effective and the longest lasting strategic weapon. I see no possible scientific breakthrough—and I speak as a physicist though not of the same calibre as Lord Zuckerman—which will make it

447
possible to detect submarines in water at great depth. The cost of this new Trident programme will peak at 5 per cent. and settle down in the late 1990s and the early 21st century at nearer 1½ per cent. I still believe that that is the correct solution and I am sorry that Lord Carver is not here; otherwise I might go into that further.
He and others have argued—and he did tonight—that the money should be spent on other conventional arms. Any savings are of course very useful, but these sums, big as they are, would not pay for the equipping and deployment of one extra division in Germany. So let us be realistic about it. They look big, but expenditure on arms, equipment and men are also very large and that is a fact. Lord Carver has said on other occasions that there are no circumstances when we could or would use our deterrent without the USA. For moralists I find it a dubious moral stance to depend entirely on the USA for our nuclear protection, especially when the Leader of the Opposition is currently committed, if and when he comes to power, to asking the USA to withdraw its cruise missiles from this country if they are deployed. If the USA did hesitate, a Britain which had phased out its deterrent would be left under nuclear blackmail with no possible alternative but to surrender.
Henry Kissinger commented in Brussels a year ago that Europeans would be very unwise to count on US nuclear response in all circumstances. Many of us would not wish to believe that that comment was accurate, but the point is that the Soviets might think so, and that is where the danger to world peace lies. I support Trident and for those on the fence in this matter between cruise missiles and Trident I would point out that 70 per cent. of the expenditure on the Trident programme will be in our own shipyards, where the work will be very welcome indeed in the building of submarines.
One word on theatre nuclear deterrents. Let us remind ourselves that this is the area where the SS20 made us agree and encourage the deployment of cruise missiles. We have at this moment the Vulcan force, but it is ageing; the Jaguars are limited. We have five Buccaneer squadrons. All have British nuclear weapons for theatre use. The US Air Force has 160 F1-11s with a Russian range capability and has 300 further aircraft based in this country. We sometimes overlook this; they all have nuclear capability. The "loony Left" is critical of NATO's decision to deploy US cruise missiles in answer to the SS20s. But the SS20s are formidable. The Soviets introduced them in 1977. There are 200—and I correct my noble friend; I have checked this—in place now, with a range of 2,500 miles; and they threaten every capital city in Europe. A new one is becoming operational every five days. Each missile has three warheads: each SS20 has about 35 to 40 times the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb. In face of that threat and before programming the deployment of cruise missiles, the Soviets were approached and asked, "Can we not come to an agreement not to deploy these weapons?" That approach was rejected by Mr. Brezhnev. So, at the request of the European Group of NATO, the USA will deploy 108 Pershing IIs and 464 cruise missiles spread with 160 in this country and others
448
elsewhere. This programme was not forced on us. It came about as a result of the Soviet build-up and the massive disparity between the nuclear strengths on both sides. The USA offered to withdraw 1,000 warheads from Europe so as not to increase the nuclear capability, but again there was no Soviet response.
As the world recession lengthens and deepens, all the democracies are under pressure to curtail defence. Our allies are alarmed because they are not sure whether Mr. Michael Foot will come to power and whether the Labour Left will dominate our future defence programme. It appears at the moment that the Labour Party are committed to withdrawal from the EEC. How can they ask for the US cruise missiles to be withdrawn and yet remain in NATO? I would urge Labour Peers to press their newly-elected Leader to make an early announcement repudiating the views he has already put on the record. A section of the Labour Party has always resented defence expenditure. They voted against rearmament in the 1930s and also, I remember that they voted against national service a few weeks before World War II started. I would urge them to change their leader's views; because the NATO cement is beginning to crack. There are uncertainties among our allies. We want to show sincerity and firmness of purpose. Mr. Denis Healey on 5th March 1969 said—and I heard it—
"Once we cut defence expenditure to the extent when our security is imperilled, we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders".
That is the message. Let us make sure that it does not happen.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Noel-Baker: My Lords, I follow the noble Lord who has just sat down in saying that we must try and try and try again for multilateral disarmament. I think that was the only thing that he said with which I found myself in full agreement. But I was in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, who said, with his great authority, that the average size of the nuclear weapon today is a little under one megaton, that a one-megaton bomb exploded above Birmingham would utterly destroy the city and kill 300,000 people; that if a nuclear exchange begins it is virtually certain that it will mean the end of our civilisation and that reliance on deterrence is a very dangerous gamble.
Last week, in a brief speech, I tried to demonstrate that if in fact the Goverment policy is deterrence, if they think they can prevent a war by making Russia feel that it would entail unacceptable damage to their economy and their nation, then the purchase of Tridents instead of Polaris was a total waste of money! The noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, said this afternoon that he thinks that Polaris would be an adequate deterrent if deterrence is the policy. Another noble Lord opposite said this afternoon that he thinks the same. I think I made an unanswerable case last week for the view that, if deterrence is the policy, then Trident is money thrown away.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, surely the point is that the Polaris sub-

449
marines are going to run out of age by the end of this decade. Is he saying that we should not renew the nuclear strategic deterrent?
Lord Noel-Baker: My Lords, I quoted my noble friend Lord Peart, then the Leader of the House, as saying that Polaris had many years of effective life yet—and that was only three years ago.
My Lords, I go on to say that the conclusion which I draw from Lord Zuckerman's observations—that a nuclear exchange means the end of civilisation, that there is no defence against nuclear weapons and that deterrence is an illusion—is that the only realistic plan for national defence is world disarmament, world disarmament with the reallocation of the resources so released to welfare instead of war.
That is the policy that was adopted by 149 Governments only two years ago in New York, at a conference at which I was a member of the British delegation—the greatest international conference which I believe has happened in my lifetime or at any other time, a conference with immense authority behind it, a conference which declared in the first paragraph of its final document that weapons no longer defend the nations, that they have become much more a threat than a protection to the future of mankind and that they create the dangers against which they are supposed to guard. I believe that the adoption of that policy by the Governments in 1978 was a turning point in history. At Blackpool a month ago the Labour Party unanimously agreed, with Right, Left and Centre all voting for the composite resolutions, that it should be the centre of Labour foreign policy to put forward the programme of the 1978 final document and to work as a Government for its realisation in the United Nations.
I return to the point that if deterrence is the view, is the policy, of the Government, then spending money on Trident is money thrown away. If deterrence is not the policy, if, in fact, the Government are now preparing to fight a nuclear war, then the more clearly they say so to the nation, the better for all concerned. We should know where we stand.
I believe that it is not only in respect of Trident that our military budget today contains a great element of waste. I speak of military research and development. It was the British Government who first introduced military research in preparation for war. We spent £5 million in 1937 and about the same in 1938 preparing for the war with Hitler. It was a magnificent investment. It enabled Sir Robert Watson-Watt to develop his discovery of radar and so to defeat the Luftwaffe and enable us to win the war.
R and D went on increasing in cost throughout the war. At the end it was not £5 million; it was £40 million. But with less real reasons it has gone on increasing fabulously ever since. In 1975 it had reached the total of £688 million, and five years later—this year—it is £1,557 million. Of course it has had a devastating effect on our civil industry. Diverting our men of genius, our greatest scientists and technologists to the service of the military machine has damaged our civil industry in a very grievous way. I believe that a good deal of the expenditure now being made is probably very difficult to justify. For example, the defence estimates tell us that on air warfare we are spending £440 million this year mostly, if I understood
450
the estimates aright, for the discovery of new mineral alloys for making aircraft. We have Tritium. It is as strong as steel, one third as heavy and costs about five times as much.
Is it really right to go on spending £440 million this year for aircraft which perhaps will never be used if the next war should come?—because in all human probability it will be a missile war and over very soon. We are also spending £230 million on sea warfare—improving the speed of frigates which probably will never set sail if hostilities should begin—and on investigating anti-submarine warfare which, if the investigation is successful, will destroy the invulnerability of our Polaris submarine fleet. I doubt profoundly whether that expenditure could be justified if it were examined as closely as it should be.
I want to add that expenditure on research and development is not only in my belief very wasteful, it is also very dangerous. R and D is the dynamo that drives the arms race. Everybody agrees that we have been ahead in research and development, ahead of the Russians. Some great experts have said by five years, some have said by 10 years. Herbert York, who was chief scientist in the Pentagon for a period of years under Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, in his book, Race to Oblivion, says that it has been the West which has made every new weapon development in the arms race.
In the current number of Admiral La Roque's defence monitor he shows that it is America which is setting the pace in stepping up the cost of armaments today. Noble Lords will remember that Admiral La Roque is the most decorated naval officer in the world. He was the victor in 15 naval engagements against the Japanese in the Second World War. No-one can doubt his patriotism or his knowledge of the facts, and he says in the current number of his defence monitor that since 1975 in real terms the United States has increased its military expenditure by 6 per cent. a year. He says that that is the major cause of the fact that they have inflation at 17 per cent.
Can any noble Lords doubt that armament expenditure is the cause of inflation? Let them reflect on the case of Israel. The Jews are the ablest financiers in the world, but Israel has the highest level of per capita of expenditure on armaments and its inflation today is 150 per cent. R & D is the cause of rapid weapon development, the bringing out of new weapons all the time and improvements of existing weapons. I believe that rightly viewed the efforts made by Russia—which I think are very often overstated—are really a desperate attempt to keep up.
I hope and believe that noble Lords will think again about this question and will come to the conclusion which I stated earlier that world disarmament, the reduction of armaments to the level required for internal order only with a contribution to the United Nations, the reallocation of the money to world development for human happiness and welfare, is the only realistic policy, the only policy that can defend our nation against the dangers of war; the only policy that can ensure that civilisation will survive.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: My Lords, my attention was drawn the other day to a quotation which is as

451
follows:
"There is no evidence in psychology or in history which would lead us to believe that aggressive groups of adult human beings can be restrained by kindness or cured of aggression by submission to their will".
Those words were spoken by the right honourable William Rogers on the subject of defence speaking on behalf of his party—and all honour to him for saying it. I feel that he is a man who understands the problems as I am sure do very many of his colleagues.
Naturally, we as Christians are in a very difficult situation when it comes to the question of nuclear warfare. This obviously is as appalling to us as it is to all other people of like mind. Unfortunately, it is a sad fact that so far as I can judge the Russians are no longer a Christian country. If they had been, may I suggest that life for all of us might be now less anxious. I think that although much of their behaviour may be occasioned by distrust which is probably of a traditional nature of what has happened in the past, if they stop to think and if they used Christian principles in their thinking, they might realise that appalling damage and possibly the end of the planet as we know it might easily occur if all the horrors about which we are talking were released. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, who has just sat down, that when he talks about the dangers of research and development, as I understand it, the Russians are spending virtually twice as much on R and D as we and the United States put together—and I have in fact the authority of a Marshal of the Royal Air Force for that particular detail.
I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Cathcart, and to congratulate him on having achieved this debate today. Although the numbers are now thinning, I think that this has been a matter of very great importance to this country, by the very fact that so many noble Lords in this House today have risen to speak or are waiting to speak. I would only say that I think the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, who is not with us at the moment, will acknowledge that the Government's Exercise Crusader will help to assure our American allies of our firm intentions in Europe. I thought, with respect, that his sweeping strictures on the present Government are most unfair. I am not normally in the habit of arguing with a Field-Marshal, but I must remind him that this Government are doing their best, and given time will, I am sure, do even better. It is a difficult situation, nationally and internationally, when we are in a state where we cannot afford all that we would wish and—heaven knows!—we must do the best with what we have got. Inevitably, in a debate such as this, we must always ask for more; if we did not do that we would not be earning our salt.
I think that Exercise Crusader was a very valuable exercise. I am quite certain that much of what came out of it must remain confidential and therefore I shall not probe too deeply into it. But it is a very difficult problem to reinforce a continental army. It is something which over the years we have had to come to expect, because our main difficulty has always been that we have looked upon ourselves as an island race. Fighting on exterior lines of communication we are told by others even than field-marshals is not a very satisfactory way of conducting our affairs. Be that
452
as it may, we cannot do anything about it because we must keep faith with our allies in NATO.
The only problem I can see is the problem of what will happen if we do not receive the longish period we think we might have before hostilities become imminent. It is one thing merrily to motor down to the coast, cross over to the other side and then take up one's battle positions, or to be flown in by aircraft, when you have the time to organise it. What worries me is what will happen supposing that time does not allow us to do such things in the smooth way we should like.
There is one small lesson one can learn—and I speak out of partial ignorance on this, because naturally I have not seen what the composition was of the forces which went. But I think it would be dangerous if any tracked or wheeled vehicles had to be transported from this country at a time when hostilities were a possibility. I think that stockpiling of both really must be an essential, because men can get there by air or by sea, but it is much more cumbersome to take heavy vehicles over, whether they be on tracks or wheels. I only hope that they are in sufficient quantities on the other side to meet the need should it ever—which, please God! it will not—be necessary.
I think, too, that it is really a problem of wondering what would happen supposing we were unfortunate enough not to have the time to reinforce our allies and our own forces in BAOR if war should come upon us. I think the great difficulty would be that conventional bombing, even if nothing worse, would involve our ports on this side together with the lines of communication leading to them, and there may be a major problem in this regard. Therefore, apart from our other commitments to NATO, we must pay some very close attention to the United Kingdom base. We are the forward base in Europe, not only for our own war effort but for the United States of America, who is our principal partner in NATO. Our ports and airfields will be of vital importance, but one wonders whether we have enough forces earmarked for the defence of these and other installations. As I understand it, we have a small eight field force, and there are the general reserve battalions of the Territorial Army. I would suggest that in numbers these forces are totally inadequate for the many commitments they will have to meet, whether to prevent sabotage from within or meet attacks from without by terrorists or others.
I was pleased to see that some progress has been made in the recruitment in the number of squadrons of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment, organised and equipped in a field role as land-rover mounted infantry for the ground defence support of their parent air stations. I would only ask my noble friend the Minister whether something similar could not be done by the formation of additional units, whether of the Territorial Army or named otherwise, who would train as infantry and, with some engineers and signallers in addition, could be given a flexible role as operational units under the command of headquarters United Kingdom land forces. With a stated improvement in overall recruiting, which I understand is quite considerable, this surely would be possible, and at very little cost.
None of us is under any illusion that in the event of active hostilities the British Isles will be spared from the major destruction of military and other targets by

453
conventional bombing, and possibly by worse. With this in mind, for a few minutes more, I should like to discuss the question of civil defence. Although it is, perhaps unhappily, a matter which comes under the heading of another department, nevertheless all departments are the same when it comes to national survival. I gave a relieved, if somewhat muted, welcome to the decision taken in August this year to spend £45 million on planning and training to complete the pattern of local authority wartime administrative headquarters and communications throughout the country. This is merely the reactivation, I would suggest, of what we had in being prior to 1968.
It is also a valuable step to have "a person of high standing" which the Home Secretary decided to nominate to co-ordinate volunteer effort in England and Wales, with a similar person appointed in Scotland. As my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery said, I would hope that the announcement of whoever this person is to be will shortly be made, because I think it is most essential that some action should be seen to be taking place, whatever may be happening within local authorities unbeknown to us.
But most of this work is in the field of communication and fairly abstract training. What this country needs, and will have no doubt eventually if it does not come too late, is a fully-fledged civil defence corps. The police and the fire service are there already as part of a peacetime existence. The Royal Observer Corps is operational; military units for home defence are there in embryo. On the other hand, a heavy rescue service does not exist. Much of what is required could be obtained by volunteer effort with comparatively small expenditure. In our country we have an enormous reservoir of patriotism. What is needed is a firm lead. A natural disaster, such as that which has befallen our Italian friends, highlights the difficulty of bringing aid and relief where terrain and climate conspire to make access difficult. A hundred times worse would be pattern bombing of a port installation in this country, with its dense population in a built-up area. A thousand times worse would be the result of the use of nuclear weapons.
I am not convinced that the people of our country are yet fully aware of the horrible consequences of a nuclear war. It is a natural reaction to put out of one's mind the unpleasant consequences of what is still a hypothetical situation: a threat with which we have all lived for a long time, but which now seems to have grown alarmingly, although I am sure there are many who do not yet realise it. It would be an astonishing lack of psychological understanding on the part of those in authority just to let things drift along from now onwards.
We are told that the period of greatest danger will come in the late 1980s—the so-called "window of vulnerability", when Russia's superiority will reach its zenith. The time has come when comprehensive plans for a major emergency must be worked out in detail. There must, first, be a clear and coherent policy to ensure national survival. From that would flow naturally detailed plans for community and individual survival. I can imagine no worse situation than that which would arise should an unprepared population suddenly be warned by official pronouncements, through press and radio, that extreme danger was
454
imminent. In such circumstances, panic and confusion would be paramount and the instinctive and natural attitude of sauve qui peut would take over and greatly hamper, if not destroy, the efforts of the authorities to remain in control.
May I finish by quoting what the Lord Privy Seal said in reply to the Queen's Speech in another place:
"… a credible defence is not an alternative to schools, housing and social services. It is the only guarantee of our security and way of life".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/11/80; col. 341.]
and I am sure that that is something which we all support.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Saint Brides: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I was much impressed by the conviction and forthrightness with which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, spoke to us earlier in this debate. It is about the global threat of which he spoke that I shall try to deal succinctly in my speech.
A man of my age from Britain who visits Moscow and Leningrad, as I did recently, cannot fail to be struck—and to find his own memories stirred—by the depth and vividness with which the Russian people's prodigious sufferings, and ultimate deliverance, during World War II are still remembered, and poignantly commemorated in both cities today. No wonder, therefore, if for some decades after that appalling experience the Soviet Government acted on the principle that never again should the USSR have to suffer such an overwhelming disaster as Hitler's invasion. No matter what the cost, Russia must be made, and kept, strong enough to hold off all corners from whatever quarter. It is in this light, and on this ground, that the huge and manifest scale of Soviet military preparedness today is still presented and justified to the Russian people.
But military preparations, if they are sustained for so long and so massively as they have been in the Soviet Union, acquire, in the end, a logic and a momentum of their own; and I would add that greatly enlarged military capabilities have a way of heightening their owners' propensity to take risks. Those of us who are obliged to live under the awesome threat, like a huge wave which could break at any moment, of Soviet troops and weaponry in Central Europe, know that the USSR'S former obsessive preoccupation with defence has now changed into something different and more menacing.
Whatever the Soviet Government may say, for public consumption, about the scale of threat to their country from the NATO powers or from China, no objective student of the present situation in the world—and the Kremlin planners are nothing if not objective—could seriously argue that the Soviet Union today is likely to suffer an unprovoked attack from any quarter as it did from Nazi Germany. The reasons for the immense Soviet military build-up therefore have to be sought elsewhere.
There seem to be several, and I suggest three. First, authoritarian régimes, as such, always tend to build up great armies, because the threat, and the application of force, is for them a way of life, both internally and externally, and because the young and active male part of the population can be controlled more easily if they are in uniform than if they are not. For the elderly and

455
profoundly conservative men who rule in Moscow, the possession of large and well-equipped military forces, stationed both in the USSR and on the territories of their European satellites, is the ultimate guarantee of continued communist rule in that part of the world to which it has so far been extended. And—as the men in the Kremlin see matters it is the possession of such forces which ensures that the Soviet Union is feared and respected and its wishes heeded, even if not always obeyed, in that part of the world which is not yet communist or, like China, practices a heretical version of communism.
Secondly, this desire to assert Soviet importance operates with especial force in relation to the United States. As a very senior Soviet official said to me in Moscow a little over two months ago, "It is idle for any American to think that we shall ever allow them to re-establish the superiority which they once had over us in nuclear weapons. That was a once-for-all phenomenon which will never be allowed to recur." In the negotiations about the limitation of strategic arms, which the two super powers have conducted since 1972, the United States Government has sought stability and parity. But the Soviet Union, while reaping whatever advantage they could in terms of the codification of the holdings of strategic arms, have relentlessly sought military superiority in the fields not covered by SALT. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, it has not been a case of the Soviet Union desperately trying to catch up. For example, the Soviet Union has developed an offensive chemical warfare potential, which has already been mentioned by several noble Lords in this debate, to which there is no parallel in the armed forces of the United States or of other Western countries.
Thirdly, let us remember that, while all the other pre-1914 empires, including our own, have vanished the Soviet Union is the successor régime to that of the Tsars, with subject dominions reaching across Asia to the Pacific. It has been a characteristic of empires that, when there is a power vacuum on their borders, they expand if they can, so as to fill it, just as the Soviet Union is seeking to do in Afghanistan at this moment.
Last March, I visited a camp of Afghanistan refugees at Jamrud, at the foot of the Khyber Pass in Pakistan. They told me that it was after President Daud's overthrow, at the hands of the Afghanistan communist party in April 1978, that the Afghan Communist Party began seeking, as they put it, with determination and cruelty "to destroy our old ways and beliefs and to introduce communism in their stead." They told me: "That is why many of us took refuge in Pakistan even before the Russian troops invaded our country last December." When I said to them that Afghans, as a people, were famous for their devotion to Islam, and that surely the communists could really have no hope of destroying their faith, they replied: "That is true of all of us who are adults. But what the communists want is to get hold of our children." Thus it was the Afghan Communist Party's arrival in power, followed by the campaign which the new régime launched with Soviet encouragement and help to indoctrinate the Afghan people with communist ideology, which triggered off the rebellion among the Afghan tribesmen that they have waged with such
456
fervour and ferocity ever since.
I asked these tribesmen when I met them whether they now saw the invasion of their country as another episode in the extension of the Russian Empire which, as we British well knew, had spread in the 18th and 19th centuries from Orenburg—the great military base in the Urals—all the way to the banks of the Oxus, where it was checked by British counter-influence, or whether the Russian invasion should be regarded rather as a Soviet attempt to spread the grip of communism more widely. Their answer was "Both", for what was the second objective but the latter-day manifestation of the first? As witness the doctrine proclaimed by Mr. Brezhnev in Warsaw in November 1972, that once a country has joined the Soviet camp, the USSR is in duty bound to keep it there.
Given the Afghan character, it seems unlikely that the Soviet troops will be able in the foreseeable future to snuff out altogether the flame of Afghan resistance, however hard they try. But the Russians are much more numerous and much better equipped than the Mujahideen. If, as hitherto, the Mujahideen continue to receive hardly any serious external help—or none at all—in the way of weapons and supplies, it is hard to see how even such indomitable fighters as they are can keep up large-scale resistance indefinitely, provided that the Russians for their part maintain their will to prevail.
The Soviet Empire is fighting a colonial war and they mean to win it, if only because empires which lose such wars do not for long remain empires. Perhaps in the long run the Russians may be able to reduce the frequency and fierceness of tribal attacks to the level of a nuisance rather than a threat and will proclaim that to be a victory. But what to do with Afghanistan after that will be a serious problem. A large, permanent Soviet garrison will be required and even then Afghanistan will prove an intractable country to occupy and to administer against its will.
My Lords, with your permission I will finish nearer home. For the next few years we in the Western alliance, pending the necessary updating of our military capabilities, will be passing through a time of relative weakness, while the Soviets—because of the huge military build up which they have already carried through—will profit from a time of relative strength. This is the window of Western vulnerability of which the noble Lord, Lord Murton of Lindisfarne, spoke just now. The Russians, as we all know, have already deployed their theatre nuclear weapon, the SS.20 for possible use against Western Europe. It has given the Russians the capability, among other things, of destroying the ports which in war would be essential for reinforcing and resupplying NATO forces.
As of now the Western allies have not deployed theatre nuclear weapons which would be suitable for counter-attacking Soviet and Warsaw Pact reinforcement capabilities. NATO's decision in principle of last December to place suitable theatre nuclear weapons in Western Europe—Pershing Its and cruise missiles—will correct this asymmetry when it is implemented. But this implementation is a step which the Russians will do their best to thwart, and have already exerted strong diplomatic pressure to delay or prevent.
My Lords, unless and until the threat of the Soviet SS20s is lifted it is of the utmost importance that we

457
in Britain should continue to resist this Russian pressure, for otherwise we shall be acquiescing in, and perpetuating, a situation of grave disadvantage for the whole Western alliance. For Britain to accept cruise missiles, as Her Majesty's Government have said we will, is a step which adds to our security because it adds to the Western capacity for deterrence. But for us to reverse this wise decision and reject them by the same reasoning would be a disastrous mistake. It would suit the Soviet Union splendidly, not least because of the contagious effect which such a display of British infirmity could well have elsewhere in Europe. But for Britain herself such a move would be unsound and unsafe.
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of Glasgow: My Lords, may I first add my own tribute to the late Lord Ballantrae. His abilities, his achievements and his marvellous sense of humour have been eloquently described by previous speakers. He was my first cousin and a very close friend from childhood. We shall all miss him very much indeed.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides, I should like to put such weight as I possess behind the powerful speech of my noble and gallant friend Lord Hill-Norton, especially when he emphasised the necessity for a global maritime policy. I have been blowing this trumpet for the 17 years during which I have been a Member of your Lordships' House. In pursuance of this theme I shall confine my brief contribution this evening to Southern Africa and the Cape route.
There can be little doubt that from the strategic point of view, in war or in a period of strained relations, one of our most important allies outside Europe is the Republic of South Africa. Her territories lie astride the Cape route, whose protection in time of war is vital, not only to this country but to our allies in Europe and America. Why then have successive British Governments treated her so churlishly in the field of defence? She opted out of the Commonwealth—rightly or wrongly—in 1961, an act which saved this country considerable embarrassment and probably prevented much of the Commonwealth from breaking up.
Our response was to refuse to sell her any arms. The arms she wanted were Nimrod maritime aircraft, frigates and submarines—not the type of weapon likely to be used in dispersing rioting blacks. She had to go elsewhere for her hardware, and as most of the maritime hardware she possessed had been bought from us it produced tremendous problems with regard to spare parts. Our next act was to withdraw from the Cape the British Commander-in-Chief, South Atlantic, whose duty in war would have been to co-ordinate the maritime forces of South Africa and any squadrons that we could spare for the defence of the Cape route. Finally, we ended the Simonstown agreement and gave up vital wireless stations in the Cape. These must be regarded as acts of sublime folly, particularly as we continue to maintain close and very important commercial relations in other fields.
I share with probably every member of your Lordships' House a strong dislike of the internal policies of the South African Government. Nevertheless, I should like to make three brief points. Historically,
458
South Africa, unlike Rhodesia, never was a black man's country. If it belonged to anyone it belonged to Hottentots and Bushmen. The Voortreckers were well into the Transvaal before they were confronted with an invading black army from the north.
Secondly, the policy of apartheid, or separate development, possibly a necessary defensive measure in early days, has been accepted as a fact of life in the minds of the Afrikaaner, and indeed of many English-speaking South Africans, for well over 100 years. It is not easy to change quickly. The white South African is understandably reluctant to hand over the country, which he has created, to a black majority whose country it never was. It is their methods of which we disapprove.
In the 30 years since I commanded a frigate on the South Atlantic station much has happened. Many of the more odious facets of apartheid have been, and are continuing to be, whittled away. South Africa is faced with a desperately difficult problem. What she needs is a helping hand and not the cold shoulder. This was admirably put by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, who I am delighted to see is speaking later on in this debate, in a debate which took place at the beginning of this year. He said:
"I hope the Government will try in whatever way it can to help the South African Government along the very difficult road of adjusting their affairs to the climate of world opinion".
That, I think, puts the internal situation in a nutshell. At the same time I feel the Government must have the courage openly to accept the importance of South Africa to the West in the strategic and military sense and to act accordingly. I was somewhat encouraged by the speech of my noble friend Lord Strathcona on this point.
To the north-east and to the north-west of South Africa are two Marxist countries, the old Portuguese colonies of Angola and Mozambique. Added to the fact that the Russians now control the exit from the Red Sea, these might well present problems in the defence of the Cape route. Until these countries become disillusioned with their Marxist masters there seems very little that we can do, but as a first step I was very interested in the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, in the debate already referred to, that world opinion should be mobilised to demand the withdrawal of the Cubans from Africa. Their presence in this continent is only a little less offensive than Russian tanks in Afghanistan. Their departure would do much to lighten our darkness.
The position of the newly independent state of Zimbabwe is crucial. Her Majesty's Government and the Western world must ensure that that country does not fall into Marxist hands. It has long been a plum which the Russians, directly or indirectly, have longed to pluck. For them it would be the ideal springboard for subversion and terrorism in the Republic of South Africa. By the same token I think South Africa needs some support in preventing Namibia falling into Marxist hands.
My Lords, it has got to be accepted that the security of South Africa is of vital importance to the Western World. Finally, and at the risk of repeating myself, if we and our allies have any hope of defending the Cape route in any future war, ideological objections have got to be shelved and some accommodation with

459
South Africa must be found. There is not much time left for the West to consolidate its position in this important area.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I think that all those who have listened to this debate will have been impressed by the fact of how seriously from all sides of the House there has been a search for some way out of the dangerous situation in the world today. We have had many different views; we have listened tolerantly to them, and although I shall be expressing very definite views, I hope to speak in that spirit.
During the past four months the people of this country have been conditioned to anticipating a nuclear war. That has been partly because of events in the world, but also the influence of the media, the television, speeches from Ministers and the preparations for civil defence. A recent Gallup Poll showed that 57 per cent. of our people believe that a nuclear war will take place within their own lifetimes. While there has been that fear there has also been an extraordinary determination by peoples to resist any nuclear war. I have been engaged in politics for 70 years. It is a very long time since I have known the fervour among people that there is now against the danger of a nuclear war—packed meetings everywhere, all through the country spontaneously springing up councils for action for peace. A recent Gallup Poll showed that 41 per cent. of our people now support unilateral nuclear disarmament. Six months ago it would not have been 12 per cent. Neither our media nor the political leaders of this country, perhaps with the exception of Mr. Michael Foot, understand the upsurge that is taking place in the determination to resist nuclear war.
It is said that this movement is unilateral. Yes, there is the determination to demand the ending of nuclear weapons in this country. But the movement is also multilateral; it is happening all over the world. Canada has decided no nuclear weapons on its territory, Norway has decided no nuclear weapons on its territory, Belgium, Holland and Denmark have all declined to accept the NATO instructions to deploy cruise missiles immediately. We have to recognise now that all over the world there is this movement of peoples who are absolutely dedicated to demand that there shall not be a nuclear war.
I do not think this is surprising. We have at this moment in the world, in the Soviet Union and the United States of America, enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on earth. An accident, a local dispute, may so easily release those destructive elements upon us. There is this realisation; the bomb which fell on Hiroshima, one bomb, according to earlier statistics killed 65,000 people. Evidence recently given at the Pugwash Conference suggested that the figure is 200,000. That was one bomb. Today, as scientists have recently indicated in their letter to The Times, the bomb is 1,000 times more destructive than the one which fell on Hiroshima. And it is now recognised that, should war take place and nuclear missiles be in the air, 50 missiles could destroy the whole population of the British Isles. When that is the situation and people realise that the nuclear danger is now a threat
460
to all life, is it surprising that, all over the world, this movement of resistance should be developing?
Papers have been issued by the Government suggesting means by which the population can be saved from this destruction. The Government will forgive me if I describe them as ludicrous. I have heard a distinguished academic professor describe them as obscene. We are all to stay in our homes, we are to get under a table, we are to get into a cupboard beneath the stairs, we are to paint our windows. In my view no one who knows anything about the destructive capacity of nuclear weapons, as indicated by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, this afternoon, believes that that protection could save a single life in our country.
But, there is another element in the proposals to protect our lives. There will be deep shelters for the administrative staff of our country. There is one under Whitehall. By a strange coincidence I have been down it. At the end of the Second World War the Foreign Secretary agreed that I should go to Germany to be the first public speaker against Hitler as I was the last against him before the war occurred. In Whitehall I went three floors down to conditioned rooms, with corridors to No. 10 Downing Street and all the Civil Service departments. That deep shelter in Whitehall has now been vastly extended. Under the Chilterns there is a similar deep shelter for the top civil servants who are not in Whitehall. In Basingstoke there is the first deep shelter for our provincial administrative class, the first of 17 which are to be distributed throughout the country. The hope is that however many lives may be lost in our homes, at the end there will be an administrative class which may continue our society.
I doubt very much whether they will come up alive. But, if they do come up alive they will come to a devastated country with hardly a human being alive. They will come up in Whitehall to see their civil departments destroyed. The Houses of Parliament, Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's Cathedral will all be utterly devastated. Even if they live they will face the task of administering a country where all buildings and all life have been destroyed.
There is one matter that puzzles me. Wives are not to be allowed down these shelters. The women who will be there will be older women in the top staffs of our civil service. I wonder, if they do come up from those deep shelters, how the population of this country can be continued? But, realistically, we know that there is no protection, no civil defence, against nuclear war today—it means absolute destruction. In view of those facts is it surprising that there is the movement all over the world against nuclear weapons?
However, no one can be satisfied merely with ending nuclear weapons in this country and so protecting our people from a nuclear war. Anyone who holds convictions at all must also be concerned about ending nuclear arms in the world. My noble friend Lord Noel-Baker has described the hope which there is in the world now for international disarmament—the Special Assembly of the United Nations, its recommendations to the committee at Geneva and the renewed assembly in 1982. But many of us now are sceptical of the declarations of Governments.

461
If these hopes in the world are to be realised, it must be by a great massive people's movement all over the world to demand them. That massive movement is now being created. In this country the world disarmament campaign is receiving a support for which those of us who initiated it did not dare to hope—the British Council of Churches, the welfare organisations, the trades unions, the women, the youth, and the universities. The peace movement in this country is not the old peace societies, it is now growing from underneath to contain the whole of our population.
Moreover, just as it is growing here so it is growing throughout the world. The trade union movement in Japan recently obtained 32 million signatures for their petition for disarmament. Our petition has been translated into all the languages of the world. It will be signed by millions. Our purpose is not merely a petition, but a campaign all over the world with a great world convention before the 1982 Special Assembly. It will be so large that no hall in Europe will be able to hold it.
It may seem strange in this House for me to be speaking about what is happening outside in the world today. But it is actually happening, and the time will come when this House, the media—we are already breaking through there—and the leading political figures in the establishment will begin to understand what is moving the peoples of the earth. General Eisenhower once said that he hoped a time would come when millions of people would so insist on disarmament that no man and no nation could ignore their demand. We are determined to create that kind of movement in the next two years, and we are doing it. We are doing it not only to end armaments but to transfer the millions now spent upon weapons of death to instruments of life to end poverty in the world. Those are the great aims which must be realised in the 1980s. I say to a House which may be sceptical that it has no conception of the surges of opinion and action that are taking place today among the peoples of the world. I believe, before the end of this century, they will bring the disarmament, the peace and the welfare which we are seeking.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, once followed me and he started by saying that it would come as no surprise to me that he would not go along the same road. I return the compliment this evening. Several times in the last year or two—and I must apologise for doing this again—I have quoted Santayana's well-known saying:
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat its mistakes".
I prefer to go along the road so admirably set by the noble Lords, Lord Stewart of Fulham and Lord Granville of Eye, in last week's debate, when they both brought up the similarities between today and the 1930s.
Perhaps I might be permitted to deal with some more personal experiences. I went up to Oxford when the resolution had just been passed that we would not fight for King and country. Of course we took ourselves seriously, although no one else in this country did. Actually that resolution would have been rescinded
462
the following term had it not been for one pompous individual—I give no name for I must not speak ill of the dead—who insisted on coming down to vote for the rescinding of the resolution, top hat, tails and all. So half of us who were going to vote for rescinding it, did not do so.
I turn to the next point. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said that the present peace movement is nothing like the old peace movements. I do not know. I remember when Duff Cooper was Minister for War and he came to address the cadets of the University OTC at Magdalen College. The peace pledge union—it was under that banner—gathered outside Magdalen College and made such a row that nobody could hear his speech and I think that that following—I gather that it still goes on today—broke a few windows.
In 1937 I went on embarkation leave and I had a holiday in Germany. I had to go to a doctor in Heidelberg. He said "What are you?" I said, "I am an Army officer". He said "Oh, of course you don't have any Army; you have no power in the world". I made my best defence possible; I said, "I know that our Army is small, but we have a huge reserve territorial army". But, no, he had got the message, together with Hitler and Ribbentrop, of how we behaved in those days. Next, I went to India and we were stationary in the Suez Canal on one of Her Majesty's transports when along came a big Italian troopship—it was much bigger than ours. The invasion of Abyssinia was taking place at that time. We knew what they thought of us then, because of the way we were going on in those days. These horrid little "whatnots" urinated all along the side of the ship on top of us.
I am only telling these stories to bring out what I might call the personal, lower side to the points which the noble Lord, Lord Granville of Eye, brought out last week. The people who were responsible—the guilty men—were those who let us be seen to be disarming in the 1930s and so encouraged Ribbentrop, Hitler and everyone else to believe that we would never do anything.
It is no use blaming, as some of the unilateralists now try to do, a weak League of Nations. Let us compare it with the United Nations. I am a great supporter of the United Nations. What have they done to stop the invasion of Afghanistan? What have they been able to do to remove the Cuban and East German troops in Africa and South Yemen? All war is horrible; nobody denies that, and nuclear war is the worst of all. But the unilateralists are misquoting and using out of context all the speeches and texts to suit their purposes—for example, Mountbatten.
I wonder whether noble Lords have listened to the programme "You, the Jury" on BBC 4, where the spokesmen for the unilateralists said—just as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and his friends say now—"All right, you disarm and you will be all right." I should have thought that our experiences of the 1930s, quite apart from the rest of history, would disprove that. I consider that they are completely illogical. They keep telling us how awful these things would be, yet they then take it out on those of us who are preparing to help our fellow men should there ever be any emergency, not only a nuclear attack.

463
What on earth is wrong in training people in communications in case other communications break down? What is wrong in training people in monitoring or radiac instruments? What on earth is wrong in training people in how to protect other people, property and so on? What on earth is wrong in training people in first aid, light rescue and so on? I am sure that many villages in Italy wish they had organisations such as we, who are at the moment engaged in civil defence, are trying to build.
The people who are being eulogised by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, are becoming strong. We have had two meetings of the Devon Emergency Volunteers broken up by that crowd. They attacked Exercise Square Leg. What were the reasons?—because there was something in it to deal with looters and rioters. Oh God, in practically every national disaster or international disaster as well as war you get a certain element of humanity that has to be controlled; they are the looters and the rioters. Those of us who have experience of war know that as soon as we have liberated an area one of our first jobs is to deal with those people. Why did they attack? They attacked it on "You, the Jury". I presume it is because they see themselves in the position of being the looters and the rioters.
It is the "we and they" complex that gets me down. My complaint about Exercise Square Leg is that it was done on what I might call a trade union or Civil Service basis: nine to five only, and then you went home. If they had depended more on the volunteers, as in the old days when we had volunteers in civil defence, we went on day after day and night after night, as it would be in the real world.
No, there is a well funded and well orchestrated movement of these unilateralists and the CND. What I want the Government to do is to fund an antidote to that, on the basis that only a strong alliance can deter an aggressor. Home defence and civil defence are all part and parcel of the same picture as ordinary defence to deter an aggressor. Trident is years away. The cruise missile is four years away. The Soviet SS20 is there already, and there are 160 of them. It would be much better for the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, to go and preach to the Russians and get them to withdraw theirs first.
Nye Bevan pleaded with the unilateralists of his day. He said, "Don't send me naked into the conference chamber". That is just what will happen now if we do not go on with our proposals for defence. Home defence and civil defence are all part and parcel of national defence, especially in the picture it gives the aggressor. The criticisms I have of the Government now are, first, the moratorium. There is all this business about "the mole". Good heavens! we all knew about what was going on months beforehand. Take as an example the Trident. It is announced that we are going to have the Trident. The naval planners then set to work. What did they find? They found that the firms they had to deal with, the experts they had to deal with and whom they have known for years, have either closed down or their best brains have been sacked. It is stupid.
The yeomanry regiment of which I am honorary colonel covers the counties of Gloucester, Devon and Wiltshire. They are so reduced that there is no regi-
464
mental training. How can you cover those distances, if you have 100 litres of petrol a vehicle a month? Nobody can do anything. You have cut out all these other things. Take fuel for heating. What is going to happen in the winter months? Are you going to get any training done? Your Lordships know what some TA drill halls are like. The moratorium is about spares as well, and not only for vehicles but for other equipment. It is going to be back to 1939, when the anti-aircraft guns for the defence of London arrived here with no breech blocks. Some noble Lords are not old enough to remember.
I want to ask the following question about civil defence. It follows from the Government's statement of 7th August. When are we going to get the Home Office directive? I know we have heard it said "soon". Everything is held up. All the planning cannot be done. When are we going to get this person of high standing? How can we sort out these differences? When are we going to get the money that was promised? It was not much anyway. Is it going to be inflation-proof?
I should like to ask the noble Lord who is going to reply whether he could answer this question. The Warsaw Pact has been stated to have 25 per cent. of its ammunition with lethal chemicals. Can the noble Lord verify that, or otherwise? If the answer is "yes", can he tell me whether we have any gas masks left from 1938, or any other form of protection? We have seen all this before. Please learn the lesson. Please follow the line of the noble Lord, Lord Granville, and the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, and do not pay any attention to the siren songs of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway.
7.56 p.m.
Lord de Clifford: My Lords, I wish I had some of the eloquence of a number of noble Lords who have spoken tonight. I am happy to follow my noble cousin Lord Clifford because we follow very much the same line of thought. One of the things which it is difficult for people to appreciate—and I trust that noble Lords who are answering for the Government or speaking from any side must realise it—is that there are people out in the country, and have been during all your Lordships' debate, who are in fact being taxed and who are contributing towards the defence of this country.
I have listened to a considerable amount of this debate, and all the weight so far, except in my noble cousin's remarks, appear to have been on what I call the arms side of this defence debate. One gets the impression that we have built up a nice film set where the front is coming along nicely but there is very little behind it. We have to face the fact, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, may say, that nuclear weapons are with us. We can stir up a lot of feeling in the West against the use of nuclear weapons and for disarmament, but I have a feeling that it does not impress our potential enemies. I also have a feeling that if something does happen it will happen so fast that we shall find ourselves looking around wondering what to do.
One thing that would interest me and interest a number of people to whom I have spoken outside your Lordships' House is to ask, when we are spending hundreds of millions of pounds on defence, have the

465
Government, or any Government ever, stated what percentage of that amount should be spent on home defence? At the moment nobody has any idea. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, is quite right: we have not got an organisation at the moment. Our territorial army, while they are extremely keen and anxious, do not really know what role they are going to play. Are matters going to go so fast that they are going to be committed to home and civil defence? Or shall we again—and it is very unlikely—have a long pause in which we can get ourselves organised before hostilities really commence?
I was particularly impressed not long ago when the flood danger in London was realised. The amount of publicity was such that everybody knew what it was all about. There were maps on walls and directives and, although I live deep in the countryside, even my area had no lack of knowledge of what would happen and what to do if the flood warnings sounded. I wish it were possible in relation to civil defence to put our people in the same position, so they knew what to do. What particularly frightens me is that I do not believe that in the country districts and towns on the borders of big cities our people have any conception of what the refugee problem would be. Not many people can visualise the appalling chaos which must ensue following a nuclear explosion and the rate of evacuation that would be involved; everybody able to move would want to leave an area which had been devastated.
Many people talk about relying on voluntary services. Considering the problems, the mind boggles. We have some excellent voluntary services but I cannot see them standing on bridges over the River Severn, for instance, if Birmingham or Wolverhampton were bombed, stopping thousands of refugees trying desperately to get away from the devastation and looking for something to eat. At some point somebody will have to get down to the problem of informing the people in these areas what they must expect, what they will have to do and on whom they can rely. I beg the Government, as I would urge any Government, to put out much more information into the countryside and particularly the rural areas so people know what is expected of them, what may happen, where things are and how they can best help themselves. Above all, when the Government are creating organisations, please do not create them in a penny-pinching way. We should put as much money as possible into them because they represent the people who will survive and must be protected.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Granville of Eye: My Lords, I was particularly interested in what the noble Lord said about the Territorial Army. I understand they are going through some rather intensive training, some of it commando training of a severe nature. I hope we are not making it too severe, or we might lose some of the youngsters involved. At this late hour I wish to refer briefly to a point raised by the Minister concerning supply and research and the ordnance inquiry which I gather he is chairing. I wonder whether it is understood even now how vital at the outbreak of the last war we found our industrial technical war potential to be. At the outbreak of hostilities we found ourselves
466
completely dependent on that potential. Presumably in the NATO alliance the weapons produced in the various countries are produced by agreement, with the heavier equipment, tanks and aircraft and so on, subject to the Official Secrets Act. Obviously each country must know what is exercised by a potential enemy and the type of weapons likely to be used.
I mention that to illustrate that, however good our information and however excellent our security, espionage and agents—some of them even infiltrated the German industrial war machine during the last war—the enemy were still able to spring some surprises on us at the outbreak of war and, so far as productivity was concerned, we were not ready or able to cope with those surprises. It is interesting to read the book written by the Nazi, Albert Speer, who explains what happened in Germany. There was great unemployment and Hitler and the Nazis were able to enrol the Brown Shirts, Black Shirts and so on, and it is interesting to note—I think we have lost sight of this over the years—that they had conscription, putting the conscripts into machine tool factories. The result was that when war broke out they had a cadre of machine tool artisans and mechanics who were able to make it extremely difficult for us to keep up with their production.
Bearing that in mind, I come to the fact that at present in this country we have, presenting us with a tremendous problem, a large number of school-leavers unemployed. Why not set up a cadre and train these intelligent, well-educated young men in the micro-silicon chip operation which will be so vital in future aircraft and military production? Why not teach them the techniques to become skilled engineers in the micro-chip industry? That would certainly help employment and give this country something like a head-start in the micro-chip revolution which will take place sooner than we think and in which we are at present behind some of our competitors. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, has a Motion on the Order Paper on this, but meanwhile I ask the Minister to give consideration to this suggestion so that we might recapture our technical superiority and prosperity.
The noble Lord, Lord Peart, referred to steel, railways and stock-piling. Are we doing that? For instance, are we stock-piling food, remembering that at the time of the dock strike we were within 11 days of wholesale rationing? Are we learning lessons from that and building up adequate stockpiles of such commodities? I hope that not only in this country but in NATO consideration will be given to this aspect because it might prove vital in the event of a nuclear attack.
In conclusion, I would say that national morale is one of the most vital requirements in defence; it is absolutely essential. Although we are going through a difficult time at present, I agree with what my noble friend Lord Shinwell said, and I think Churchill said: when the crisis comes this country will always rise to the occasion. I hope—as the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, mentioned—that we are not going to make the same mistake again.
8.11 p.m.
Baroness Airey of Abingdon: My Lords, I venture to speak in this most important debate in regard to which so many of your Lordships who are taking part

467
have had great experience in military, naval and air force affairs. The debate takes place at a most vital, important and dangerous time. I believe that our defence policy must be supported, even at the cost of great personal sacrifice. There can be no security through weakness. It gives us, as private citizens, a chance to play our part, and from experience I know how everyone feels better when they are involved.
There will be speeches on the vital matter of civil defence; indeed this question has already been mentioned by several noble Lords. However, should the enemy be sufficiently deterred by our preparedness, will they not try something quite different? I wonder whether they will not seek to achieve their objectives without recourse to force. There has been much debate today about what we should do from a military point of view, but I believe that we should not rule out the possibility of the enemy trying to take over this country and the Western countries of the NATO alliance from the inside; and that is what I should like to speak about for a few minutes this evening.
"We have an enemy to contend with who aims at nothing less than the subjugation of the whole civilised world".
Oddly enough, that was not said by a general or politician of today. It was said by one of the founders of a famous regiment, the Green Jackets, in 1806, but I find it most relevant to today's situation. There are many openings in a democratic state for the kind of backdoor attack that I have in mind. I have in mind for instance, disruption from within. Here we could start with considering our children and infiltration of our schools. There might be ridicule of authority and of religion. There might also be contempt of the law, which moves on to terrorism. Another example might be further exploitation of the situation in Northern Ireland, with it spreading to the mainland. There might be encouragement of jealously and tension between different parts of this country. There could be invidious propaganda on television and in the rest of the media, or the taking over of parliamentary seats by means of Left-Wing infiltration in local organisation.
I have outlined just a few of the ways in which I believe there could conceivably be a bloodless revolution to take over our Western countries. What should be our policy and what should be our defence in such a situation, and how could the threat be best combated? I believe that we should put the communist policy in reverse; we should spread confidence where there is despondency.
There is a chance for all patriots to play their part—those who are citizens of this country by adoption, as well as those who are citizens by birth. Let us start with our children. Parents and all who are concerned with them should go to the schools, get to know the teachers, and find out what the children are being taught. I believe that all should occupy themselves with local involvement and knowledge of local leaders in church and council; and those in trade unions who are patriotic should work to make contact with their fellow workers and gain control in their unions. In the words of the Prime Minister, they should go to the meetings and stay to the end. I believe that there should be vigilance in all things.
Reference has been made to the territorials—and
468
what better and more honourable organisation could there be for men of all ages? Many men are accepted when they are over the age for other forms of service which may be more difficult for those who are a little older. I say that because my husband was extremely proud to be a territorial though well over the normal age. That was at the same time as my son was also a territorial. I suggest that as many people as possible should join the territorials and other organisations, such as the Scouts and the Guides.
Strong defences are built only on a strong economy. Work is important before reward; rewards will come later. I believe that discipline is very important; it is what we need in this country. I have seen the discipline of the Army in Northern Ireland. I have seen the steadfastness of the RUC and the UDR, and I know that when there is discipline and personal trust in leaders who are known, there is strength and courage in the country.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, I believe that we should thank the noble Baroness for drawing attention to an important aspect of the subject that we are debating tonight, and we should reflect carefully on what she said. One finds that people are rather reluctant to speak about this aspect, and are even more reluctant to do anything about it. We should be very grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing our attention to it.
I should have liked to take part in the debate last week on foreign affairs and defence arising from the gracious Speech, but I was unable to do so. I think it is inevitable that much of the ground gone over then should be gone over again today, and I apologise if I err too much in that direction. It is very late and your Lordships have already been subjected to over 20 speeches. I hesitate to burden your Lordships with another speech, but if you will excuse me, I shall proceed to say what I wanted to say.
It seemed to me that there was an encouraging degree of consensus in what was said last week and what has been said today. One of the areas of consensus was in regard to the point that in dealing with the Russians we should all speak quietly and carry a big stick; and the discussion today is partly about the contribution that the United Kingdom should make to the stick. But not only should we speak quietly, my Lords; we should speak often, and we should speak in as many forums as we can find, because it is essential to know and understand the Russian attitudes. We in this country should also, I think, make a much more methodical study of the Soviet attitudes. My impression is that for a variety of reasons, not least financial, we have given up making the sort of consistent and in-depth study of the Russians that was made in the past. Happily, some of the universities have now provided opportunities for academics to do this very expertly, and we are able to share the benefit of their judgments. But I wonder whether, in total, we do enough.
It seems likely to me that behind the scenes there is a revision of traditional Soviet attitudes taking place. Old attitudes are being reviewed and tested against the experience of the present-day, and we must be very prompt in picking up the signs, which are not

469
always visible to anybody who has not got a practised eye. It is a matter of historical fact that the way to the test ban treaty was almost missed, and that it was only an expert analysis in this country of the apparently final message of Khrushchev to President Kennedy that prevented the negotiations being abandoned at a critical stage. That demonstrates, I think, the way expert knowledge can play a vital role. The Russians well understand that, and they study us and they study the Americans even more so. I have been told that there is not a single American who has served on the National Security Council who has not been approached subsequently by a Soviet "academic" to quiz him on how he discharged his functions, what his motives were and what influences were borne upon him. This is something that we should play in reverse; and, although very much has already been said, I should with diffidence like to make a few comments on the present situation.
First, it is important that at all times the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence should see eye to eye; and over the past many years the two departments have been, I think, rather good at this, in contrast to the experience of many of our allies. It is especially necessary for these departments to keep together in times of financial stringency; and nothing is more tempting to Ministers and rival civil servants than raiding the Foreign Office and Defence Votes. It can be made to sound very laudable and moral, and, of course, there is always the sporting chance that the worst will not happen. I was going to add a more cynical comment, but on reflection I will not.
It is the duty of the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence to try to assess the nature and the extent of the threat to this county, and to recommend what resources are necessary to minimise the risk. For this, in addition to adequate forces, effective intelligence machinery is required, and I hope Her Majesty's Government keep this firmly in mind. I am not reassured by the knowledge that the BBC is preparing an expensive programme on this subject, and in this connection I trust that the governors will be careful to consider their responsibility.
Secondly, I wish to make a point on disarmament. The folly of unilateral action was effectively dealt with last week and again today. I hope that what Lord Zuckerman said today will be noted, and that when it is quoted it will be quoted in toto, and not selectively, as he has been misquoted in the past. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he says that disarmament should take a more central place in our foreign policy, but I hope he does not think it is necessary only to say this to get results, and that it is reason and not emotion which has to be our guide. We had a Minister of Disarmament in the 'sixties, and I hope it is not unfair to say that the most constructive result of that was to secure a place for Lord Chalfont in this House. Gimmicks cannot bring about worthwhile results, and it is only by the removal of the fundamental causes of dispute that the arms bills can be brought down. That is why we must welcome the efforts of the Foreign Secretary, not only on the main problems but on lesser ones like Belize and the Falkland Islands.
The third point I want to make is on the shape of British forces. I have not heard every speech tonight, but I have heard most of them and I have heard no
470
mention of how the problem of the defence of North Sea oil, which is a new factor, is going to be considered in the light of our future defence programme. Of course our forces must be centred on Europe and on the North Atlantic, but we must not dismiss from our minds the possibility, and indeed the probability, of United Kingdom forces being deployed outside the NATO area. The noble Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, supported by others, has very eloquently underlined how the threat to us is global, and we must not think entirely in terms of defence in Europe. It may be unwise at this time publicly to detail the circumstances in which this might come about, but your Lordships have sufficient experience to recognise what might happen, not necessarily far in the future but even next week. Lord Carrington suggested, very wisely, that political co-operation with our allies should be improved and he explained how he thought it should be done. But in answer to a question (unless I misunderstood him) he said that this would not deal with defence. Perhaps not, but I hope it will ensure that in considering future political possibilities the military aspects and consequences will not be neglected. Appropriate contingency plans must be made among friends, and I do not mean among only NATO friends.
Fourthly, I should like to speak about the British nuclear deterrent. Nobody can foretell the future, and many of the events of great danger which have taken place since the war were not foreseen and not anticipated. I thought it proper to write to The Times some months ago to emphasise that it is not only in the context of the Soviet Union that we must consider our need for a nuclear deterrent. The noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, made the same point last week, and indeed has done so before. The proliferation of nuclear weapons has by no means been checked, and it is fashionable nowadays to attribute superior wisdom and praiseworthy restraint to the lesser powers rather than to the super powers. Nevertheless, the fact remains that several Third World countries have nuclear ambitions, including several of those who signed the United Nations disarmament document of which the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, spoke. It is only a very short step from blackmail by the seizure of diplomatic hostages to blackmail by nuclear threat.
Exactly what weapons we need for our deterrent I find it impossible to say. I am constantly amazed at the assurance with which some laymen and churchmen speak on these matters. I do not intend to follow their example. But what is clear is that, unless there is a quick reversal in our economic fortunes, we are approaching a very critical point. The noble Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, launched a broadside at the Treasury but I do not think it was entirely fair because I think that probably for the first time in our history we shall—or perhaps "may" is a better word—be unable to afford a defence establishment which international circumstances demand. This fact, which cannot and should not be disguised, ought to give us the greatest incentive to pull ourselves together; and those who speak in terms of conventional war in the future should realise that the loss of some of our important manufacturing units will very much affect our ability to wage any conventional war in the future.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spoke recently about an element in our society whose

471
policies were intended to lead towards a people's republic in this country. This is the sort of society which the Polish people are now in process of rejecting. Are we, by the neglect of our defences, going to facilitate the development here of such a society which even its once passionate advocates now find has deceived them? If one looks back over the years, this country has been decisive in keeping the European end of the NATO alliance in effective shape and up to scratch. If we now fall away through weakness, the effect on our European allies may be serious indeed.
Finally, I should like to say a word on the sale of arms. Last week the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, drew attention to the danger of governmental arms dealing. I agree with him. But the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, gave a reasoned and logical explanation of Her Majesty's Government's present policy and it must be recalled that the basis of our traditional labour-intensive industries has been largely in defence and that no adequate substitutes have yet been found. Therefore, it is exasperating to see our friends offering superior terms of credit and sales without strings and their work forces thereby escaping the scourge of unemployment. It is therefore going to be very hard to hold back. But it would be much easier to do so if we could secure a bigger place in the collaborative and standardisation projects in NATO—for example, in the naval field. I do not think we have been half as successful as we ought to be. If these orders could be secured it would diminish the pressure to trade elsewhere.
The noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, was good enough to quote something I said about South Africa a year or so ago. I think that what I said still holds good. I have recently visited the country and all that I would say now is that it is very hard for people merely reading the press here to keep up with the changes that are taking place and the very important changes of attitude and economic developments which will accelerate those changes in attitude. Therefore, I think that, before they criticise South Africa, people should make sure that they are criticising on the basis of up-to-date information.
These are worrying times but also this has been a very sad week for us here. I should like to join in the tributes paid to the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, and to add my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker. Both these noble Lords I knew for over 40 years. Each contributed in a unique and constructive way to the history of this country. We shall greatly miss them and regret their deaths.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Cathcart on initiating this debate and to apologise to your Lordships for having missed the opening speeches owing to a commitment from which I could not escape. I get the impression from what I have heard in the later speeches that most of the ground has been covered. But there are one or two points which I think it reasonable to put to your Lordships and I hope to do so briefly at this latening hour. One of the things in recent weeks that has absolutely appalled me is the resurgence of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I do not doubt
472
or deny the sincerity of persons like the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, or the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, both of whom we have heard on these points this evening. I am quite certain they are fully honourable in all they say, think and do. But it seems to me that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is singularly off beam at this point in time. The threat to us from our main potential enemy, the Soviets, as your Lordships have heard already quite clearly this evening, is greater than ever before. It seems to have practically no purpose behind its increase beyond what one might call a prudent level of defence.
It would seem to me that this is the last moment to consider nuclear or any other form of disarmament on either a unilateral basis or a collective basis unless all the parties concerned are truly to be involved—and the likelihood of the Soviets involving themselves in total nuclear disarmament seems to me to be Cloud Cuckoo-land of the most extraordinary sort. I feel that it is most important that the true situation should continually be put before the people of this country. They should fully understand that when we talk about having a nuclear capability, or a defence capability of other sorts, we are talking about a comprehensive deterrent which we need for convincing the Soviets that an attack on this country and its allies just would not be worth while. That is all we need. That is all, as I see it, that we seek to have. This, surely, is sensible regardless of the detailed arguments that might be advanced both for and against it. It is a sensible, straightforward point of view. I am also worried that their might possibly be a connection between the resurgence of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the fact that at long last, after a period of total neglect, the Government have sought in a small way at this stage to re-interest us—if that is an acceptable phrase—in civil defence.
It seems to me that an essential part of the comprehensive deterrent about which I spoke is civil defence. If a potential enemy believes not only that you have a weapon with which to strike him back if he hits you, but you have also taken such precautions as you can — and I am fully aware of the limitations of any forms of civil defence against a nuclear attack, but it is very much better than no civil defence at all—then he should be fully aware that you have this capability in addition to your striking force capabilities, if I may generalise in that way, and you have this defensive measure which has at least given your people—those of them that escape the main threat of the attack, or the main effects of the attack—some chance of surviving to a greater extent than if there are no precautions whatsover.
It would seem to me that it is extremely sensible to have as much civil defence as is reasonable; and from what I know about it it seems to me that the Government in their way and perhaps more especially local governments are working towards a reasonably economical basis which would be available to help our people to survive in the event—which I trust will never come—of some attack by nuclear weapons.
I hope very much that the fact the CND has crept back on to us is not in part due to the fact that people have been allowed to forget that their might be a nuclear attack and now realise perhaps a little more that this is a threat that has hung over us for many years

473
because they are being given a few facts on which to base some sort of personal defence in the event of it happening. If this is the case, I suggest that persons who use that as a means of encouraging a campaign for nuclear disarmament are behaving in a most irresponsible and indeed unpatriotic way. I trust that they at least would learn that you must not use reasonable defence for people as a means of frightening them from something which they are better protected against if they have the means to resist.
That is really the main burden of what I want to say. My other great concern is the evidence that one has of economies in the running of the armed services, economies in fuel, economies of various sorts that one has heard about. It is rather an odd state of affairs if it is felt that by having a few less tons of oil fuel used you can make a massive effect on defence economies. Somehow that to me has always been a bit of a nonsense. I am sure that experts can tell me I am wrong but it seems to me that if you want to have economies in defence you have to look at something rather bigger.
I have felt for many years—certainly since the mid-1960s when the present defence structure was set up—that at that time we did not effect as many economies as we might have done in the head office staffing of the three Ministries and its super-Ministry above it. At the time, I certainly did not make noises about this because I was absolutely appalled at what was happening in Canada in the mid-1960s when they took the whole thing much further than was reasonable and put all three services into the same uniform and gave them the same ranks. To a large extent they destroyed the basic loyalties on which people belonging to the three services had depended for centuries. After all, the Canadian forces grew out of ours. I felt that one would have to let the new defence structure settle down and I hoped very much that the Government would have the courage to economise further at a later stage.
It would seem to me that we have far too many administrators, particularly Civil Service administrators, and that no real study has been made to see how these could be reduced. I am not at all sure whether it is necessary to have a full Board of Admiralty and a full Air Council and a full Army Council. I would have thought that there might be a lot of room for economising on what might be called the supporting services side of those organisations. I would have thought that there could be many areas in which by combination of supporting services like the doctors, the parsons and people like that, economies could be made which would be lasting and would be reasonably effective.
I have not warned my noble friend Lord Strathcona about this point and I would not expect him even to comment upon it, but I should be grateful if at some stage he could give me some sort of an idea as to whether a look at the basic structure of the Ministry of Defence has occurred to the Government and, if so, whether they are going to get on with it, and if not, why not? I must conclude. I feel very deeply, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said, that this is a very critical phase in our history, critical in so many ways; but above all I feel it quite essential that we should not forget that without a defence none of the other things that we would dearly like to have in this country can be guaranteed. Defence is in a sense like insurance, but a
474
great deal more important than simple insurance. It is a way in which a country can preserve not only its way of life but its credibility as a power in the world.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I am fortunate to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I dined with his father and the late Admiral of the Fleet the Earl of Cork and Orrery on the night before the last war broke out. They told me about what was going to happen. As I hear this debate tonight I wonder whether the survivors of the next war—if there are any—will find us as far from the mark as were those two distinguished figures of another age.
The single point upon which I am impinging on your Lordships' time is this: It is the report of Herr von Hassel at the WEU on the military capacity of NATO, which was made yesterday. He set out the nuclear capacity as this: that the Russians had 990 missiles directed on and confined to European targets. I remember when I was at the Rand Institute of Strategic Studies in California being shown their estimate of the nuclear bombardment necessary to destroy this country as a governable unit. The number was 11.
The overkill would seem to be in the nature of not far less than 100 to 1. It is of course overwhelmingly superior to the West's. So far as conventional weapons are concerned, there are 29,000 Russian tanks to 11,000 allied. As regards combat aircraft, they are more modern, for the Russians have their third generation, whereas we are on our second: 5,800 to 3,300. As to divisions available, there is a majority certainly of more than three to one and there are 15 airborne divisions, with the necessary aircraft to move them. Von Hassel says in that report that the Russians have the choice, if they move, as to whether they proceed by nuclear means or by conventional means, and in either their superiority is overwhelming.
Herr von Hassel is no alarmist, as many of those who were concerned with NATO in its earlier stages remember him when he was the Defence Minister of West Germany. Indeed, I would say myself that he underestimated the state of NATO inferiority. He did not in fact refer to a NATO intelligence report as to the degree of infiltration in the West German army by the communists. He did not refer to the deplorable quality of our allied troops, as demonstrated in the latest exercise.
But I am not unduly alarmed by this. I think it is basically irrelevant. The military impotence of NATO does not contradict the real value of the alliance, because the real purpose of NATO is political rather than military. So long as there are troops on NATO's frontier—and it does not matter how bad those troops are—the cost of violating that frontier means war. The military effectiveness and the money spent on troops is really irrelevant. They are there to be sacrificed. They are in a wholly indefensible position and always have been since NATO started. Their value is that the violation of that frontier, so long as there are troops there, means war.
Let us look at this from Russian eyes. I am to be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Milford, our solitary parliamentary representative of the Communist Party; and he may be able to express this with greater experi

475
ence than I can. But looking at this with Russian eyes, they can destroy NATO in a week, and they know it. But what then? They would then be faced with garrisoning their conquests: an indefinite and difficult commitment. They would then have to face resistance movements—again an indefinite commitment—but above all they would have to face oceanic and intercontinental war, the kind of war described with astonishing prescience by George Orwell in 1984— a war in which the circumstances of geography prevented there being a battlefield upon which a conclusion could be drawn, and a war which would go on for ever because there is no stopping it.
Again I am looking at this with Russian eyes: wars have always suited America extremely well. She has done extraordinarily well out of them. She is suffering from economic difficulties and unemployment. All that could be cured by a war. She suffers from a deplorably weak and divided government. When war comes, that government is strengthened and enormously improved. One would probably see—again I am looking at it from Russian eyes—a steady strengthening of the Americans, while the cost of the resistance and of managing her early victories was weakening Russia. It is not a prospect that sane Russians would invite. After all, it is very easy to see who is going to win the first battle; it is much more difficult to see who is going to win the last.
If I am right in the broad picture which I have put, I hope that we shall face the realities. First, are we wise to place our best equipment on the sacrificial altar of Germany? If they ever came to be used, they would be in Russian hands in a week. For the real job, horses would do just as well as tanks. They are there to be sacrificed. Secondly, are we wise to make ourselves into a worthwhile nuclear target? If a so-called "independent nuclear capacity" flatters this country, I would not oppose it. I think it is harmless. The Russians, with their overwhelming capacity, know that they can effectively deter it and they have no reason to be afraid of it; and I do not think they are afraid of it. But cruise missiles under American control, based on our island—now that is a wholly different matter. As a United States nuclear carrier, we are obviously worth sinking and they have the overwhelming capacity to do it. I believe that any Government—and I do not believe it will happen because I am sure they will have second thoughts about this—who allow alien nuclears under alien control to be placed on our territory are committing a total outrage. It is a most appalling thing to do. Indeed, at my ridiculous old age, I would join a civil resistence movement, lawful or unlawful, and as violent as possible to stop it. This is something which just must not be.
Lastly, are we wise to leave our island undefended and inhabited by a people who have not pulled a trigger for two generations? I am tremendously alarmed at this incapacity for defence within this island and this population. Supposing the Russians do decide to overrun NATO, it will still be for them to decide where they go next and how far they are going. That decision will depend largely on what kind of resistance they are going to meet. If you have a nation whose army has gone, who have trained no one even
476
to defend their own locality, it is an invitation.
I have no time to discuss the case for conscription, but surely we should be trained to resist an enemy in our own local district and to have the kind of resistance organisation which would at least keep an occupier condemned only to use the roads by daylight—and that does not go on very long and it is not very inviting. We should at least be in a position to offer some form of deterrence in our own districts. That is vastly more important than unusable nuclears or posturing that NATO is a real defence, when we know it is not. It is really shocking that these islands should be so undefended, and so incapable of even local and detailed resistance. That is all I have to say.
9 p.m.
Lord Milford: My Lords, when I read the Motion put down for debate by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, I understood and agreed with the first part of it dealing with the security of this country, but I was very puzzled when the noble Earl went on to add "and abroad". By this, does he mean that we have to stand up against any liberation movements that might be going on in the world? Should we stand beside South Africa and its apartheid system? Does he mean that we have to go it alone throughout the world, or is he referring to the Middle East? In fact, is the ghost of past imperialism turning over? Was the aim of this second part to put the strong popular surge forward on the people of the world in reverse—
Earl Cathcart: My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord that Germany is abroad?
Lord Milford: I thank the noble Earl. Our present Prime Minister has consistently declared that socialism and communism are enemy No. 1 and must at all costs be pushed back. One of her chief aims is to build up British influence among any who are hostile to the Soviet Union and thus start a counter-offensive to dé tente. But she showed herself 100 per cent. anti-Soviet before Afghanistan.
Naturally, we hear again and again about Afghanistan, but the cold war was being hotted-up before that and the arms race was continuing at full blast. The arms race itself cancels out any question of the balance of arms which we hear so much about. The arms race aims to upset that balance and gain superiority. Does not history now show up how the arms race started, as Professor Blackett wrote, the moment the Americans dropped the atom bomb on Japan, two days before Russia was due to declare war on Japan, as a warning to Russia that America was ahead and was determined from then to keep ahead?
I do not think anybody can deny that NATO, with its bomb, was formed first and the Warsaw Pact came afterwards to counter the cold war threat of NATO. But have not the Warsaw Pact countries again and again offered to halt the arms race? Did they not suggest a nuclear-free zone in Europe? Have they not fought hard for the ratification of SALT II? In April this year, did not Gromyko suggest a list of proposals for disarmament to the United Nations? Has not the Soviet Union again and again suggested negotiations and offered talks on missiles, including the SS20?

477
Do our Government eagerly take up these offers? Our mass media shrug them off with cynicism and distrust. Instead, during this Government's reign Britain's rulers have pressed forward with cruise missiles and the Trident, ignoring the thoughts and reactions of the British people. Instead our Government, through the mass media, campaign to get the public to accept the idea of nuclear war and produce pamphlets to assure the public that survival is possible. It is interesting to note the response to the horror in Italy, to the natural disaster, and the playing down of a far greater human-made disaster. The contrast between the two is absolutely fantastic.
Why is there such a huge and ever-growing revulsion about the cruise missiles on our soil? Who decides to fire them? It is not the British Government. They are the front-line defence of America, not Britain. It is argued that they have to exist on our soil as a response to the Russian SS.20. But NATO were seeking to produce these cruise missiles in 1970, before the SS20 existed.
From the Soviet Union side, all the medium-range warheads are placed on Soviet soil. None can reach America, but European-based missiles can land in the Soviet Union. We in Europe, including those in the west of the Soviet Union, could all be wiped out, while America would remain completely unscathed. But is this limited theatre war feasible? Having had the West devastated, would not the Soviet Union use her big, long-range weapons against America itself? Lord Mountbatten, along with the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, has described what would then happen.
Trident is the British nuclear deterrent. It is her part of this madness. Will it add to British security? Of course not. It will pinpoint our country as a prime target. Its financial cost is vast, but we shrug off the Brandt Report, saying that we cannot afford its recommendations, and slash all public services, health and education. The Soviet economy is in agony because of the amount it has to spend on armaments to try to keep up with us. It would give anything to be able to reduce that expenditure and to have more for social services. Are not our Government also longing to reduce their expenditure on arms for the same reason? Thus, do they not welcome any mention of negotiations? Unfortunately military experts can prove anything and always want more arms and military industrial complexes, and always want more and more lucrative defence contracts. At least under the socialist system no person makes vast profits out of armaments and there is no unemployment to be solved by increasing the arms industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, said, they are only having to do it in order to try to keep up in the arms race—referring to the Soviet Union.
Surely the goal for the whole of mankind must be total world disarmament and that is only a possible reality through America and the Soviet Union negotiating. It is not realistically possible for one of them to disarm unilaterally, but it is possible for Britain to do so. To argue that we need our own nuclear arms to deter the Soviet Union from attacking Britain is crazy. Those weapons in fact add to our danger. If Britain removed its nuclear arms it would not upset the balance of East and West; it would not give advantage to the Soviet Union. There are enough nuclear warheads on
478
both sides already for each to blow the other to smithereens. If the people of Britain achieved the aim of no cruise missiles on our soil, no foreign bases on our soil, we should not be in the front line of the only major war clash between the Soviet Union and America. That could mean survival for our children and grandchildren.
Not only would it release wealth for peaceful projects but it would demonstrate to the world that we are not towed behind anybody and we are determined to have our own independent foreign policy. For those who are afraid of unilateral nuclear disarmament there would, because of the respect that millions throughout the world would have for us, be a massive boost to the international campaign for world disarmament.
Still not strong enough but increasing in strength all the time is the demand of public opinion for an end to all the arms race madness. They realise that peace and defence are not obtained through arms; they know that there is enough already to blow up the world. They realise more and more that defence and peace come from a political policy and not through arms. The anti-cruise missiles campaign is growing. We still have time to stop those missiles. In spite of the Government-fed mass media pouring out advice about radioactive shelters and picturing Michael Foot as an irresponsible Leftist; in spite of the incredible banning of a broadcast lecture on nuclear arms by Professor Michael Penz, the Dean of the Science Faculty of the Open University; in spite of the banning of the showing of the film The War Game and sneering at CND as being indifferent to the defence of Britain, the grass roots in this country are shaking themselves towards sanity, towards demanding that all this crazy, destructive, suicidal madness ceases.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to ask him one short question for clarification. In the third minute of his speech he used the words "counter-offensive to détente". This implies that from the Soviet point of view dçtente is an offensive. Is that what he intended?
Lord Milford: No, my Lords, of course it does not. Détente means both sides trying to get together.
9.14 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I should like to say how pleased I am to have the chance to take part in this debate, and I thank Lord Cathcart for drawing the Motion so wide that we can all talk about our special interests. I was very glad to read this morning in the paper that the Secretary of State has now set out the terms under which the women's services may carry arms. This has been a problem for some time. I have raised it twice and I am only wondering why it has taken such a long time to make a decision.
This evening I want to discuss these two documents, which deal with the dockyards, A Framework for the Future. I think it is very important that we read these and try to carry out some of the suggestions contained in them. The main decision is that there are to be four main dockyards the running of which is to be changed in certain ways. I hope we will stick to what has been said in this document. Unfortunately, since 1950 there have been five major published reports

479
on the dockyards. Therefore, one can understand that it is very disturbing for those who work in them, particularly the industrial and non-industrial forces. Though their conditions as a force have not been improved, some of their working conditions have been.
It was very strange to me to hear on the television and radio, when the BBC asked the noble Lord, Lord Carver—I am sorry he is not in his place now—whether there were any areas in the defence field where the Government could produce significant savings without affecting "the sharp end", and he replied that there are too many naval dockyards. Later, on BBC television News night, he repeated his statement and added, "Nothing has been done about the dockyard situation because of the tremendous political uproar any such cuts would produce." In fact in this document, in paragraph 29 on page 23, it says:
"convincing the dockyard employees that the yards have a secure future and ensuring that sufficient work is available and is seen by the workforce to be so".
However, I am glad to say that the First Sea Lord, Sir Henry Leach, agrees with the statement in this document. Also I note that Admiral Sir James Eberle attended the Royal Dockyard Management Board meeting the other day at Bath.
However, paragraph 11 on page 7 states that it is no exaggeration to say that problems have led to a crisis in the dockyards. I want to mention three particular points: First, the lack of opportunities for the full development of professional managers in the industrial organisation; secondly, the growth of non-industrial members by over 200 per cent. and the fall of industrial members by 40 per cent.; thirdly, the differences of conditions and pay, particularly between Chatham and the other yards, the former having been brought into line with local earnings, but these are now falling back again. Skilled labour is becoming short. In fact 3,500 apprentices, known as the seed corn, are now leaving. The reason, and I hope this can be remedied straight away, is that ex-apprentices are encouraged to leave with lump sum superannuation payments. This is recommended to be given at the end of their first five years; they receive a lump sum of between £500 and £800. Surely this is payment to leave.
Then I should like to see a change in the present rules of payment of subsistence allowances. This is an idea for allowing skilled workers to go from one dockyard to another to meet temporary shortages of skilled people, and now it is unnecessarily hindered by the rules that do not allow proper subsistence. Warships are becoming more complicated, and I believe it is essential that they are tended to in the dockyards. They are much more complex than merchant ships and require special skills and facilities to refit. Therefore, it is a great pity that we are losing so many of our skilled workers.
In regard to the duties of the port admiral and the general manager of the yards, I would suggest that the admiral has very many other duties and is seldom trained for commercial work or in engineering. In my opinion the general manager should have total control, referring direct to the Admiralty. The admiral cannot by the nature of his duties be able to give the necessary time to tend to the yards. In my opinion it
480
was most unfortunate that admiral superintendents were abolished. They lived in the yards, were usually engineers and could have daily contact with the employees. There are too many constraints on personnel management; after all, they have to deal directly with individual situations. So, common standards as at present required may not be acceptable to all four yards.
In regard to the independent yards, I should like to see that they are able individually to call in their own workforce to do repairs. At present, they are dependent upon the PSA, and I think that that is a very expensive method of operating. They could do their own maintenance more quickly and I think cheap. I hope that the inter-departmental review by Sir Derek Rayner will agree that the yards should undertake their own maintenance. I note from the report, too, that the ROFs are undertaking work projects costing between £100,000 and £3 million and they are going to see how the results work out and compare with the PSA service. So I hope that other dockyards, if this is successful, will be allowed to undertake this experiment.
Finally, I should like to mention the trading fund which was also recommended by Sir Derek Rayner and the staff side when they were giving evidence to the committee. This would require secondary legislation under the Government Trading Fund Act 1973 and, I gather, about 140 more personnel. Full details are given in the consultative documents and the annexes Q,P, Q1, Q2 and Q3. I do not wish to quote them tonight because I hope that those noble Lords interested in the subject may read those particular paragraphs.
D.11 states that ROFs, by the managing director who gave oral evidence on 14th January 1980, were generally pleased with the operation of the trading fund. The benefits are better management accountability, greater discipline on the part of the customer and greater freedom to manager resources. Under the trading fund the performance and output of ROFs have greatly improved and the ROFs have moved from a situation in which 90 per cent. of their business was with the MOD to one where only 50 per cent. is with it. Further details can be obtained by reading the documents, but it is also interesting to note that the French have adopted as a system what they call the compte de commerce.
I sincerely hope that these interesting but rather repetitive documents will be acted upon in the near future, and will be read by all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate today, as the future of the Royal Navy greatly depends upon the extent to which the proposals in the documents are implemented. The provision of ships and the possibility of having a maritime force to protect our seas is essential. They are extremely long documents and I congratulate the noble Lord on having brought them to the House. My noble friend will perhaps not be able to answer all the details that I have raised tonight, but perhaps he can give an assurance that they will be looked into and that further action will be taken in the near future.
9.24 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Earl for giving us the opportunity of this debate today. I am especially

481
grateful as I was, for reasons outside my control, unable to take part in the debate on the Address and I am also, I may say, for once grateful to be speaking late in this debate because it has given me the opportunity to hear a number of quite remarkable contributions to this very important debate.
I should like to take my point of departure from one or two things that have been said in the debate and to start from the very distinguished contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, who, I think, made the point that is at the heart of the whole of this debate, whatever aspect of it we may be concentrating upon—namely, that we must identify the threat and we must then devote the resources that are necessary to meet it. That seems to me to be right at the heart of the whole argument.
We then went on to the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, who identified some of the threat for us in a very intricate and comprehensive speech. At this stage perhaps I should say that I believe that both the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, and the late Lord Mountbatten have been persistently mis-quoted and misrepresented by a great number of people. What the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, has to say now and what Lord Mountbatten had to say before his tragic death was worth listening to, but I fear that it has been used and exploited by people who either did not listen to it or did not understand it, or listened and understood and are deliberately misrepresenting it.
The noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, asked a question which I think is important for the remarks that I want to make tonight. He asked us a question which was very largely rhetorical: are nuclear weapons political or military? In other words, are they usable as weapons of war or are they simply valuable as a political deterrent? I do not know what everyone in your Lordships' House thinks about that; I do know what the Soviet Union thinks about it.
The military doctrine of the Soviet Union is and has been unchanged since the early 1960s. It is that nuclear weapons are to be used in war. They are not regarded simply as a political deterrent. That is borne out if you read any Soviet military strategist who has written in the last 25 years; notably I think of such authoritative Soviet military commentators as Marshal Sokolovsky, who has written the authoritative work, Russian Military Strategy. You will find that he states quite clearly again and again in his work, which has never been revised or changed, that if the Soviet Union goes to war it will use all its weapons and it will use nuclear weapons, and that the business of the General Staff is to work out how and where to use those weapons. So let us be in no doubt.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me to intervene, if they did not say that, would nuclear weapons have any political value? To give them a political value you have at least to pretend that you intend to use them.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, that is not quite my point. We, of course, also say that we will use ours in retaliation against the Soviet Union. I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to make this point. The difference is that the Soviet Union makes no bones
482
of the fact that it will use its nuclear weapons in any war, even one started by the Soviet Union.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I am sure that what the noble Lord says is basically true, but General Mikhail Milshtein, speaking in an interview in the Herald Tribune on 28th August, and speaking with a certain authority, publicly maintained that in no circumstances would the Soviet Government now use nuclear weapons on a first strike. He publicly repudiated the views of Marshal Sokolovsky.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, that may be so, but the basic military doctrine of the Soviet Union still includes the use of nuclear weapons in any war in which it might take part.
Another point needs to be made. It is that of course the Soviet Union may say that it will not use nuclear weapons in a first strike. If that is so, what is the use of the SS20 missile?—a mobile missile deployed on the flanks of Western Europe with as its targets the military installations of the British Army of the Rhine and its allies in NATO. If the Soviet Union does not intend to use those weapons, then I wonder what they are there for. However, one could go on with this kind of exchange all night.
The point I am trying to make is one that is irrefutable. It is that if nuclear weapons have any meaning at all, they have a meaning as possible weapons to be used in war. Perhaps even the noble Lords, Lord Paget and Lord Gladwyn, would agree with me that we cannot rule out the possibility that the Soviet Union might actually use its nuclear weapons in war.
This leads me to the point which I really want to make, which is to try to put this question of unilateral nuclear disarmament into its perspective. As we have heard (and I think that there is very little doubt about it) the reason for the resurgence of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—this grand passionate campaign about which we have heard a good deal this evening—lies in three recent decisions of the British Government. First was the decision to replace the Polaris strategic system with Trident; secondly, the acceptance of the stationing of cruise missiles on British soil; and, thirdly, to allot a modest increase to our civil defence budget. I do not want to debate any of those three decisions this evening, for obvious reasons. I happen, in passing, to believe that the Trident decision is a wrong one. I believe that the £5,000 million which is at present the estimate for the spend on Trident over 10 years is probably in any case an underestimate. I believe also that it could be used for much better and effective security reasons.
Here perhaps I may take issue with my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, with whom I normally agree on most of these points, when he said that there was not much you could buy in the conventional field with that money. Indeed, there is a great deal that you could buy. To put an armoured division in the field would cost somewhere around £300 million. We are going to spend £500 million a year for 10 years buying the Trident. Therefore, I think that it is perhaps worth putting in perspective that that money could be usefully spent on other than our nuclear striking force.
Let me pass on from that to the cruise missile decision. Here again I have no doubt that there are

483
strong arguments against the stationing of cruise missiles on our soil. There are also very strong arguments for stationing these missiles on our soil. There is one point that is really worth putting, and that is that I am astonished by this somewhat passionate sense of outrage against the stationing of cruise missiles on our soil as though the presence of American nuclear weapons on British soil was something new. They have been here under American control for 20 years, and only the Americans can fire them. It is really somewhat strange to hear people now suffering a sense of mortal outrage because manned aeroplanes are going to be replaced by aeroplanes which do not need pilots to fly them. However, there is indeed an argument against the cruise missile.
There is also an argument against greater expenditure on civil defence. I do not understand those who again get into a great state of excitement because we are suggesting an improvement in our hopelessly inadequate civil defence system. I also understand those who say that no civil defence system can protect this country completely against nuclear attack. Of course it cannot. That would not be the object of it. The way, incidentally, to stop people attacking us with nuclear weapons is to find some means of dissuading them from doing so. However, the point that I want to make is that you can be against all those three Government decisions if you wish—Trident, the cruise decision, and the civil defence budget—without being unilateralist. Therefore, I think that the argument that is frequently deployed, that because of those decisions we must now have some great campaign to get rid of our own nuclear weapons, is illogical and I would say irrelevent if I did not believe that it was so dangerous.
I want just for a few minutes to say why I think it is dangerous. There are three main arguments advanced by the unilateralists for getting rid of our own nuclear weapons. One is that nuclear weapons are in some way uniquely evil and immoral and should never be used in war, and should therefore be removed from our armoury. Those who deploy that argument should ask themselves two questions. First of all, do they not see any difference between having nuclear weapons which you intend to use in the pursuit of aggression and having nuclear weapons which are to be used solely to deter other people from attacking us? There seems to me to be a considerable moral distinction. I have put it on many occasions in this way: is there no difference between the man who offers violence in the protection of his own person or his own property and the man who offers violence in the commission of a crime? Of course there is, and this seems to me to be exactly the distinction between threatening to use nuclear weapons in an aggressive way and threatening to use them only if someone attacks you.
The unilateralists should ask themselves another question too, and I do not think they have answered this one satisfactorily: if Britain is to disarm unilaterally and get rid of its nuclear weapons, what is its next step in its foreign and defence policies? Does it remain in NATO? If it does, it is relying on American nuclear weapons to defend us, and I cannot believe that somebody who finds it morally abhorrent to use our own nuclear weapons in our own defence would find it any less so to use American or even French nuclear
484
weapons. Or perhaps we will get out of NATO and become a neutral. If we are to do that, I ask people to understand that it is a very difficult and expensive business to defend yourself, a country of our size, without allies. If you look, as I have, at the defence budgets of Yugoslavia, Israel and Sweden, just to name three neutral countries, you find that it is not an easy or cheap business. Nobody would save money by getting rid of our nuclear weapons and getting out of NATO.
I will deal briefly with some of the other arguments for unilateral disarmament. I suppose the basic one—I have heard it many times in this House and elsewhere—is that possessing them makes us a target for nuclear attack. Let us look at that for a moment objectively and in a commonsense way. Let me remind the House first that the only occasion on which nuclear weapons have been used in war was their use against a country which did not have the means to retaliate. Therefore I ask people not to assume that if we did not have the means to retaliate we should be safe from nuclear attack. Anyone who thinks that should have a few words with the Japanese and I think he would receive the answer quickly and clearly.
Also, our nuclear deterrent, whether you like and admire it or not, is not on these islands at all. It is at sea, under the sea in submarines, so it would do no one any good to attack this country with nuclear weapons because we possess them; they would not destroy those nuclear weapons. They might destroy these islands, but the weapons could and would still be fired from under the sea. So, the argument that possessing these weapons makes us uniquely a target for nuclear attack does not stand up to even cursory examination.
Then there is the economic argument that these weapons are disastrously expensive and remove money which could be used for social purposes or, as the Bishop of St. Andrews said the other day, even for aid to developing countries. That is really a pathetic fallacy. Leaving aside the question of Trident, which is an expensive buy at £500 million a year for 10 years, we could, if we wanted to rely on our Polaris, our existing deterrent system, do so for the expenditure of slightly over £100 million a year. As I wrote in The Times this morning and as the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, was kind enough to quote, that is roughly the size of the budget of the London Borough of Camden. Thus, I do not believe, and nor should anyone else believe, that renouncing our deterrent unilaterally would release large sums of money for social purposes or for aid to developing countries.
I apologise for speaking so long, but this is an extremely important matter. It is not only the weakness of the arguments of the unilateralists that are dangerous. It is the possibility that one day this might be the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and if it were, it would be a very dangerous policy indeed.
When speaking earlier today the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, with great emphasis and great passion, said that if we were faced with an aggressor, the Labour Party would be there shoulder to shoulder with all of us to meet that aggressor. We are faced with an aggressor. The difficulty seems to be that no one will understand that we are. As a noble Lord said earlier in the debate, the educational effort that Governments

485
have made to persuade people that we are faced with a threat seems to have been inadequate, or at least seems to have failed.
People do not understand that we are faced with an aggressor. Yet faced as we are with a country that wields the greatest aggregation of military strength that the world has ever seen, and is showing every day its readiness to use it in the pursuit of its foreign policies—faced with all that, though I do not wish to make any party political points in a debate like this, I have to say that the Labour Party Conference has adopted a resolution calling for unilateral disarmament. This worries me. It worries me for a number of reasons—not just for the obvious reason that I believe this to be taking a dreadful and appalling risk with the security of this country. Although he adopts a pacifist's view with which I disagree, the noble Lord, Lord Soper, makes contributions which are never other than distinguished. In his argument for a measure of unilateral disarmament he said that we must take a risk. We must not take any risk with the security of this country. No Government have the right to do that. We should be taking a risk, and before I sit down I should like to tell your Lordships why.
We should be taking a risk because if we were to get rid of our own nuclear weapons, or if, as understood the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, to be saying earlier this evening, the western alliance should unilaterally dispose of its nuclear weapons, then we would indeed be in a dangerous position in terms of our national security.
But there is an even more powerful argument. If everybody, including the Russians and the Chinese, got rid of their nuclear weapons, we should still be in a much more dangerous situation than we are in today. I say that because if all of us got rid of our nuclear weapons, we should then be at the mercy of a country, or an alliance of countries, with the greatest aggregation of conventional power; and that is the Warsaw Pact.
This is not only a question nowadays, you know, of guns and tanks; this is a question of chemical weapons. Those of us from your Lordships' House who this year went to see the manoeuvres in the Rhine Army saw that the Soviet Union in all its manoeuvres uses the full panoply of chemical weapons, poison gas weapons. Our soldiers in Europe, in the Western Alliance—the soldiers of NATO—do not have any chemical weapons. They have no means of retaliating if the Russians should use them.
So if a magic wand could be waved and nuclear weapons could be removed from the face of the earth, and the knowledge of how to make them could be removed, we should still be no safer. In my view we would indeed be even more at risk.
Let me make the final point alluded to in my previous sentence: the knowledge of how to make them. You cannot eradicate that. You can throw all your nuclear weapons into the sea, blow them up, or sell them to the Chinese. The knowledge of how to make nuclear weapons is now in the mind of man and if people are attacked or threatened, sooner than go under they will resort to the knowledge of how to make those weapons.
I would request all my collegaues in this House to ask themselves a question: would you wish to be in a world without these weapons if, for example, Colonel
486
Gaddafi of Libya possessed them? Would you feel safe? Would any of us feel safe? It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Milford, is right, that the Soviet Union wishes us no harm. It may be that they are building up this enormous military panoply for some great ceremonial parade. I do not myself subscribe to that view. But even if it were true, there are other people now who can make the nuclear weapon, and who might do so. I do not want ours to be one of the few countries in the world which, having had the weapon, give it up and find themselves living in an anarchistic and dangerous world.
I believe, therefore, that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is not a collection of harmless people, nor a collection of passionate believers in peace or in the brotherhood of man. I believe it to be a dangerous movement, because if its views become fully accepted, and if it ever becomes the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this country, then I believe that the whole of our security will be placed at risk. I believe, therefore, that all of us who understand these matters and who feel deeply about the security of this country should understand exactly what the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament means.
9.46 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, first I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, for introducing this debate, and then turn our attention to the African scene. Some 90 per cent. of the oil consumption of the NATO nations and 70 per cent. of their strategic materials pass by or come from the Cape of Good Hope; 42 per cent. of the United States oil requirement is imported largely past the Cape; 66 per cent. of the chrome reserves of the western world come from South Africa, and up to 100 per cent. of other minerals. Some countries, such as Germany, are wholly dependent on the supply of certain minerals from South Africa. The inevitable shift from oil-fired propulsion will increase the reliance on South Africa's port facilities.
It is little wonder, then, that the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives said:
"If South Africa and her mineral riches were to fall into enemy hands, the West could be forced to its knees in six months".
It has been estimated that if, in the last war, U-boats had been able to prevent allied shipping from using the Cape sea route, it would probably have led to victory for the Axis powers. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Peart, said, in spite of our total dependence on supplies of raw materials from the Cape, it is not certain that there is any central point in government with the main responsibility for considering and monitoring the whole range of issues connected with raw materials.
Meanwhile, the presence of the Russian Navy, with their chain of bases and over 40 warships round the African coast, and their ability to block this trade route if they so wished, is beyond doubt. If the Soviet planners are thinking of resorting to a war of resources, as their journals and activities would increasingly suggest, there is the likelihood that, as alternative sources of energy are developed and oil consumption reduced, the focal point of the threat will shift from oil to minerals, and control of Southern Africa and access to its vast and unique resources, either directly or by proxy, is the obvious target.

487
For not only would the Soviets then be the most self-sufficient industrial nation on the globe, but they would be in a completely dominant position over all other industrial countries.
It is many years since General Lagovsky first propounded the weak link principle, playing on the total dependence of United States industry on African minerals; and denial of them would totally incapacitate Western industry far more effectively than any bombs could. Even Soviet-controlled supply could be economically disastrous, as was instanced by the price-hike of chrome by the Russians in 1974, just as soon as they were in a position to do so without competition from Rhodesia. Soviet journals have increasingly depicted the vulnerability of the United States and world capitalist economy to developments in Africa. One called Africa "the most important reserve in the struggle to preserve the capitalist system".
But while Soviet military interruption of oil transport round the Cape would mean general war, and is therefore unlikely, a black-ruled anti-western Government in South Africa could be equally effective, and prompt some Western European Governments to become "Finlandised" in order to protect their mineral supply, and thereby reduce the coherence of NATO. While loss of the resources to the West could occur through the very real threat of direct or indirect Soviet intervention, it is not the only way.
Already South Africa's full potential for the export of minerals has been curbed by the investment slowdown caused by the activities of the Churches with their quite disgraceful investment in terrorism and other organisations and, needless to say, all attempts to disrupt the industry of South Africa have had the quiet or not so quiet support of communism. Increased terrorist incursions with communist weapons have contributed to a lessening of investment into mineral ventures, and there is always danger of more direct confrontation by the Soviet fleet on the pretext of support for guerrilla movements.
The importance of South Africa to the West both in peace and war cannot be over-emphasised, and South Africa is now so rich and strong that it can if it wishes largely disregard the opinions of the world regarding its internal policies. But if it does so, there is every likelihood of ever-increasing conflict from African and other states who feel compelled to fight racialism, at whatever economic cost to themselves, by non-cooperation and boycott elsewhere; and the withdrawal of facilities to the West in other parts of the world could make the price of open co-operation with South Africa very high if not prohibitive, and of equal damage to the West as to South Africa.
Until that time, disagreement with South Africa over internal policies should not be allowed to weaken any efforts to promote co-operation and mutual dependence between the forces of South Africa and the West and thereby increase the influence for internal change. But we must remember that there is an electoral limit on the speed and extent of racial change that even a willing South African Government can achieve, and the West must be satisfied by gradual progress in the right direction and not expect the barriers to fall overnight.
Likewise, the communists have an interest in de-
488
manding an unattainable speed in black equality and of course would never be satisfied, even then, except with the rule of a communist Government with their fingers round the throats of the West. It therefore seems increasingly sad that so many people in South Africa cannot realise that, while even moderate and sensible reforms might still be acceptable to the country and to the world today, the longer the delay the greater the demands, till nothing will satisfy short of one man, one vote. What could be a better example for them to see than Rhodesia, where an easier settlement could have been obtained earlier in the emergency?
But there are signs of the willingness of the whites to accept meaningful political change. It is now for the West to encourage particularly Commonwealth countries to recognise limited change as a move in the right direction, and not to keep up such pressure for total change that the whites in South Africa are frightened of going further. For example, there is considerable relaxation in apartheid in the armed forces, with gradual equalisation of opportunities; and I am sure that this easing of attitude will spread. Too much pressure could lead to a situation where South Africa could retaliate against the free world for its offensive attitude to them and could even form a cartel with no less than Russia. Collectively, together, they produce up to 98 per cent. of rare minerals. This would have dire consequences for Western economies.
It is essential to find and continue with a modus vivendi with South Africa, as defeat for the West will be defeat for South Africa. It is as important for South Africa to set their internal scene to allow that modus vivendi as it is for the West to reach for an acceptance. It seems that Soviet African policy, as elsewhere, is more one of continued response to opportunity than the result of a master plan; and the South African racial laws have long been a valuable opportunity for them to gain influence all over Africa.
We all know of the strong involvement by the Eastern bloc in guerrilla activity against South Africa with the provision of arms, money and training. Elsewhere, sophisticated Soviet bloc arms have flowed into Libya adding, this year alone, some 12,000 million dollars worth to Colonel Gaddafi's purchases from Eastern Europe. He has admitted to being in the process of buying more arms per capita from the Soviet bloc than the Shah ever bought from the United States. He now has some 2,000 tanks and some 5,000 Eastern European military advisers. From 20 different camps some 7,000 volunteers are trained in Libya as terrorists to return to their various countries all around the world. The training programme and planning for future guerrilla operations were reported in the Sunday Times to be under the command of the Bureau for Exporting the Resolution, whose staff includes Soviet and Cuban advisers. The influence of this huge investment in destabilisation will be felt all over Africa and the world.
For example, the Polisario guerrillas fighting Moroccan forces are supplied by Eastern weapons channelled through Algeria and Libya. There is a large-scale arms build-up in Ethiopia with some 4,000 mainly Russian advisers and about 15,000 Cubans. In June 1980 heavy military equipment of all sorts arrived and included helicopter gunships of the formidable Hind

489
Mi 24 type. The total value of Soviet bloc military aid to African countries between the years 1973–1977 amounted to 3,645 million dollars compared with 473 million dollars by the United States.
On the southern coasts of Africa, fishing vessels have been provided within agreements with Guinea, Mozambique and other states, and while those states may complain that they get the lowest quality of the catch, it is difficult not to believe that the vessels also are a cover for intelligence gathering. Eastern Europeans now abound in at least 14 African countries and their long-term aim must be the mineral resources.
But the great danger of all these weapons in the hands of irresponsible rulers of minor states is the possibility of piratical action that can light the taper of a world war, as they think that they can get away with actions such as the hostage taking in Iran that major powers would not dare to do. For just as Cubans have been used on land, so there is the possibility for minor client states to acquire cheap small ships with powerful weapons able to threaten ships and sea-routes, and even to close them without directly involving the Soviet Union, yet in pursuit of their policies, such as the Corfu channel incident of 1946. The adequate presence of friendly warships is a necessary factor in deterring such a situation ever starting. The Soviet leaders have long since grasped the utility of maritime power as an agency of policy worldwide, and this is no time for their or their clients' navies to be let as undisputed rulers of the southern oceans.
But this does not mean that Russia has had it all
490
their own way in Africa; and other than where they have sent their troops, or their proxies, they have repeatedly found themselves failing. They have a knack of backing the wrong man, such as in Rhodesia. They have been kicked out of the Sudan and Egypt. Other countries have demoted those Ministers faithful to Moscow, as in Mozambique. According to Mr. Dyhickvelov, one senior defector, the Soviet Union has spent millions of roubles in Africa with very little result. For example, Mr. Nkrumah, President Kaunda and Dr. Obote were all at various times the objects of misplaced Soviet hopes and roubles. Disillusion with their Soviet or Cuban advisers is something that has happened on several occasions and is a fertile field for encouragement by the West.
But the whole peace-keeping of the area cannot be left to the US Navy, and equally it cannot be expected that NATO will, in practice, extend its sphere south of Suez. Therefore, those countries with the ability to contribute, such as the United Kingdom, France and Germany, will have to increase both their military and their non-military contributions to counter the destabilising influences of the Eastern bloc in Africa.
The sooner it is possible for the United States to gather its firefighting mobile force together for the Indian Ocean, the better able will they be to deter piratical acts. But the key to the defence of the minerals must surely be the influencing of South African change and encouragement of other states to accept their improving internal policies to bring them shoulder to shoulder with the West.
9.59 p.m.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, I want to talk about the serious dangers that we should run if the country were to disarm unilaterally on a substantial scale as is now, it seems, advocated by the Labour Party, and to pick up some of the admirable and interesting points so well made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I also want to look at this matter in the context of growing threats to the non-communist world and what I see as our inadequate response to many of them. I pick up here perhaps one or two points made by my noble friend Lord Gisborough in a very well researched speech.
The nature of the threat that we face arises from the Soviet interpretation of détente: in other words, the extension of the Brezhnev Doctrine on a global scale. In the Soviet Union two weeks ago the New Times explained just exactly what this means. It said that it means two things: first of all, it is legitimate for the Soviet Union to encourage the spread of communism by any means it likes, but it is not permissible for the West to make any counter moves, as that would be to act against history.
Secondly, it means that once a Communist Party has seized power, the Soviet Union claims the right, and is entitled to the right, to ensure that power is not lost, as that would amount to counter-revolution. Those are not my words but the words of the New Times in the latest interpretation of what the Soviet Union understands by détente; and if we do not understand that we do not know what we are up against.
This policy of the Soviet Union showed itself in practice—and this is well known to all of us—a number of years ago in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, by intervention by proxy in Angola, Ethiopia and South Yemen, using 35,000 Cuban mercenaries, and by a similar pattern of aggression in the Far East, to cut a long story very short.
What has been the Western response to this? It has been piecemeal, muted, sometimes confused, sometimes contradictory and generally ineffective. I do not think that that is an exaggeration. It was Lenin who said:
"The capitalists of the whole world, and their governments, will work hard in order to prepare their own suicide."
It was the late President John Kennedy who said that the greatest risk that he saw that we faced in the West was being
"nibbled to death in a state of nuclear stalemate".
It is not as bad as that yet, but we still have to prove them both wrong.
I spoke just now of the disarray in which the allies seem to find themselves. There are many examples of this, in my view. I shall give only two of them. First, I see an extraordinary failure on the part of the Western democracies to comprehend the political implications of trade agreements and the provision of credits. I am thinking here of the unduly hard bargain that the European Community tried to drive for three or four years with Yugoslavia. I think everything is all right now in that field. I am also thinking of the failure to be more generous to Zimbabwe, in spite of the great need they have. I am thinking even of New Zealand and the continuous attempts of the French to drive such a hard bargain that the
492
New Zealand economy would be seriously damaged because of impediments put in the way of their dairy exports on which they still rely so much. Perhaps these things may seem a little remote in a way from a defence debate, but I do not really think they are at all.
I am also thinking, as a second example, of the total disarray where "linkage", as it is usually called, is concerned. After the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Afghanistan, the United States invited her allies to co-operate with her in not providing high-technology exports for the Soviet oil industry. It was only three months before France, Germany and Japan as well, I think, were actually doing so and filling in the gap. So that collapsed completely. At the same time the United States asked her allies to limit their supplies of grain to the Soviet Union. They might have been right or they might have been wrong to do that, but they asked us to do it and we said we would. Only in yesterday's papers I read that another member of NATO—Canada—will this year have shipped a record amount of corn to the Soviet Union, amounting to more than 5 million tonnes. In other words, that initiative also collapsed completely.
Both initiatives under the general heading of linkage have very important defence implications indeed. So it really is about time that we cleared our minds about, for instance, whether or not COCOM matters. For 11 months now the members of COCOM, which has no treaty status, have been discussing whether they should extend and, if so, in what way, the sensitive exports, the provision of which to the Soviet Union is banned under that agreement; but they still have not come up with any suggestions. So there is some real disarray here as well. There is no time to go into it in any greater detail, but all these things have critically important defence implications.
All this, and much more, points to the long overdue need for closer political co-operation within the European Community, and that, I am very glad to say—thanks largely to the initiative of the Foreign Secretary—is moving very much in the right direction. But, my goodness me, what a time for Her Majesty's Opposition to recommend withdrawal from the European Community. What a time to choose and how very irresponsible.
As for NATO's role in the West's defensive strategy, surely what made sense in 1949 makes very little sense now in 1980. We have often discussed this before, but nothing ever seems to happen. The horizon is still limited by the Tropic of Cancer, which runs bang through the middle of the Red Sea, Saudi Arabia and through the town of Muscat. To me, that makes absolutely no sense at all and I have never been told why nothing is ever done about it. I should love to be told one day.
But even given the right machinery for developing a common West European foreign policy where it is lacking, and the acceptance by the NATO powers of a wider defence role, something much more is still needed to ensure full, adequate and effective co-operation between the European Community, the United States, Japan and some of the other democracies which have a real role to play in the free world. But that is a story into which I shall not go now.
Where the defence of the realm is concerned, I cannot give full marks even to my own Government.

493
I say rather sadly that I am highly critical of the fact that we have now fallen short of our quite positive promise to increase our annual defence spending in real terms by 3 per cent. a year, and I would oppose as strongly as I possibly could any further cuts at this particularly dangerous time.
But I give no marks at all to the Labour Party. This is where I want to say something about unilateral disarmament in the context of the deteriorating global situation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, referred in such very interesting and effective terms. For myself, I would deplore in every possible way the collapse of a bipartisan approach to foreign affairs and defence, and I am sure most noble Lords would be the first to agree with that. But we must face the facts.
The return of a Labour Government would, if we can go by the decisions of the National Executive Committee and by the decisions of the Party Conference—not so important, perhaps—mean three things: first, savage cuts in defence spending on conventional forces; secondly, opting out of the British nuclear deterrent, which the new leader of the party has always wanted to do; and, thirdly, refusing to allow the stationing here of cruise missiles, which the United States has asked us to agree to and which we have said we will agree to.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, I cannot accept, much as I should like to be able to do so, the assurances from the Opposition Front Bench—I see the noble Lord, Lord Peart, sitting there; I have him in mind, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, and Mr. Peter Shore, who spoke in another pace—about the Labour Government maintaining the balance of military power, and saying that it must be sustained.
If we were to go in for unilateral disarmament, and if we had a Labour Government, it would mean a number of things. NATO's ultimate reliance must continue to rest, as it does now, on the nuclear deterrent. To abandon it in this country, relying on America and France to maintain it, is surely very irresponsible and immoral as well. It would put a big question mark, too, over our reliability as allies and be a clear step towards pulling out of NATO—something which a noisy minority in the Labour Party quite clearly want us to do.
Secondly, the Opposition's attitude weakens the Government's hand in all their dealings with their NATO partners, since they naturally look to us for continuity of policy. That is something on which they could no longer rely. Thirdly, based on our experience of standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States in two terrible wars in Europe, they looked on us—and still look on us, I am quite sure—as their most reliable friend and ally. Call it an Anglo-Saxon plot, if you like, but it is a good plot. The United States is now involved in the very heavy cost of preparing the sites of cruise missiles in this country. Thus the drift of the Labour Party towards neutralism, as I see it, puts at grave risk the single most important element in Western European security—the American alliance. I think that is true.
Next, what are the implications of unilateralism for controlled and verified disarmament, which is our constant and unswerving aim, just as it was the unswerving aim of the last Government—indeed of successive Governments. I have absolutely no doubt in my
494
mind that unilateral disarmament in this country would wreck any chance there is of mutually balanced force reductions in the Vienna talks, which have been going on for so long without success, and furthermore make it highly unlikely that we should achieve anything in the trilateral test ban negotiations. Is that what the unilateralists want? I think it is the opposite of what they want.
Lastly, under this heading, I should like to roll together a few points that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary made in a speech on United Nations Association Day on 24th October—a speech which I thought was outstandingly good, a copy of which is in the Library and which was barely reported in the press, so far as I could see. He said that a unilateral reduction of our defence effort would make it easier in the first place for the Russians to exploit our weakness. I think that is true. He said we would still be an important target for any aggressor—a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont—and he said, thirdly, that it would be easier for others to use the possession of weapons to gain their objectives, with or without war and, lastly, that it might even increase the risk of war.
I believe that all those things are absolutely true, and I should like to say this to my old friend, for whom I have great respect and affection, the noble Lord, Lord Peart—he can call it party claptrap, if he likes, but I do not think I have said anything which is not absolutely, strictly true and we must face the facts in this matter. I was disappointed therefore in the speech that he made today.
It is not surprising in today's circumstances that there is an upsurge of unilateralism with CND in the van. The Labour Party is deeply divided, as we all know, after its heavy defeat in the election, and naturally it is looking for popular support, well knowing that the pacifist cry always has a superficial appeal. It is a time of severe recession and it is all too easy at such a time to find an excuse for cutting our defence expenditure, as the noble Lord, Lord Milford, said quite rightly. That was one of the few things he said with which I agree.
Who then are the unilateralists? It seems to me that they are the young with no memories—and bear in mind that many men who were too young to fight in the last war are grandfathers today. That makes one think. Secondly, they are some older people with short memories. Some of them are stimulated by the communist front organisations, wholly subservient to Moscow. I will name only four of them—the most outstanding and the most powerful ones, financed by Moscow, run by Moscow: the World Peace Council, the World Federation of Trades Unions, the World Federation of Democratic Youth and the International Union of Students. There is hard evidence that some 50 Labour Members of Parliament have links with these bodies and other similar bodies. I think that is a disgrace. All these bodies were given fresh orders in October 1979 when President Brezhnev attacked NATO's modernisation plans and clearly hinted that any European country that accepted cruise missiles on its territory "would face serious consequences". Those were his exact words. The theme was at once taken up by all the bodies I have mentioned and by many others as well, including, naturally, CND which immediately got a

495
new lease of life. Such subversive bodies are expert in exploiting the gullible and the easily hoaxed, the wishful thinking idealists and even, I am sorry to say, some over-zealous environmentalists, such as the Friends of the Earth, a body which does much good work in the environmental field. We were told by Mr. Eric Heffer the day before yesterday that the Marxist and Soviet controlled subversive bodies which were proscribed by the Labour Party until 1973, will not be proscribed again, but that the Social Democratic Alliance will be. Good grief, my Lords!
Where does Mr. Michael Foot fit into all this, with his delightful, maverick, Peter Pan personality? Will the heavy responsibilities of leadership make him come to terms with reality? I pray so, but I wonder. A lot of sound sense has been talked over many years by many statesmanlike Labour leaders about defence, and if I seem to strike a party note here I assure noble Lords that I have no wish to do so. I am as great a believer as indeed is the noble Lord, Lord Peart, in a bipartisan policy, but we have to face the facts. We cannot shirk them and just brush them off and say that everything is all right; there is no split in the Labour Party. Men like Mr. Attlee, Mr. Morrison, Mr. Bevin, Mr. Gaitskell and many others made a splendid contribution to Britain's defences. Where are such men today?
Thank heaven we have a man like the sprightly noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, with us here to remind some of his comrades of the facts of life! But only a tiny number of Social Democrats show any stomach whatsoever for the fight. Almost all of them have run away, not just this last year or two, but year in, year out. We do not even hear Sir Harold Wilson reminding his party again that naked in the conference room is one thing, a famous quotation, but naked and shivering in the cold outside while others decide our fate is an intolerable humiliation. Would the Labour Party today listen to him if he said it again? I fear not. There is only one Socialist Party in the whole of free Europe, so far as I know, that is wedded to unilateral disarmament; and that is Her Majesty's loyal Opposition which sits opposite in this House.
How many noble Lords remember, I wonder, the splendid words of Mr. Ernest Bevin; he said this in 1941:
"If anybody asks me who was responsible for British policy leading up to the war I will say all of us; millions of people in this country who have an inherent love of peace refused to face the real issue".
That was said by many other people as well, but it was very well said on that occasion. How right he was. All of us are still responsible. I was a very young subaltern when war broke out, serving abroad at the time in Palestine. I remember so well how pathetically badly equipped we were. I said to myself then that if I ever had any little influence in the future I would always draw attention to the need to be properly equipped.
Lord Peart: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, whose fault was that? It was not a Labour Party; it was not a Labour Government. It was the men of Munich who disgraced our policy with appeasement.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, I do not really want to get into this sort of hassle. I did not wish to be unduly controversial. It was the fault of the Conservative Government. None the less, I remember my father, who was a Member of Parliament at the time, reminding me many times how often the Labour Party had voted against the Service Estimates and what a pathetic belief they had in paper collective security. We were all to blame. Mr. Bevin was right. I am not trying to score a party point at all. The main blame must rest on the Government of the day and that was a Conservative Government; that is who I was criticising when I made those remarks and when the noble Lord interrupted.
So I conclude by making a heartfelt plea for a return to a bipartisan defence and foreign policy which this country so badly needs in this time of great danger. I believe this is what the majority of the parliamentary Labour Party wants; I believe it is what the noble Lord, Lord Peart, wants. I have no doubt it is also what the great majority of Labour supporters in the country want. No one can deny that we and our allies, lacking the real unity that we should have, face exceptional and growing dangers, even that our survival as a free nation is at serious risk. What more dangerous time than now for Her Majesty's loyal Opposition to flirt with unilateral fantasies.
10.20 p.m.
Lord Raglan: My Lords, I have been encouraged to speak this evening by the noble Earl, who, in his trailer last week, hoped that as many noble Lords as possible on this side would take part. I do not think I can usefully comment now on resolutions passed at the Labour Party Conference. All I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, is that I am not a unilateralist.
I want to strike out on a rather different line. What I have to say is prompted by my good fortune to have heard the most notable speech by the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, in the debate on the Address last week. The noble Lord gave a valuable insight into the motivations of the Russian régime. I want to add a few observations of my own on the kind of influences which guide the Russian leaders' attitude to life, because I think that from such examination one is better able to make some prediction about how they are likely to behave.
As regards the military threat, perhaps it might be helpful if I indicate an historical parable, because I cannot help but be mindful of the fact that about 115 years ago my great, great grandfather was put in charge of an allied expeditionary force to Turkey. It was sent to drive the Russians out of that country, in which purpose it succeeded without a shot being fired; for, in the face of that display of resolution and force the Russians prudently disappeared over the horizon.
That might have been that, perhaps, but then the army was sent on. The principal reason why seems to have been that Napoleon III was disconcerted by the rather unspectacular nature of the operation, because gathering and equipping his army had cost a great deal of money and he judged that the people who had paid up needed to be shown some money's worth with some real battles. So, although it was not equipped for the job, the army was transported actually

497
into Russia, where it was expected that the Russians would have to fight, which they duly did. As your Lordships know, allied victories were secured and the army withdrew. Such discussion as there is about that war nowadays is almost always directed towards its conduct, about which, of course, I am not an unbiased person to comment. But very little is ever said about either its causes or its results.
Probably one result of that war is that Turkey is still a free land and, indeed, a valued partner in NATO. Another result was that Russia did not acquire a direct influence in the Mediterranean for nearly 100 years. Its principal cause was that Imperial Russia was trying to expand, as the Tzars had acquired a habit of doing over many decades. If today's rulers of Russia are running true to past form, they are still looking to expand if given the chance; and there is, in my view, no reason yet to suppose that they will try to stop themselves from doing so. For the men in the Kremlin are the direct heirs to the Tzars—they are a kind of Tzarist collective; they are imbued with those traditions, and their culture or received doctrine causes them to pay much attention to history.
That expansionary tendency would be dangerous enough by itself, but, worse still, their doctrine makes them wholly suspicious of and resistant to Western reasoning. I am not sure, but I believe that they simply would not understand the speech of my noble friend Lord Soper, and that is because they are bunkered in by what the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, called "an iron religion". It is called Marxist, and large parts of it certainly are, as far as one can make out, what Marx intended to mean. But it would also be true to say that it is Hegelian. Marx in his naivety lifted great chunks of his beliefs from Hegel, including the notion that history was propelling the human race irresistibly forward towards a millennium, and since according to Hegel this millennium was going to happen some time, it did not matter that someone should give history a nudge occasionally, or be particular about how they nudged it. This explains why Marxists, though individually they may be pleasant people, collectively can be so exceedingly nasty. Their justification in this, they say, is that they are only helping on its way what history has ordered will happen. They know that they are right because Marx told them so. Marx said so because Hegel said so. So it is important to find out who this Mr. Hegel was who Marx admired so much.
The story in which I hope your Lordships will be interested is as follows. King Frederick William III of Prussia had become alarmed at the infiltration into his kingdom of liberal ideas put about by some of the instigators of the French Revolution. Since mystical philosophers were in high fashion in Germany at that time, he hit upon the brilliant scheme of employing his own philosopher to counter these subversive influences. So in the year 1818 he appointed Hegel to the chair of philosophy in Berlin.
Hegel obliged with the weaving of a nationalist philosophy, presented as though it were visionary idealism, which would justify and underpin the authoritarianism of the Prussian state. He turned liberality on its head. He dismissed the liberty of the individual by postulating that a person is the possession of the state. Because Prussia became a very successful
498
kingdom, much admired and respected, so did Hegel, whose influence reached far and wide. It is to his writings more than anything else that we owe the rise of Hitler. He invented belief in the nation based upon race and history. He also originated the idea that all human advancement had been gained by war between nations, which notion Marx later changed to saying that all human advancement is gained by war between classes.
So Hegel has been an influential man. Nowhere have his theories taken root so deeply, or have lasted so long, as they have in Russia, including of course his hypothesis of the desirability of eventual leadership and domination of the world by one nation. Mixing his grandiose false designs with the stultifying economics of his follower, Marx, and overlaying this on to the Tzarist tradition, you get a picture of a totalitarian régime which can do little to improve the welfare of the people under its control, and can only stay in power by continuing to offer them an illusion of hope.
The men in the Kremlin are old because nobody dare change anything, except by as little as possible. They keep afloat through Western technology, Western grain and Western banks. They are suspicious, necessarily stubborn in just waiting for something to turn up. They feel threatened in wondering why the millennium does not look like coming; they are, of course, aggressive as they continually seek to move outwards to defend themselves as much as to gain territory. I judge that this moment must surely be a very dangerous one for all of us, with the system being called into question in one part of the empire by the workers themselves, and with the chance that the infection will spread. The situation will become particularly dangerous, I believe, when a worried hierarchy is called upon to justify its existence by other means than by reference to 19th century books of prophecies.
As your Lordships know only too well, there are very few democracies, and all are derivative of Western European culture. Our way of life represents the only kind of political and economic life which, despite relapses, has been shown to provide an increasing standard of living for its citizens; and it is the only one which encourages respect for the individual, respect for free speech, and for that daughter of free speech, justice. I think that too many take this relatively happy state of affairs for granted. But others who are citizens of the Western democracies seem to need convincing that we are on to a good thing, so to speak. They need convincing that what we have, imperfect though it is, is worth defending and building on. It is their privilege to dissent, of course, which they would not have in a one party state. By all accounts, Marx himself did not have a high opinion of his fellow men, but at bottom he appears to have been a humane man; and that is his appeal, and I submit it would be a mistake to ignore or to dismiss this appeal. However, if one examines his poor grasp of economics, especially of consumer economics, and if one notes the corrupt and fraudulent antecedents of his mumbo-jumbo political philosophising, one can only express concern that anybody could believe it and even be inspired by it all. But there are people within our democracies who do believe it, and I would say that the fact that they believe it reflects not only upon them but upon those of us who do not believe it, because for one

499
reason or other we have failed to get the message across.
What I am saying is that if, as I hope, we can find the means to defend our Western way of life—and I dissent not at all from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, today in that respect—it is not enough to attempt to stimulate the will to find the means by, for example, merely putting around unspecified fears about Marxists, or stirring up crude hatreds of "commies", because that proves nothing and it gives nobody anything to think about. We need deeply and critically to examine the nature of the threat we are up against, and thereby be better fortified within and among ourselves by gaining the strong intellectual conviction that it is necessary that we should protect our way of life. We cannot look for a millenium. What we need to do is to be strong and wait until the other side eventually realises that there is not going to be one.
10.33 p.m.
Lord Westbury: My Lords, after Lord Raglan's speech I feel rather like a Christmas card I was sent of the Crimean war. There was an officer of the 10th Royal Hussars looking around him against a Crimean background and the caption was, "Lost, as we often were". I am going to be very quick. My noble friend Lord Strathcona has stressed the importance of personnel in the armed forces, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has mentioned the cutbacks among the individual members of the armed forces in training. So I am, on the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, exercising his maxim that only repetition gets one's point over.
After the pay improvements for the armed forces made by Her Majesty's Government a year and a half ago, a boom in recruiting was set going that has not been seen since the declaration of the Second World War. Morale was raised and all ranks were led to believe that Her Majesty's Government really cared and felt that the role of the armed forces was of vital importance not only to the defence of our country but also to our commitment to NATO. Recruiting has doubled since then. Now in the last few weeks the message has filtered down through all ranks to the last joined recruit that all is not well. Fifty per cent. reductions have been made on ammunition for training purposes and transport—two vital ingredients in the training of recruits and in keeping up the standard of efficiency of the whole armed forces. Can you imagine the blow to officers and non-commissioned officers in charge of recruit training establishments who have doubled the number of recruits they had and who now find that they cannot get them to the training areas for lack of petrol, or that, if they do, they cannot fire the weapons they have taught the recruits to handle?
Not only that. There has also been a 50 per cent. cutback on the upkeep of military establishments. The paint and materials for maintenance are not available, leaving buildings and vehicles to rot through lack of upkeep. Surely the Government must have realised, when they raised the morale and hopes of everybody in the forces, that they would need to be able to cope with the influx of recruits and would need more clothing, food, ammunition and transport. I appeal to the Government not to let the armed forces down by
500
cutting back now on the training and maintenance of the recruits they already have. They must stick to their commitment and, if they must, cut down on recruits joining the forces later. At least let the Government see that those already there are trained efficiently and up to the standard required to defend our country and honour our NATO commitment.
10.36 p.m.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, for initiating this debate. I am personally grateful to him because, in his usual considerate way, he informed me before the debate that he intended to make some comments on the apparent attitude of the Labour Party to defence. I am sorry in a way that this debate is taking place in isolation, it would appear. There was a debate last week on foreign affairs and defence and anybody who read the Official Report of that debate, or was present for it, or who has been present during today's debate, must be aware that it is impossible to separate the foreign policy of this nation from its defence policy; and I shall be commenting on that shortly.
First, I should comment on some remarks that have been made about the Labour Party and its attitude to defence and some distortions of the historical position that the Labour Party has taken on these matters. I have no need to apologise for the role that the Labour Party and its many distinguished members, in and out of our Government, have taken on the question of the defence of these islands. In the 'thirties there was a small but determined group of young men, members of the Labour Party—I will mention only two, Hugh Gaitskell and the present noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones—who went to Europe to help people out of Nazi Germany. They, among others, went there, saw the dangers and returned and warned of the dangers, and they changed the minds of many people in the Labour Party as to the threat of Hitler and what he was about. So I have no hesitation in saying that I resent very much some of the things that have been said, particularly the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, who seemed in effect to be saying that there was some betrayal afoot and that the next Labour Government would drop the defences of this nation.
Lord Gisborough: I did not say anything about that at all, my Lords.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: I apologise, my Lords; it was the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, who, it seemed to me, gave the impression that this betrayal was afoot.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords—
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: It is late and I must get on, my Lords.
Noble Lords: Give way!
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, I had to take it. I do not see why noble Lords opposite should not take some of it. I suggest that if one looks at the

501
history of betrayal and treason in this country, it is not to these Benches that one should look, and I will leave it at that.
Successive Labour Governments have made their first priority the defence of these islands, and I would add in passing that I found it amusing to hear Michael Foot being attacked in the way he was. There is an English language magazine circulating in Wales, to which I am a subscriber, I understand a shareholder, which last week attacked the election of Michael Foot as the Leader of the Labour Party on the grounds that he was an English patriot.
May I very briefly refer to the excellent speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, almost all of which I agreed with. I am sure that he did not intend to give the impression that the speech by Earl Mountbatten of Burma was being deliberately misconstrued by whom I regard as sincere people who believe that there is another approach to our problems. So perhaps I may be forgiven if I quote in full that part of the speech that has become a matter of controversy. The quotation is not directly from the speech, but if I tell the noble Lord that it is from the pamphlet written by Dr. David Owen, I am sure that he will accept it as being authentic. Earl Mountbatten said:
"To begin with we are most likely to preserve the peace if there is a military balance of strength between East and West. The real need is for both sides to replace the attempts to maintain a balance through ever-increasing and even more costly nuclear armaments by a balance based on mutual restraint. Better still, by a reduction of nuclear armaments I believe it should be possible to achieve greater security at a lower level of military confrontation.
"As a military man who has given half a century of active service I say in all sincerity that the nuclear arms race has no military purpose. Wars cannot be fought with nuclear weapons. Their existence only adds to our perils because of the illusions which they have generated. There are powerful voices around the world who still give credence to the old Roman precept—if you desire peace, prepare for war. This is absolute nuclear nonsense and I repeat: it is a disastrous misconception to believe that by increasing the total uncertainty one increases one's own certainty".
One does not have to agree with that if one does not wish to do so, but there are many thousands of young people throughout the country who listened to, and read, what Lord Mountbatten has said, and they have drawn their own conclusions from it. They are not potential subversives or communists. They are people, young people in the main, who are deeply worried not only about the state of our own nation, but about the state of the world.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way before he moves on from that point? He has been very courteous and kind. I should like to explain the position regarding my remark referring to Lord Mountbatten and to Lord Zuckerman and to what they said and how it has been interpreted. Of course I and many other noble Lords have subscribed fully to what was said there. But that has been turned by unilateralists into an argument for unilateral disarmament by this country. That is not what Lord Mountbatten meant, nor what Lord Zuckerman meant.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. Nevertheless, I am sure he would agree that many thousands of young people who have read the speech have interpreted it
502
in their own way, without being influenced by people who may have other motives. I was going to refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Airey of Abingdon, whom I felt made some excellent points. I was struck most of all by the emphasis that she placed on educating young people. It seems to me deplorable that among the cuts that the Government have imposed is the cut which has involved the disbanding of the Advisory Committee on Development Education. It was set up to publicise Britain's dependence on the third world and the need to tackle world poverty. It started with a very modest budget of £150,000, which rose to £750,000 by 1970. It had just started to work out ways to get third world issues taught in schools, and very few schools included—and even now include—such matters in their courses.
Baroness Airey of Abingdon: My Lords, I think the noble Lord may have misunderstood what I was meaning. I was talking more about subversion, and the way in which we must counter this; if, for instance, there should be an attack on our children through the schools. I think perhaps I did not make myself quite clear. In that way, I felt, parents ought to have a very good relationship with teachers, so that there should not be misunderstandings in the teaching of our children.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. No, I did not misunderstand what she said. Indeed, I was going on to develop my theme, because I am sure the noble Baroness would agree that the more information we can give our young children in the schools about what is actually going on in the world, the more likely it is that they will be able to resist any attempts of the kind to which she referred.
I said earlier on that it is impossible to divorce the foreign policy of the nation from its defence policies, and there seemed to be general agreement with that. It seems to me that one of the great mistakes that the Government have made has been in their response to the Brandt Report. My noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham said in the debate last week that he felt the Government's replies to the Brandt Report had been 99·9 per cent. negative. He is right there. I would say that the response of the Government to the Brandt Report has been shabby. It seems to me, listening to this debate, and indeed to other debates on defence that we have had, that the continent of Africa is frequently mentioned—and here, I think, I will properly identify the noble Lord who made the speech almost wholly devoted to the situation in South Africa.
I am opposed to the Soviet Union for a number of reasons. It is expansionist; it is authoritarian, it is suspicious. It is everything that I detest. It holds values which I detest. But then, again, there are other nations in this world which hold values that I detest. The difference between South Africa and the Soviet Union, I think, is that the Soviet Union does not make any pretence in calling itself part of the Western Christian civilisation, whereas in fact the South African Government consistently puts forward the thesis that it is doing what it is doing to defend Western Christian civilisation. The South African Government and its attitudes does more damage to Western Christian

503
civilisation than almost any other nation in the world. The great danger for us in the attitude of South Africa, if it should persist, is that if those nations to the north of South Africa believe that we are going to form some sort of formal defence association, as has been suggested here, and to have a closer alliance with South Africa, then that indeed is going to be even more dangerous for us than the present situation. We had to struggle and agonise for over a decade in relation to Rhodesia. There, the white minority indeed said that never in their lifetime would there be majority rule. In the end, they had to come to terms with it; but if they had faced that inevitability earlier on much of what happened in Rhodesia would not have happened, and the future would be much brighter than it is.
There was a letter in the Observer recently from Major-General Younger, who called for what he referred to as Europe arranging
"… some form of crisis management so that international difficulties, which are bound to arise, will never escalate into nuclear war.
"Unless this is accomplished there will be a nuclear war sooner or later, which is an intolerable prospect. Man invented these weapons and he can and must control them … But if civilisation is to survive, world leaders must set up an organisation to manage future crises whilst deterrence holds the ring; and there may not be much time left".
If there is an objection to the attitude of the Government and, indeed, from many of the speakers on the other side, it is that all the emphasis seems to be on building up our defences. When Michael Foot said that he intends to bring the arms race issue before the attention of the British people, I cannot see how anyone is going to complain about that. Nobody is in favour of an arms race. What we on these Benches would say is that not sufficient emphasis is being put on the means to reduce the tension in the world; and this should be the emphasis, we believe, that the Government should be pursuing.
I think I have spoken long enough, but there is one final point that I wish to make. Since becoming a member of your Lordships' All-Party Defence Committee under the secretaryship of the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, I have been very impressed indeed by the dedication of our men and our women in the stations we visited abroad and in this country. This has to be said because I take the simple view that, although like most other people agonising over some of the decisions that have to be taken, it seems to me that if there is an immorality about the question of war and peace, nothing can be more immoral than to ask young men and women to put on uniform to defend the nation and then refuse them the adequate means to do it.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, would it not be right, in fairness, when referring to the All-Party Defence Committee to say that it is not only under the secretaryship of my noble friend Lord Kimberley but under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont?
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, of course it is well known that our new chairman is the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont—and what a good job he is doing! I merely emphasised the role in it of the noble Earl, Lord
504
Kimberley, because he brought me into it in the first place and has befriended me and helped me a great deal. He has never refused any request that I have made of him and I am grateful.
I genuinely take the view which has been put forward in this House on more than one occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. I believe sincerely—and certainly after going to Germany and seeing the Crusader exercise—that there are shortcomings in our conventional equipment. They were made to us by the armed personnel over there from the private level up to the "top brass". There are shortcomings in our conventional equipment and our conventional forces and I do not believe, in common with many noble Lords here, that we can afford both to replace our Polaris missiles with the Trident system and at the same time maintain proper and viable conventional arms.
10.54 p.m.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord who has just spoken, particularly for his remarks about the high opinion he has formed of our service people. It just shows that it is wonderful what a little education can do to stimulate the mind. If I may say so, he should have joined the group years ago. Defence debates in this House, with due exception as far as I am concerned, are renowned for their wisdom and the scope of the views expressed; and this evening has been no exception. The lateness of the hour is perhaps an indication of how many noble Lords have contributed. I should like first to thank them all for a particularly stimulating discussion which I hope will be widely read. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Cathcart for initiating this debate, which he did so elegantly.
Before I turn to the detailed points raised in the debate, I should like to say a few words about our efforts in the field of arms control, although I notice that our resident pacifists have all gone home. Not for the first time, the Government have been criticised for failing to follow up opportunities in this field with sufficient vigour. I would simply reaffirm the Government's commitment to seeking balanced and verifiable—as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, emphasised—arms control agreements wherever these would safeguard our security. The Government's perception is somewhat different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Milford, but perhaps he at least gave us an insight into the Soviet mind in these matters.
It is easy to dream up any number of utopian disarmament proposals which appear superficially attractive. But the important and difficult task is to pursue those initiatives which offer real prospects of leading to verifiable agreements which maintain the balance between east and west at a lower level of armaments. Let us always bear in mind that this is the objective. Negotiating with the Russians is a tough business and they lose no opportunity for pressing proposals which may sound tempting but which in reality offer a one-sided balance of benefits and concessions.
As an example of this type of proposal, I would mention the idea of establishing a new nuclear weapons-free zone in Europe. Such an agreement would leave untouched Soviet missiles and aircraft capable of striking targets all over Western Europe from deep inside

505
the Soviet Union. Moreover, it would leave a gap in alliance capabilities which would undermine our collective ability to deter aggression, and in this way it would destabilise the balance in Europe so weakening rather than strengthening the prospects for peace.
In contrast, I believe that the real progress in arms control can be achieved when the Russians are offered an incentive to negotiate seriously. This cannot be achieved if the West attempts to negotiate from a position of weakness. This cannot be repeated too often, and I make no apology for saying it again. There must be an incentive for the Soviet Union to come to the negotiating table in a constructive frame of mind.
An example of this is provided by the Russian reaction to the United States' proposal to negotiate on theatre nuclear forces. To start with, the Soviet Union rejected the United States' offer and insisted that NATO's plan to deploy ground launched cruise missiles and Pershing missiles should be abandoned before negotiations could begin, although their own programme continued unconstrained meantime. But then faced with the steadfast determination of the alliance to implement its tactical nuclear force modernisation programme, they have now dropped this unacceptable pre-condition. The last round of bilateral talks has just taken place in Geneva. I sincerely hope that these talks will be successful.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, for the statistics on the military balance which so clearly define for us the threat. But when the noble Lord threatens to join in civil disobedience to prevent the American cruise missiles being deployed in this country, I must ask him why he has not objected similarly in regard to the American nuclear weapons which have been deployed in this country for 20 years now. I think that was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
May I at this juncture tell the House that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, excused himself from being present for the winding-up of this debate on the grounds that he had painful arthritis? While commiserating with him in his affliction, I am sure the House would wish me to record that his speech certainly showed no signs of any affliction to his brain or to his eloquence! A somewhat similar hawkish line was taken by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, who referred to the global nature of the Soviet threat. That was a point which was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow.
As your Lordships know, we have been considering this year a number of measures to enhance at modest cost the rapid deployment capability of those existing United Kingdom forces which might be called upon for tasks outside the North Atlantic area. There is no intention to create new forces specifically for intervention tasks. We have not yet taken any final decision on the implementation of these measures.
The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, and the noble Lords, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, Lord Mottistone and Lord Murton, all touched on the question of civil defence. Since my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made his statement of 7th August on the Government's review of civil home defence preparedness, we have been pressing on with preliminary action to implement our decisions and we look forward
506
to significant first steps being taken next year.
Despite public expenditure constraints, the Government are confident that local authorities will remain determined to follow the lead that has been given. I am afraid I cannot as yet satisfy the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, or the noble Lord, Lord Murton; but we expect the announcement of the name of the national co-ordinator of volunteer effort in civil defence very shortly.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Murton, who asked about communications. I can tell him that our enhanced civil defence programme includes the completion of the sub-regional headquarters for decentralised government, extra expenditure on the associated communications network and proposals for the adaptation of premises by district councils, to complete the pattern of local authority wartime headquarters and communications.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, raised the point about information. The Government accept that the public have a right to knowledge about civil defence and the likely effects of a future war involving the United Kingdom; and we are examining ways of making more information available.
Again, it was the noble Lord, Lord Murton of Lindisfarne, who expressed concern about the numbers available for the defence of the United Kingdom base. We have studies in hand to establish whether we do have the right resources available to meet all the tasks which would need to be done. He mentioned the Territorial Army general reserve battalions which would be available for this work. I am happy to be able to tell him that the Territorial Army recruiting is still high—this was a point referred to by my noble friend Lord Westbury—and the Territorial Army strength as a whole has risen over the past year. The latest strength is over 64,000. It has to be admitted that wastage is still a problem, but we believe that this can be overcome in time, if the Territorial Army's morale can be sustained. I think I should at this juncture mention that the Territorial Army's performance during Exercise Crusader was highly praised on all sides and was an enormous boost to morale.
The noble Baroness, Lady Airey of Abingdon, as was mentioned just now, made a most interesting speech warning of the very real threat of subversion. It is not a very easy matter to expand upon in your Lordships' House, but I can assure her that we take these matters very seriously and are not smug about them. But perhaps I can leave it at that for the time being.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, argued that civil defence measures are worthless. This is an argument which we hear quite frequently. The fact is that many millions would survive even a widespread nuclear attack upon our country, even if we did nothing either as a nation or as individuals to protect ourselves. The protective measures described in the Government's booklet Protect and Survive—simple though I admit they are—would enable many more millions to survive; unless, of course, the denigrators of the steps recommended succeeded in dissuading householders from resorting to them. Reference to the scientific data in another official booklet The Nuclear Weapons, shows that it would take thousands of large bombs, systematically placed across the country, to devastate the entire United Kingdom.

507
There are underground operations centres to coordinate relief services if the worst were to happen. The number of administrators to serve in them is less than 5,000. I am sure noble Lords will be happy to hear that politicians are a mere handful, though they may find that they need them when it comes to the point.
The noble Lord, Lord Granville of Eye, made the suggestion that we should train young people now to be ready to expand our armaments industry at a time of crisis. I see that he is not here. I would merely say to him that we are in danger of being guilty of last war thinking, because we have to face the fact that the likelihood is that we shall fight the next war with the weapons that we have when the war begins. Much the same argument applies—without, in any way wishing to belittle the seriousness of the problem of strategic minerals—to the point raised by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Peart, and the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough.
The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, asked about the effects of the £200 million cut in the defence budget. We are looking urgently—and I mean urgently—at what will need to be done. It seems probable that some of the measures taken this year will have to be carried on into next year; reduced levels of activity are one example. We shall not be able to place as many new or follow-on equipment orders as we had hoped.
I cannot yet give the details of the implications for operational capability, but there are bound to be some implications. For example, reduced levels of activity will, in time, inevitably have an impact on effectiveness, and it is no use pretending that this can be hidden for ever. We shall make announcements as the necessary decisions are taken and implemented. The 1981 White Paper will give a broad picture of the changes in the programme.
The noble Lord, Lord Clifford, and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, referred to fuel costs. It has, regrettably, been necessary to take a number of measures to contain Ministry of Defence expenditure within the cash limit. These measures have included restrictions on fuel consumption and movements. These have inevitably affected Army activity, but the intention has been to minimise the effect on operational capability. So far as the Navy is concerned we are seeking to minimise the impact of fuel savings on NATO activities and exercises, but other tasks, such as some forms of training, are having to be restricted or postponed. For the RAF, fuel savings are being achieved by a temporary reduction in stocks and restrictions on activities, but the current flying rates are sufficient to maintain operational effectiveness.
The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, mentioned the benefits to be gained if our shipyards started building small vessels against the possibilities of overseas sales. I have to say that this is a subject very close to my heart, having served in small vessels in the last war, although that is now a very long time ago. I must say to him that this is primarily a matter for the commercial judgment of British shipbuilders, but of course the defence sales organisation will assist the industry and does assist the industry as much as possible in identifying the likely future requirements of overseas customers. In my opening remarks I referred to the efforts being made within the Ministry of Defence as
508
regards the Navy, among other services, to avoid what is sometimes known as "gold-plating" requirements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, complained about the time we have taken to decide about the arming of servicewomen. In the Defence White Paper we announced that we were considering our traditional attitude to the carriage of arms by servicewomen for defensive purposes. The reaction was rather interesting. Although there was an extensive press coverage at the time, there has been very little interest since, despite the renewed invitation in the service debates for views to be expressed. However, in the light of such representations as have been received, we have judged that there is a readiness to accept limited change and we have therefore now decided that members of the WRAC and WRAF can be trained in the use of arms.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the dockyard study, and we announced earlier that the Government had accepted the report of the Dockyard Study Group on the need to retain four Royal Dockyards, and its conclusion that the introduction of private capital was not practicable at the moment. We indicated that decisions on their remaining recommendations must await further work and would take account of the views of the interested parties. A consultative document was made available to a wide range of other Government departments, to local councils, public and private bodies and individuals, and initial assessments of the reactions to this document suggest that the response has been overwhelmingly favourable. We are now working to prepare the way for further consideration by the Government of the remaining recommendations of the study. I thank the noble Baroness for a number of suggestions that she made for a change in administration in regard to the dockyards.
The noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, who told me that he would be unable to stay until the end, predictably raised a number of very interesting points about the level of the defence budget over the last 20 years and the relative costs of manpower and equipment. I think it is worth making the point that all volunteer forces are bound to be more expensive than conscripts, although, of course, one needs fewer of them. We believe them to be more effective in the world of complex equipment. But since the standard of living has risen generally in the last 20 years we need to have highly competitive and comparable rates of pay to attract the men we need.
I shall need to study the noble Lord's erudite comments on the irrevocable law of research and development, but I think maybe this is the rationale which lies behind the rising cost of equipment as the level of technological sophistication increases. This is a worrying trend and it is one of the reasons why we believe that real increases in defence spending are so vital. One reason why over the last 20 years we have been able to have highly professional well-equipped forces despite the fact that defence budgets have fallen by about 10 per cent. in real terms is that we have withdrawn from our previous overseas commitments. We do not now have to spread our efforts over so many areas but instead we have been able to concentrate our effort on the NATO commitments which are the keystone of our security. But, of course, this is not a

509
process which leaves much room for further manoeuvre.
I am near the end. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for asking me to look at a possible restructuring of the Ministry of Defence no less. I am grateful to him for being gracious enough to give me time to go away and think how to do it; but I should like to remind him that at the beginning I said that my right honourable friend and I are both fully conscious of the need for taut administration; we have set in hand a number of studies aimed at improving it, and we are confident that we shall derive benefit from these.
I come back to where I started earlier this evening, by saying that we must ensure that defence expenditure represents good value for money. I should like to end on the same theme. My Secretary of State and my ministerial colleagues constantly urge all those in defence to ensure that every penny of the defence budget is spent on strengthening our capabilities and that waste and inefficiency are routed out. There can be only one test: does this job, does that contract represent the best possible use of our very scarce resources? For we are asking the people of this country to accept real sacrifices so that sufficient resources can be made available for defence. It is their money that we are spending and we are very conscious of it, and we must convince them of the value that we get for it.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to say whether he agrees that my own long-held belief, that the spending of vast sums on Trident instead of on conventional arguments is a dangerous waste of money and resources, is now a belief held also by the noble Lords, Lords Chalfont, Carver, Zuckerman, Raglan and Brooks of Tremorfa?
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, the noble Lord is an intelligent man who has listened to many debates on this subject in this House, and I really do not believe that I should need to tell him again that I do not agree with him.
11.19 p.m.
Earl Cathcart: My Lords, I must thank my noble friend the Minister for his clear summing-up of this long debate and for answering so many of our questions. I should also like to thank all those noble Lords from all parts of the House who have taken part in this debate for their distinguished contributions. I believe the debate may have helped us to clear our minds on a number of current problems of defence policy. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  Ms. HARRIET HARMAN
  Ms. HARRIET HARMAN
  URUGUAY: ARREST OF MR. PATRICK KNIGHT
  URUGUAY: ARREST OF MR. PATRICK KNIGHT
  AID TO STATES IN SOUTHERN AFRICA
  AID TO STATES IN SOUTHERN AFRICA
  CANADA: PROJECTED CONSTITUTION
  CANADA: PROJECTED CONSTITUTION
  LIBERTAD PRISON: INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS INVESTIGATION
  LIBERTAD PRISON: INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS INVESTIGATION
  HOUSE REPAIRS: VAT
  HOUSE REPAIRS: VAT