Sitting of 9 December 1981

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

    HUMBERSIDE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    European Regional Development Fund
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of total European regional development fund grants to the United Kingdom has gone to Scotland since the inception of the fund in 1975.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): Since the European regional development fund was set up in 1975, approximately 25 per cent. of the grant-aid allocated to the United Kingdom has related to projects in Scotland.
    Mr. Knox: Does not that suggest that Scotland is doing very well out of the European regional development fund? What steps is my hon. Friend taking to publicise the grants?
    Mr. Fletcher: I am grateful for the consistency with which my hon. Friend provides the opportunity to publicise these excellent arrangements. I am sure that he will be interested to know that the total of grants and loans allocated to Scotland from Community sources is now more than £1,000 million.
    Mr. Grimond: Can the Minister confirm that the EEC has now offered funds for agricultural development in the Highlands and Islands? If that is so, what is the amount of the offer, and are the Government accepting it?
    Mr. Fletcher: The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that there is an EEC project in the Western Isles. I think that the total sum amounts to about £20 million. The right hon. Gentleman might wonder why the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), whose constituency is receiving that aid, has so far been unable to express some gratitude to the EEC for that.
    Mr. Corrie: Will my hon. Friend confirm that if we had not joined the EEC we would not be receiving the grants, and that many projects would not have been started in Scotland?
    Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is correct. The Labour Party's policy of withdrawal from the European
    846
    Community, if put into practice, would severely damage exports, reduce inward investment and, as a result, increase unemployment in Scotland.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Does the Minister accept that the awarding of the regional grants, as distinct from the loans, depends entirely on the Government giving aid to the various assisted areas? Does the Minister further accept that, once the Government's policy of abolishing the assisted area status of many areas in Scotland, including parts of the Central region, is fully implemented, those areas will no longer qualify for the regional aid about which he is boasting?
    Mr. Fletcher: I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. With regard to the second part, he will be aware that it is Government policy to ensure that regional aid is given to those parts of the United Kingdom that are in most need, and that that relates our own regional development areas to the EEC regional development fund. He will also know that, since the Government came into office, Scotland has had a larger share of development area regions than any other part of the United Kingdom.

    Whisky Industry
    Mr. Mylesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the prospects for employment in the Scotch whisky industry.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I expect that, after a period of necessary adjustment in stocks, production will rise again in the medium term, and that should help to sustain employment prospects in the industry.
    Mr. Myles: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Scotch whisky industry, because of the world recession, is facing severe problems, especially in the United States, and that it is trying to combat them by a promotional effort in that country? Will my hon. Friend give every support to that effort?
    Mr. Fletcher: I am aware that, as my hon. Friend says, the Scotch whisky industry is suffering from the world recession. He will know that it is suffering from the fact that difficulties are being caused, for example, in the United States, where there is at present a preference towards lighter drinks such as vodka. We shall do all we can to assist the Scotch whisky industry to promote exports overseas. We are encouraged by some noises from Japan in recent days that there may be a more helpful attitude in that country towards further imports of Scotch whisky.
    Mr. Maclennan: Has the hon. Gentleman read the report in today's Financial Times that the French are having considerable success in promoting brandy in Hong Kong because of the belief there that brandy has strong aphrodisiac qualities, whereas whisky is alleged to reduce the libido? Will the hon. Gentleman do his best to ensure that that scurrilous claim is denied?
    Mr. Fletcher: I must confess that I would have preferred the hon. Gentleman to have written to me about that entirely false allegation. The publicity that he has given it makes it a little more difficult for us to deny it.
    Mr. Pollock: Is my hon. Friend aware that at the beginning of this year the distilling sector was operating at only 55 per cent. of full capacity, and the bottling and blending sector at no more than 72 per cent. of capacity?

    847
    Is he also aware that the situation is generally recognised to have worsened since then, and the industry hopes that the Government will give it all possible support at this critical time?
    Mr. Fletcher: I agree that the industry is going through a difficult time, for the reasons that we have discussed. In our export promotion effort and in other ways we shall do all that we can to make sure that the industry soon returns to its leading position in the world drinks league.
    Mr. O'Neill: Does the Minister agree that the sums being made available by the Scotch Whisky Association are totally inadequate to meet the challenge of white spirit, and that, if the Scottish industry is to be protected, more will have to be done to shake people out of their complacency?
    Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to measure the effort being made by the industry merely in terms of the money made available by the Scotch Whisky Association. He must also take into account brand promotions, which must run into millions of pounds a year at home and abroad.

    Unemployed Persons (Bothwell)
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest unemployment figures for the Bothwell area; and if he will visit the jobcentres in the Bothwell constituency.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: On 12 November 1981, 3,788 people were registered as unemployed in the Bellshill and Uddingston unemployment office areas, which between them cover the major part of the Bothwell constituency. My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to visit the jobcentres in the Bothwell constituency.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Bothwell is part of the North Lanarkshire area, where we have a 20·4 per cent. unemployment rate? Is he aware that that figure does not include this year's school leavers who are not yet on the register, and that the redundancies that I announced to the House a fortnight ago have also not yet been added to the unemployment figures? Since the steel industry is also under severe pressure, will the hon. Gentleman visit the Bothwell jobcentres to discover the facts for himself? If he has any thoughts for Scotland, will he visit Scotland to find out what is happening there?
    Mr. Fletcher: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's main points. I visited factories in his constituency recently. He will know that workers are being taken on by companies in the area, such as Levi-Strauss, which is operating successfully, and two high-technology companies, Pye TMC and Ferranti, which are both in Bellshill. They are taking on a considerable number of new workers. The hon. Gentleman will also know that all the unemployed 1981 school leavers will have been offered places on the youth opportunities programme by the end of this year.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Has the creation of the "Locate in Scotland" unit been successful in constituencies such as Bothwell in attracting inward investment with a view to reducing unemployment?
    Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is right in his assumption that the "Locate in Scotland" unit is performing encouragingly, and we look forward to seeing the results of its success in the new year.
    Mr. Millan: Why does the hon. Gentleman persist in making optimistic speeches about Scottish industry being on the upturn when the Chancellor of the Exchequer's figures for unemployment published last week show that next year unemployment in the United Kingdom will rise by 300,000 and while the figure for industrial production in Scotland during the second quarter of this year shows a further reduction of 4 per cent. in a single quarter?
    Mr. Fletcher: Neither my right hon. Friend nor I make any effort to dodge the difficulties involved in the level of unemployment in Scotland or in closures and redundancies that take place. However, it is right that on the occasions—and the right hon. Gentleman knows that there are some—when substantial export orders, shipbuilding orders or inward investment opportunities come to Scotland my right hon. Friend and I should take the opportunity to spread such encouraging news throughout the country.

    Mentally Disordered Patients
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to amend the law relating to the property of mentally disordered patients in Scotland in line with the suggestions made in the 1975 publication of the Mental Welfare Commission "No Place to Go".
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1980 extended the powers of the sheriff court in this field. These changes have been welcomed by the commission. My Department is considering what further improvements need to be introduced, but I am not persuaded that an independent body as proposed by the commission would be appropriate.
    Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has no doubt read the latest report from the Mental Welfare Commission entitled "Does the Patient come first?", which is highly critical of the activities of the curators responsible for the estates of mentally disordered patients. Is he aware of the case in my constituency of a youth who had a serious car accident that left him a physical and mental wreck? He was awarded £75,000 compensation, but the curator allows the family, which is receiving supplementary benefit, the princely sum of £12 a week and even asks for receipts for the money spent on sweets that the family takes to the youth in hospital. Is it not an absolute disgrace that we have such inquisitors in Scotland, and should they not be put in their place?
    Mr. Stewart: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would write to me with details of the case.
    Mr. Hamilton: I have already written to the Scottish Office.
    Mr. Stewart: On the more general point, the Scottish Law Commission is reviewing the law relating to the appointment of curators bonis.
    Mr. John MacKay: On the question of mentally disordered patients, does my hon. Friend intend to

    849
    introduce legislation to take account of the recent ruling of the European Courts of Human Rights on this matter? If so, when does he intend to bring forward the legislation?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. As a result of the judgment of the European Court, a change in the law will be required to give patients detained under restriction orders a periodic right of appeal. My right hon. Friend proposes to introduce amending legislation on that matter in due course.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is more than 20 years since the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960 was passed, and that the Mental Welfare Commission is expressing serious disquiet about the way that some curators regard their function as being merely to conserve a ward's estate? My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) has raised a serious point, and I ask the Minister to accept that the time has come for a wider look at how curators, once appointed, carry out their functions.
    Mr. Stewart: On the hon. Gentleman's general point about the 1960 Act, the commission acknowledges, in general, that it is still an effective piece of legislation, though it has suggested amendments. On the specific point, I have said that the Scottish Law Commission is reviewing the law. The hon. Gentleman will agree that it is a complex area, but I assure him that I will draw his point to the attention of the commission.
    Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Public Expenditure
    Mr. Ancramasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how per capita public expenditure in areas for which he is responsible compares with similar public expenditure for the United Kingdom as a whole.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): Identifiable public expenditure per head, which includes some expenditure not within my direct responsibility, remains about 20 per cent. higher in Scotland than in the United Kingdom as a whole.
    Mr. Ancram: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that answer. Does he agree that it shows clearly the great concern of the Government for the people of Scotland and gives the lie to the protestations of the Opposition that the Government have neglected Scotland for the past two and a half years?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Maxton: I bet you are!
    Mr. Younger: I continue to do everything that I can to ensure that public expenditure in Scotland matches the needs of Scotland. I claim that this very much does that.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Secretary of State realise that Scotland is subsidising England hand over fist by exporting to the Treasury this year alone £4,000 million of oil revenue? In view of the terrifically high rate of unemployment in Scotland, does he think that this money, or a good part of it, should be deployed on the regeneration of the economy of Scotland and the provision of jobs for young and old?
    Mr. Younger: I disagree totally with the hon. Gentleman. Scotland has much larger sources of supply through being part of the United Kingdom. Spending is higher per head in Scotland than in any other part of the United Kingdom. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed that.
    Mr. Craigen: What efforts has the Secretary of State made to ensure that Scotland gets a high percentage of public purchasing by Government Departments and nationalised industries?
    Mr. Younger: We watch this matter all the time. It is an extremely important point. In regard to North Sea oil related expenditure, United Kingdom firms get between 70 and 80 per cent. of the associated business. Of that, roughly half goes to Scottish firms. We do our best to maximise this at all times.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that the myth about oil was destroyed? Is it not the case that if the median line were extended out to sea there would be considerable doubt whether Scotland could claim the oilfields? Could not the Orkneys and Shetlands claim a substantial part of them as theirs?
    Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. The vast majority of Scots people regard themselves as part of Great Britain and are glad to take part in the exploitation of oil as part of Great Britain.

    Electricity Prices
    Mr. Harry Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board on the implementation of schemes, based on the announcement made in the Budget on 10 March to help large industrial users of electricity in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: At the time of the Chancellor's announcement it was made clear that the concessionary scheme applied only to England and Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said then that the Scottish electricity boards expected their tariffs for industrial consumers to remain competitive with those in the rest of the United Kingdom and that they would review their terms to ensure that this was achieved. Discussions on these matters have taken place with the boards and there is no indication that industrial consumers in Scotland are paying more than their counterparts south of the border.
    Mr. Ewing: How does the Minister explain the fact that Cape Insulation in my constituency wrote to me complaining bitterly that the SSEB had alleged that the Scottish Office was stopping it implementing a scheme for industry in Scotland? Has the Minister received a copy of that letter, which I sent to him? If he has received the letter, will he answer the allegation that the Scottish Office is frustrating the SSEB in implementing a scheme to help industry in Scotland pay less for its electricity?
    Mr. Fletcher: I think that there must be a misunderstanding. I have written to the hon. Gentleman today replying to the copy of the letter that he sent me. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Scottish Office is not interfering with the SSEB' s tariffs. At a meeting with the chairman yesterday, I discussed this,

    851
    among other matters. The hon. Gentleman's constituent may be referring to the NEDC office's work on comparisons between United Kingdom and EEC prices, which is a different matter.
    Sir Russell Fairgrieve: As the United Kingdom continues to lag behind its main European industrial competitors in the generation of a higher proportion of electricity by nuclear power, is there any chance that the SSEB and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board will break out of this United Kingdom stricture and create a higher proportion of nuclear energy?
    Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the United Kingdom has a lower proportion of nuclear energy than some EEC countries, particularly France, where the proportion is very much to France's industrial advantage. Within the United Kingdom, Scotland has a higher proportion of nuclear energy than England and Wales.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I recognise that the industrial success of this country is of paramount importance, but will the Minister say whether he has had any discussions with the chairman of the SSEB about adopting a more sympathetic approach to disconnections and so enable the board to project a better public image based on its record and assist it to wipe off debts?
    Mr. Fletcher: We have discussed these matters with the board, but the subject comes up again on question No. 11.
    Mr. Henderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is frustration in some of the continuous process industries, such as the paper industry, over the fact that the continuous use of electricity throughout 24-hour and longer cycles gives considerable economic benefit to the electricity boards, which should be recognised in improved tariffs?
    Mr. Fletcher: The boards have a responsibility, to make sure that each user of electricity meets the cost of that electricity; in other words, to ensure that the spread of costs is even. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that other factors must be taken into account where large users are concerned.

    Breaches of the Peace
    Mr. Ron Brownasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were convicted for a breach of the peace during the past 12 months.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The latest available information is for 1979, when 31,659 persons were convicted of breach of the peace.
    Mr. Brown: Will the Minister explain why one case was dropped? I refer to the shameful incident earlier this year when Councillor Tony Lester attacked a member of the public in Lothian regional chambers. Was a special deal done to permit this leading member of the Tory Party to escape prosecution? Is the Tory Party justifying extra-parliamentary activities? It is obvious to me that there is one law for the Conservative Party and another for the Labour Party. Will the Minister answer that question? Was a special deal done for Councillor Tony Lester, because that is what is being said in Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: Questions of prosecution are for the procurator fiscal to consider. I am not aware of any such
    852
    deal as that suggested by the hon. Gentleman. One can think of a number of examples of public figures indulging in unruly behaviour without being prosecuted.
    Mr. David Steel: How many Members of Parliament or ex-Members of Parliament feature in the statistics that the Under-Secretary gave?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am not immediately aware of that information. Part of the explanation might be that Members of Parliament, quite apart from councillors, sometimes indulge in anti-social behaviour which is tolerated by the community as a whole.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that the banning of alcohol at football and rugby matches has brought an immense improvement in behaviour? Will he consider recommending this legislation to the Spanish Government?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is not one of my responsibilities to make representations of that or any other kind to foreign Governments. My hon. Friend is, of course, correct. We can be greatly heartened by the extremely encouraging evidence from football grounds throughout Scotland that since the ban on alcohol was introduced there has been a significant improvement in behaviour. All involved in these activities recognise this welcome improvement.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for the reform of local government finance in Scotland.
    Mr. Younger: My proposals for amending the statutory provisions relating to determination of rates are contained in clause 1 of the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Bill, which received its Second Reading earlier this week. The wider question of domestic rating will be considered in a Green Paper to be published shortly, as indicated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 2 December.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the question referred to the reform of local government finance, while his answer referred to his decimation of democracy in local government and to direct interference that will enable him, in effect, to set local rate levels? Will he undertake to give as soon as possible a clear indication of the exact nature of clause 3 of the Bill to which he has referred? This is a matter of pressing importance to local authorities such as Fife.
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's second point. I am aware of his interest in the matter. We are discussing the issue with COSLA, and we shall announce as soon as possible what is to happen.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend give some indication of the number of representations that he has received from ratepayers organisations and ratepayers that ratepayers should be adequately protected against excessive rate rises?
    Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend may know that I have had between 30,000 and 40,000 such representations. I have had no additional representations since the debate on Monday when the new alterations were approved by the House.
    Mr. David Steel: How can the Secretary of State justify his written answer to me yesterday that he plans to discontinue the capital grants scheme for local youth and voluntary organisations in favour of transferring money into projects in cities? How can he justify taking money from rural areas and giving it to the cities in this way? What is the connection between the two?
    Mr. Younger: I stress that this is not the final decision. These are proposals for discussion. I note what the right hon. Gentleman says, and we shall of course take that into account in deciding whether to proceed in that way.
    Mr. Millan: Will the Secretary of State now answer the question that was put to him on Monday, but which he did not answer then? What does the cash limit for 1982–83 mean in terms of a real reduction in expenditure for Scottish local authorities?
    Mr. Younger: The matter will be discussed in the annual consultations with COSLA. That is how it is always presented to local government associations, and that is what we shall do next week.
    Mr. Millan: We have been told the figures for England and Wales. Why cannot we be told the figure for Scotland?
    Mr. Younger: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it has always been the practice to reveal that information at the rate grant settlement meeting. That is how he always did it, and I do not know why he wants me to change the practice now.
    Mr. Henderson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the promised consultative document on rating reform will deal with the considerable imbalance between those who pay for local government services through rates and the number of people who vote in local elections?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate what my hon. Friend said. He will have to wait until he sees the Green Paper, but I think that he will find that his point is fully covered.

    House Building
    Mr. Norman Hoggasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to increase the public sector building programme and in particular the construction of council houses.
    Mr. Rifkind: I recently announced that an extra £38 million would be available to housing authorities in Scotland for house building and improvement in the current year, largely because of the additional receipts earned following the success of the Government's policy on the sale of public sector houses.
    Mr. Hogg: Does the Minister accept that this is hopelessly inadequate, in view of the scale of the problem in Scotland and the fact that more than 48,000 construction workers in Scotland are unemployed? Does he agree that the time has come for more money to be spent on new house construction and modernisation schemes?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is right if he is implying that more of our resources should be concentrated on capital expenditure and less on current expenditure. If he will do his best to encourage local authorities to reduce their current expenditure so that more is available for capital investment in housing and so on, he will help to overcome the problem that he has identified.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Minister accept that housing in Scotland is critical, particularly in the cities? Will he give this matter urgent priority? Unless we have more houses, especially sheltered housing for the elderly, there will be many difficulties, including much longer housing lists in cities.
    Mr. Rifkind: I accept what the hon. Gentleman said. He will appreciate that the local district council of the city that he represents would have had several million pounds more available for capital expenditure on housing, including sheltered housing, if it had taken a responsible decision on rents.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is the large number of empty council properties? Does he accept that an imaginative scheme is needed so that these houses may be occupied or sold? We require more sheltered housing, not the large housing schemes that we have had in the past.
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right about the priorities. There are many empty houses in cities such as Glasgow and other urban areas. I compliment the Glasgow district council on its homesteading experiments, which have been conspicuously successful in Easterhouse and elsewhere. I am sure that in all those areas there is a great interest, particularly among young married couples, in buying surplus property that the council cannot persuade people to rent. I hope that experiments of that kind will be tried in many parts of Scotland.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister accept that the so-called concern of the Government for Scotland, which was mentioned a few minutes ago in a particularly lickspittle way by the chairman of the Conservative Party in Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), has resulted in a tragic combination of the lowest number of public sector starts since the war and the highest unemployment in the construction industry since figures were started? That will not do. Is not the Minister filled with a feeling of black despair as he contemplates the dreary deflationary package unveiled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week, which holds out no help whatsoever for people who hope to live in council houses in Scotland or for those in the construction industry who wish to provide those houses?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that the policy of reducing capital expenditure on housing was advocated in the Labour Government's Green Paper on housing and has been continued by this Government.

    Domestic Electricity Supplies
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce measures to control the use of disconnection by electricity boards in Scotland, in view of the hardships caused by current restrictions imposed by the South of Scotland Electricity Board.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: No. The South of Scotland Electricity Board carries out disconnections in accordance with the industries' code of practice on the payment of domestic gas and electricity bills. The operation of the code of practice has been examined by the Policy Studies Institute and its report, which was published recently, is being urgently considered by the Scottish electricity

    855
    boards and their consultative councils. They have agreed to consider changes in the operation of the code in the light of the report, and the aim is to introduce any changes to the code and its operation by March 1982.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the Under-Secretary aware that when the amount owed is more than £150 the South of Scotland Electricity Board will not accept a direct payment for fuel from the social security department on behalf of the recipient and that, as a consequence, unemployed families with young children have been disconnected? Will he review the situation because, south of the border, payments are taken up to £300? Does the Minister agree that consumers in the North are entitled to the same fair and just consideration as consumers south of the border?
    Mr. Fletcher: I am aware of the problem that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I understand that, as a result of a recent meeting between the chairman of the board and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, more flexible arrangements are likely to be introduced. I discussed the matter recently with the chairman of the board. However, the percentage of consumers in the board's area who have been disconnected has remained virtually unchanged over the past three years.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Does the Minister agree that one of the problems in the area is the tremendously high cost of electricity? Would there not be fewer problems if there were rationalisation of the costs of gas and electricity? What steps is he taking to make equalisation possible?
    Mr. Fletcher: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. He will know that the most significant factor in the cost of electricity is fuel. On a United Kingdom basis, coal is the basic fuel that is used to produce electricity. Therefore, the price of coal is important in this connection.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Does the Minister accept that there is widespread concern because it appears that the South of Scotland Electricity Board is operating a much tougher policy on disconnections than almost any other generating board in the United Kingdom? Does he further accept that recently some alarming cases of disconnection have come to light? Will the Minister raise this matter with the board and discuss with it a more flexible approach to what is becoming a serious problem?
    Mr. Fletcher: I am aware of the seriousness of the problem. However, it tends to be exaggerated, and the board tends to be lambasted with accusations that cannot be justified. As I have already said, the board has undertaken to respond to the PSI report by March next year. I have asked the chairman to keep me informed of progress.

    Ferry Services
    Mr. John MacKayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the progress of his negotiations with Caledonian MacBrayne on ferry services on the West Coast.
    Mr. Rifkind: In company with my hon. Friend, I recently visited Dunoon and heard the views of various local interests on the future of the Gourock-Dunoon ferry service. My right hon. Friend is now considering these views and hopes to make a statement soon. Caledonian MacBrayne continues to provide satisfactory ferry services throughout the West Coast of Scotland.
    Mr. MacKay: Does "soon" mean before the Christmas Recess? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the passenger service will continue from pier to pier? Will he further confirm that the current discussions revolve round the continued use of the "Juno" as the passenger ship and allowing her to carry vehicle traffic at the same time?
    Mr. Rifkind: I cannot give my hon. Friend a specific date for the announcement of the decision, but I can confirm that it is intended that a proper service for passengers will continue between the two terminals. Until any further announcement is made, the service between Gourock and Dunoon will continue in the same way as has operated till now.
    Mr. Maxton: Can the Minister now tell us—he could not last month—whether the car docking facility at Gourock will remain if the Caledonian MacBrayne service is withdrawn from Dunoon, in view of the problems that would result for other ferry services on the Clyde if that facility were withdrawn?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will have to await the final decision before judging all the detailed implications. I confirm that that is one of the factors that we shall take into account before reaching a final decision.
    Mr. Corrie: Will my hon. Friend persuade the Scottish Transport Group to produce individual accounts for ferry runs on the West Coast of Scotland so that islanders may know how much subsidy is being paid on each run?
    Mr. Rifkind: I accept the basis of that question. When public subsidies are provided to support services, it is not unreasonable that the subsidies—whether or not subsidies are popular or justified—should be identified for each service.
    Mr. Dewar: Has there not been a sorry tale of administrative indecision and political prejudice? Does the Minister accept that priority should be given to having a good service for pedestrian as well as vehicular traffic between Gourock and Dunoon and that any scheme should be tested against that criterion? Does he further accept that the Opposition and many people in the area served by the ferry will oppose any scheme that creates a monopoly for any private outfit?
    Mr. Rifkind: From the beginning the Government's approach has been based on the criterion of a proper service to meet the requirements of local people. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that there is already a monopoly in virtually every service in Scotland. Obviously, it is desirable to avoid that if it can be done without massive public subsidy. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that the Gourock-Dunoon service is the one service in Scotland that should not require a subsidy. Yet it receives the highest subsidy—£500,000.

    Dairy Herd
    Mr. Pollockasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current size of the Scottish dairy herd.
    Mr. Younger: The provisional results of the 1981 June census show a dairy cow herd of 278,000.
    Mr. Pollock: Given those interesting figures, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential for the Government to do all in their power to protect Scottish

    857
    producers from any measures that might discriminate against well-established and efficient methods of production?
    Mr. Younger: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the efficiency of our producers, who have a fine record of keeping up milk production—which is going well—despite a reduction in the size of the herd. As my hon. Friend will know, we do not like the co-responsibility levy, and we shall argue strongly against any proposal that discriminates against our producers.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: Does the Secretary of State imagine that it helps milk production to appoint a member of the Social Democratic Party from my constituency to the Scottish Milk Marketing Board, especially as her knowledge of milk and milk production is as negligible as her knowledge of politics?
    Mr. Younger: It is beyond me to say whether it helps any organisation to have a member of the Social Democratic Party appointed to it. However, if a person is capable of doing a good job for a public body, that ability is not necessarily affected by his or her allegiance to a particular party.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the Secretary of State lay aside his political prejudice for a minute and tell us whether he is satisfied with the downturn in the size of the milk herd?
    Mr. Younger: I do not have any political prejudices about these matters, as I have shown by appointing one of the hon. Gentleman's friends to such a position. Given the production level and performance of the Scottish dairy herd, I am satisfied that a good job is being done in difficult circumstances. If production continues at its present rate, there is every prospect that this will be a record year for milk production in Scotland
    Mr. Myles: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision of the Scottish Agriculture Department to require the pasteurisation of all milk by 1983 is wise in view of the recent outbreak of salmonella in the Keith area?
    Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. I was sorry to hear about the recent incident in Banffshire in which an outbreak of salmonella poisoning affected more than 400 people, including 100 children. That confirms that my decision was right.

    Agricultural Workers
    Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many agricultural workers were registered unemployed in each of the last three years in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Younger: In August 1981—the latest date for which informtion is available—4,748 people who last worked in the agriculture and horticulture industries were registered as unemployed in Scotland. The corresponding figures for 1980 and 1979 were 3,365 and 2,505 respectively. We are well aware of the implications of the decline in agricultural employment for rural communities and this is, of course, taken into account in our wider economic and social policies for these areas.
    Mr. Steel: How do those figures break down? To what extent is it possible to blame the lack of profitability in the hill and upland sector of farming for the increase in the figures? I suspect that that is the cause.
    Mr. Younger: A great deal is probably due to improved productivity in agriculture. I have no doubt that the series of bad years that Scottish farming has suffered has had some effect on the number of those employed in the industry. Even the right hon. Gentleman would not accuse the Government of failing to help the farming industry. We have devalued the green pound three times and provided the highest ever hill livestock compensatory amounts.
    Mr. Home Robertson: As a significant number of those made redundant by Scottish farmers have been put out of their houses, will the Secretary of State consider reviewing the tied housing law in Scotland, particularly in view of the opinions recently expressed by both sides of the Scottish farming industry?
    Mr. Younger: I pay tribute to the work that the farming industry, the National Farmers Union and others have done on this subject. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would know better than most people that if someone who is required to work on a farm leaves his job, it is essential that someone else should be employed to do the work. Otherwise, farming cannot continue.
    Mr. John McKay: Was my right hon. Friend as surprised as I was to read that the Scottish National Party's Member of the European Parliament representing the Highlands and Islands allied herself with the Fianna Fail party in signing a motion to the great detriment of British agriculture? That motion, if adopted, would diminish the benefits that flow to British agriculture from the Common Market.
    Mr. Younger: I share my hon. Friend's mystification about the activities of that Member of the European Parliament, who seems to be part of the Gaullist group in the EEC. However, her reading cannot have been effective if she thinks that the Government have neglected farming, because the reverse is true.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Minister and the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) bring their knowledge up to date by reading the newspapers? If they had been up to date, they would have known that Mrs. Winifred Ewing did not sign that motion.
    Mr. Younger: I am fascinated to hear what Mrs. Ewing has not signed, and I am also interested to see what she has signed. They are often in conflict with one another.
    Mr. Millan: Did the Secretary of State miss the point about tied houses? We understand the legitimate needs of farmers, but those who are displaced also have needs. The English legislation seems to be working satisfactorily. I understand that the National Farmers Union in Scotland is now persuaded that similar legislation could operate in Scotland. Why cannot the Minister consider that?
    Mr. Younger: I shall be glad to consider that. I should be particularly interested to know whether the right hon. Gentleman lends his support to it. I have another good reason for taking a careful look at the situation, and I shall do so.

    Job Creation
    Sir Hector Monroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take further initiatives together with the Scottish Development Agency in areas of exceptionally high unemployment.
    Mr. Younger: Those areas in Scotland facing the most severe economic problems will continue to benefit to the fullest extent from regional policy measures. In addition, a number of special local initiatives have already been taken involving the Scottish Development Agency and others, and I am considering the potential for further such initiatives.
    Sir Hector Monro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment in Annan is very high and that in Sanquhar it stands at 21 per cent., which is about the highest level in Scotland? Will he consider special incentives along the lines of a mini enterprise zone in areas of special difficulty?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about those areas in his constituency, which I have visited with him on several occasions. There are particular problems there. The enterprise zone programme is essentially experimental. If we are to evaluate the experiments properly, it is not sensible to scatter a whole lot of new enterprise zones round the country before we have seen how the first ones work. However, we are always ready to look at the most appropriate measures for areas. No doubt my hon. Friend will get in touch with me if he has any special suggestions for his area.
    Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Is the Secretary of State aware that many people believe that the SDA should adopt a more adventurous role in its difficult task of creating new jobs in Scotland? How will the guidelines issued recently assist the SDA to do that job and be more adventurous than last year?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's wishes, but I am not certain what he means by "adventurous". The SDA thinks that the new guidelines are suitable and a great improvement. No viable industrial project in Scotland has been unable to go ahead because of shortage of funds to back it. I attach a great deal of importance to that, and so does the SDA.

  SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

    Caravans
    Mr. Bill Walkerasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will meet the procurator fiscal for Perth to discuss the number of prosecutions for illegal parking of caravans.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn): My noble and learned Friend and I regularly meet procurators fiscal. As recently as last month I met the procurator fiscal at Perth. Although the unauthorised parking of caravans was not discussed at this meeting, my noble and learned Friend and I are in correspondence with him about this matter.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he acknowledge that a large number of travelling families are illegally parking in my constituency and that the apparent collusion between national and local government officials and the discredited travelling families advisory committee to delay the opening of the Tulloch site is bringing the rule of law in that part of Scotland into disrepute?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I hope that there will be no delay in the provision of sites for traveling
    860
    people. Grants of 100 per cent. are available. If there are bureaucratic difficulties, it is up to everybody concerned to get rid of them.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman note that there appears to be unauthorised parking of caravans in my constituency at the east end of Blantyre? I should certainly not be party to the prosecution of travelling families, but could not his Department, together with local authorities, clean up sites and make them available to travelling families?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: With respect, it is not my Department's duty to clean up sites for travelling people. They have 100 per cent. grants. Where there is a problem local authorities should get on with solving it and providing sites.

    Solvent Abuse
    Mr. Ancramasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions for offences related to solvent abuse have been initiated by his Department in the last six months.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As solvent abuse itself is not illegal, no separate register is kept of prosecutions arising out of this social evil.
    Mr. Ancram: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that there may be instances in which another crime related to solvent abuse might arise and where prosecution might be considered? In the light of the consultative document issued by the Scottish Home and Health Department, will my hon. and learned Friend assure the House that he will consult the Minister responsible for health in Scotland before such prosecutions are taken?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The basis upon which a prosecution is taken when a crime is committed, regardless of what the stimulus to it might be, is whether that prosecution is justified. I am in constant consultation with my colleagues about this abuse. The whole House shares the concern about it.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: In view of the low-key approach to this big problem, is there not some justification for requiring the police to investigate any offences committed by someone who is under the influence of solvents? After all, the consumption of alcohol alone is not an offence. Why should it be difficult to obtain the information?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. Alcohol consumption is not registered—perhaps fortunately. In all cases in which solvent abbuse is part of a complaint, the police do a marvellous educational job in advising parents, local authorities and teachers of the appalling dangers, which a recent case demonstrated.

    Fox-hunting
    Mr. Canavanasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what criteria are used for deciding whether to prosecute people for incidents arising from fox-hunting.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The same criteria are used to decide whether to prosecute in any such case as are used in any other case—namely, whether there is prima facie corroborated evidence that a criminal offence has been committed and, if so, whether a prosecution is merited.
    Mr. Canavan: Has an investigation been made of the activities of the Linlithgow and Stirling hunt following my recent letter to the Lord Advocate? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the blatant discrimination against some of my constituents who were arrested after a nonviolent, anti-hunt protest, such as blowing hunting horns, whereas members of the hunt and their supporters were allowed to use obstruction and violence? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a mounted policeman, who took part in the hunt, seemed to be taking orders from the master of the hunt? Is it not time that something was done to stop police protection being given to upper-class thugs and hooligans who take part in such a cruel blood sport?
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Tally ho! Tail him.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the foxes. There is no prejudice in any prosecution on any basis. I am sure that the House can well understand the hon. Gentleman's fellow feeling for the red fox.
    Sir Russell Fairgrieve: If my hon. and learned Friend intends to proceed along the devious lines outlined by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), should he not include people involved in fishing and shooting?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It might interest the House to know that in the incident, which is still sub judice, solvent was sprayed on dogs.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not know that the matter was sub judice.

    Scottish Law Commission
    Mr. Gordon Wilsonasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when next he will meet the chairman of the Scottish Law Commission.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Neither I nor my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Advocate has at present any plans to meet the Scottish Law Commission, but meetings are held as and when necessary.
    Mr. Wilson: Has not the Law Commission produced a substantial report on divorce and the division of matrimonial property? Is it not time that the Government held meetings to discuss that report? Are the Government prepared to accept the report, and, if so, what date has been set for legislation?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: According to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Gentleman wants an answer to that question, he can table a question and I shall answer it.
    Mr. Ancram: In view of the increasing number of cases of anti-social behaviour by neighbours, will my hon. and learned Friend suggest to the Law Commission that it should re-examine the law of nuisance to see whether it meets present circumstances?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am always in favour of anything that gets rid of nuisances.
    Mr. Dewar: The Solicitor-General for Scotland must not brush off serious questions in that way. He answers for divorce law matters in the House, and the Law Commission is involved in them. Can he confirm that there will be a statement or a consultative document from
    862
    the Government early in the new year on the structure of divorce law in Scotland, not necessarily on the grounds for divorce? What will the statement or document cover?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I assure the House that I treat the matter with great responsibility. I also treat your rulings, Mr. Speaker, with great responsibility. I am in some difficulty whether to render to God or to Caesar in this matter.
    Hon. Members: Which is which?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will explain his priorities.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: In accordance with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, when somebody tables a question about my priorities I shall answer it.
    Later—
    Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the Solicitor-General for Scotland for intervening when I did, but he made such a good remark that I gave in to temptation.

    High Court (Glasgow)
    Mr. Pollockasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many sittings of the High Court have taken place in Glasgow to date in 1981.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: There have been 12 sittings of the High Court in Glasgow in 1981, including the current sitting, which began on 30 November.
    Mr. Pollock: Is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied that he has the balance right between the amount of time that he spends performing his duties in the House and the amount of time that he spends appearing in the High Court in Glasgow?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I undertake the duties of prosecuting in Glasgow High Court and other places according to what I judge to be in the public interest in demonstrating the serious view of violent crime taken by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

    Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy (Fire)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he expects to receive the report from the procurator fiscal concerning his inquiries into the fire at the nurses' home at the Victoria hospital, Kirkcaldy on 13 November.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous reply to him on 26 November 1981.
    Mr. Hamilton: In view of the considerable public anxiety about the matter, would it not have been better to have had a public inquiry at which all the facts could have been seen to be brought out in public? Will the report, together with the evidence that was adduced, be published, so that we may read it?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Without giving anything away, I can say that the report, when it reaches my noble and learned Friend, will be considered with a view to seeing whether there should be a public inquiry under the Act. I do not give anything away if I say that an inquiry is likely. I might even he responsible for conducting it.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is time for the statements, but I shall allow one question from each side.
    Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his last words. Will he ensure that in the meantime there is an inquiry into how long the fire may
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I assure my hon. Friend that all inquiries into this serious and worrying accident will be investigated. It is a matter for my noble and learned Friend to decide, but it is more than likely that there will be a public inquiry.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: May we take it that the public inquiry, when it takes place, will be of a wide-ranging character and that, as the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) said, every aspect of that tragic fire will be taken into account? Will the Solicitor-General draw to the attention of his hon. Friend the Minister for Health the condition in which the building has been left? The fire-damaged windows have not been boarded up and loose curtains are blowing all over the place. It is a disgraceful sight for people going in and out of the hospital and a constant reminder of the horrors suffered by the nurses.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health will have heard those
    864
    remarks. Between him and the local authority perhaps something will be done about it. If an inquiry is ordered by my noble and learned Friend, I assure the House that it will be wide ranging. There has been a delay because of the immense amount of investigation that has gone on in preparation for any inquiry.

    Questions to Ministers
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. After midnight last night, during the Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Edwards), the Department of Industry agreed to open its files and provide access to the Comptroller and Auditor General in his preliminary inquiries into British Leyland.
    This morning I telephoned the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland to warn him that I would ask whether it would be possible for him to answer question No. 35, which would clarify the position of the Scottish Office about access to its files by the Comptroller and Auditor General. It may be that the Secretary of State will wish to answer question No. 35 now.
    Mr. Speaker: I have received no request.

Inner Cities
3.33 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The Government recognise that no single announcement can be the measure of the inner city and urban problem, but it is important to take those decisions that we can as soon as practical.
Next week my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services will chair a major conference for the European Campaign for Urban Renaissance which will seek further ways of encouraging the voluntary sector in the inner cities.
I must now take important decisions about the allocation of my departmental resources to the urban areas and inner cities next year. Public expenditure is in many cases essential, but it is not, and of itself cannot be, the whole answer. As important is the need to open a range of opportunities for private involvement and investment, which will add significantly to the public resources in urban areas and will widen the choice in many areas for those living and investing there. The urban areas, and especially the inner cities, have a concentration of unemployment and a deterioration of environment that argue for a particular stimulus for the construction industry and capital programmes.
It is against that background that I have reached certain conclusions about the allocation of my departmental programmes for next year. First, the Government believe that the derelict land programme should play a bigger role in urban policy. Derelict land reclaimed at public expense can lead to development by the private sector that adds very substantial private expenditure to the basic public expenditure. At the moment very little reclaimed land is developed. Next year I intend to increase the derelict land programme from £40 million to £45 million.
In allocating the uncommitted part of the programme I shall have particular regard to bids from local authorities in conjunction with the construction industry demonstrating the use to which the reclaimed land is to be put. I shall look especially favourably on those joint public-private sector schemes drawn from the land registers that offer the greatest private sector enhancement for every pound of public expenditure. I shall especially look to schemes that lead to housing, industrial, commercial, sporting and recreational opportunities. I shall invite representatives of the local authorities and the construction industry to meet me next week to establish the procedures whereby I receive special bids for joint schemes by the end of January.
Secondly, we shall enable the two urban development corporations of London and Merseyside to undertake substantially more projects in 1982–83 than in the present year. I expect to authorise some £50 million worth of schemes compared with the £15 million that they expect to spend on works this year. The House will realise that this, too, will attract much greater sums of private investment to enhance the effort that the public sector is making.
Finally, we have taken a important decision about resources for the urban programme in 1982–83. The local authorities in partnership and programme areas were asked to draw up programmes on a basis that would have implied a total of £215 million for the urban programme as a whole. I am glad to say that we have been able to improve
866
substantially on that figure and will increase the total available by up to £55 million to some £270 million, including a special provision of £5 million additional stimulus to low-cost home ownership.
My announcements today must be seen in the context of an urban problem that will demand our continuing attention. They do not represent a whole response, but they make an important contribution.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: As we shall be debating these matters at length tomorrow, I shall confine myself today to questions seeking clarification of certain matters.
First, can the Secretary of State say on what annual price basis the sums of money that he has mentioned are posited? Secondly, can he say whether the figure of £270 million is inclusive or exclusive of the two docklands urban development corporations? If it is inclusive, can he provide a comparison on a constant price basis with the £224 million that he announced last February for the whole urban programme at 1980 survey prices? If it is exclusive, can he provide a constant price basis comparison with the £158 million that he announced for the urban programme, exclusive of docklands?
Thirdly, will the Secretary of State give further details of the matters that he announced at Question Time last Wednesday, when he said that he had approved new urban programme projects in Lambeth, Hackney and Tower Hamlets? We wish to have details of those. Fourthly, can he say what decision he has reached about reimbursement to the six local authorities that were successful against him in the October court judgment on the £8,983,000 that he unlawfully withheld from them?
Fifthly, does the Secretary of State intend to reimburse the urban programme grant that he withheld from Hackney, Islington and Lambeth in September 1980? Sixthly, will he now abandon his attention of holding back £44,666,000 in rate support grant from 17 partnership and programme authorities as a penalty for alleged overspending?
Mr. Heseltine: I am holding consultations with the London boroughs involved in the recent court action very much in accordance with the views expressed in the action. Details of further schemes for expenditure approval in the three London boroughs is for discussion among the boroughs, and I believe that it is now taking place.
I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to add to what I say at the Dispatch Box so that he may have a clearer picture, but I can say that the figures that I gave were on a cash basis. The £270 million is inclusive of the urban development corporation's expenditure. To break down the figures to some extent, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that it is anticipated that next year's urban expenditure programme, on a constant price basis, will be at the highest level ever. The figure for the urban programme for 1979–80 at November 1979 constant prices was £179 million. It is expected to rise to £190 million in 1982–83 on the same money base.
Mr. Kaufman: Can the right hon. Gentleman help me a little more? The calculations that he makes are not clear. He has clarified what I fear he sought not to clarify in his statement—the £270 million is inclusive of the two urban docklands development corporations.
Mr. Heseltine: I should have said that it is exclusive and in addition to the £270 million.
Mr. Kaufman: In February, the right hon. Gentleman announced an allocation of £158 million for 1981–82, exclusive of docklands. Is the £158 million at 1980 survey prices directly comparable with the £270 million which he has now announced for the urban programme? If so, can he revalorise it so that the two figures are directly comparable?
Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to proceed with holding back the £44,666,000 from the 17 programme and partnership authorities? If so, it would largely cancel out any increase that he has announced.
Mr. Heseltine: I am not making a statement today about the decision on holdback on the current overspend of local government. I have made my position clear. I believe that the over-expenditure on current account is one reason why we have seen significant reductions on capital account. It would not be right to reduce the pressure to secure reductions in current expenditure to facilitate the increase in capital expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman is familiar with the damage done previously as a consequence of such a procedure. The capital programme of his own metropolitan district of Manchester of £144 million in 1974–75 was reduced to £100 million under the Labour Government. I am trying to bring about a shift in favour of capital expenditure to reverse the trend.
I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman about his second point, as the figures are in different money bases and must be seen in comparative terms, but I can tell him that what I announced is a significant increase in real terms. The £158 million for 1981–82 is in November 1979 prices and compares with the equivalent of £190 million for the 1982–3 announcement, but at November prices the £190 million is the equivalent of the £270 million in cash, which I referred to in the statement.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that these matters are to be debated tomorrow and that we have two important and abbreviated debates to follow, involving eight Front Bench speeches. Therefore, I shall allow questions to run until 4.5 pm.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the whole House—apart from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman)—welcomes what is one of the most important statements for some time concerning the revitalisation of city areas? Will he confirm that there will be no loss of local authority automony, and that the funds for the reclamation and revitalisation of land will not be confined to inner city areas but can be used for outer areas, where the majority of the vacant, dormant and derelict land lies?
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful remarks. There is no intention to reduce local authority autonomy. Indeed, I believe that local authorities will benefit from the opportunities of the enhanced resources on capital account. Outer city areas will be very much considered in the derelict land scheme.
Mr. George Cunningham: Does the Secretary of State remember that we were able to persuade him that increased spending by local authorities should not be counted when working out whether a local authority had fallen into the
868
penalty area on overspending? In view of his statement, can he guarantee that the arrangement will continue this year?
Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to wait until we come to the rate support grant settlement, he will find that all those matters will be taken into account. We shall have to weigh the matter particularly against the changed bases for the Grant related expenditure assessment formula, which in the main, if I may say without anticipating the settlement, are likely to have a favourable impact on inner city areas.
Mr. David Alton: How can the Secretary of State talk about increased capital expenditure opportunities for local authorities when in Liverpool over the past two years there has been a £24½ million reduction in capital resources, through a 25 per cent. reduction in the capital allocation of the housing revenue account, and a £11½million reduction in the RSG settlement? Is he not merely giving us crumbs while taking away the meal? What is his answer to the allegation of the leader of the Liverpool city council that over the past five years, because of reductions in capital expenditure, Liverpool has lost 11,000 jobs?
Mr. Heseltine: I am in constant touch with the leader of the Liverpool city council and I hear a totally different message from him about the work that I am doing. I am sure that the people of Merseyside will realise that what I have announced today will be of considerable benefit to them.
Mr. John Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend give a categorical assurance that the large sums of money that he announced are not Danegeld to appease rioting areas but are soundly based to assist the recovery of the whole of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will realise that, despite the real stresses in urban areas, the riots were severely limited. What I have announced today will benefit many parts of the country where there were no riots.
Mr. Robert Parry: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Tory-Liberal coalition on the Liverpool city council is not building any public housing in the inner areas, in spite of the long waiting list and the demolition of pre-war tenement blocks? Will he speak to the council about that fact?
Mr. Heseltine: I cannot compete with the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of his area, but he will be aware that to solve the housing problem in Liverpool requires the restoration and rehabilitation of the large number of empty and derelict houses and not the building of more houses.
Mr. John Cartwright: Is the Secretary of State aware that many of us welcome his acceptance that the problems of the inner cities can be tackled effectively only by a partnership between public and private investment? Does he accept that the extra resources that he announced today will not have the dramatic impact that is needed, particularly when they are set off against cuts in the rate support grant? What will he do to tackle the problem of the appalling quality of life on many inner city housing estates and provide more jobs in inner cities, particularly for the young unemployed?
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising what I believe every serious observer of the position understands—that only with the combined resources of the public and private sector shall we bring about a new approach in the urban areas. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has fully understood the gearing effects of my proposals. I hope that the substantial sums of money that are being made available will attract additional sums from the private sector. I believe that there will be a significant impact on job creation in the area, but to have gone forward at a significantly different speed from the one that I announced today would not have measured up to the difficulty of making decisions on the precise schemes that we should follow.
Mr. Fred Silvester: I congratulate my hon. Friend on making another contribution to the repair of the inner cities and particularly on the way in which he has done it. He spoke about capital and the involvement of the construction industry, and referred to special bids being made by January. Are we putting a time limit on that which would make it difficult to get the full benefit from such a scheme?
Mr. Heseltine: I have had to consider that carefully. It is a question of balancing the opportunities to prepare in detail the schemes with the need to bring an urgent injection of help and hope to those areas. I believe that many authorities already have schemes and, working quickly in conjunction with the private sector, will be able to put forward proposals. It is right, therefore, to err on the side of moving quickly, although it is open to me to modify the timetable if necessary.
Mr. Charles R. Morris: Is the Secretary of State aware that the major feature of Britain's inner city problem is the question of the young jobless? Is he further aware that in Greater Manchester alone 68,000 young people are unemployed? In the allocation of the funds, will he encourage local authorities to give priority to projects for the young unemployed?
Mr. Heseltine: I share the right hon. Gentleman's view. On Merseyside, I have been trying to put precisely that emphasis on my proposals. I hope to make additional announcements about how we are experimenting precisely to find opportunities of that sort. One experiment in which the House may be interested, and which I hope shortly to he able to confirm, is that we should have a higher ratio of apprentices to craftsmen on some of the schemes that we are trying to pioneer for building new houses.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: I join other hon. Members in welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement. We are particularly grateful for the fact that he should be showing real and abiding interest in urban problems. Are we to understand that the £35 million extra for London and Merseyside is the total and that the extra £55 million is therefore to go to the other deprived areas? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fact that Birmingham did not involve itself in the unruly elements does not mean that there is not a great deal of work to be done there? Will he take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) that the outer city areas have just as many problems and could be helped that much quicker to make the cities really worth living in?
Mr. Heseltine: Of course, I want to ensure that the West Midlands has an appropriate share of the funds that are available because that area is having a difficult time at present. I have tried to make it clear what funds are available to the urban programme at large, as opposed to the urban development corporations. I want to ensure, when I consider the bids under the derelict land schemes, that the outer areas are considered as important as some of the inner areas.
Mr. John Maxton: Is the Secretary of State aware that, although we have had no riots in any cities in Scotland, the problems of industrial decline and social deprivation are just as great, certainly in the city of Glasgow? Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether we shall have an equivalent statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland about the measures that he intends to take to tackle the problems of inner cities in Scotland?
Mr. Heseltine: All territorial Secretaries of State are grappling with their own regional and urban problems. I have been privileged to send my officials to Glasgow to see what is happening with the GEAR scheme, and I hope to go there myself. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is in the Chamber and doubtless has heard the hon. Gentleman's comments. I am sure that, in the fullness of time, he will want to draw to the attention of the House the excellent work that he is already doing in Scotland.
Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I thank my right hon. Friend for the help that he has announced, which is desperately needed by inner cities such as Birmingham, where it is possibly more desperately needed than in other areas. I thank him also for promoting active schemes between the private sector and local government. Without pre-empting his conversations next week, will he be more precise about how he will utilise the private sector to help statutory owner schemes?
Mr. Heseltine: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's interest in that aspect of my announcement. Although I shall take a flexible attitude, depending on the response, I have it in mind that local authorities that are able to show that they have derelict land that can be cleared with the aid of derelict land grant shall be given preference if they say that they can then make use of the land for building or recreational purposes, which will give a private sector enhancement to the public sector finance that I am prepared to provide.
Mr. Clinton Davis: Does the Secretary of State agree with the Commission for Racial Equality which has argued that effective measures to tackle racial disadvantage have been frustrated by the shift of resources from the inner cities for which he has been responsible? What will he do to deal with the inequalities that he created by the shift in policy on the rate support grant, which is now clearly to be seen to the prejudice of inner city areas, particularly in an area such as mine in Hackney?
Mr. Heseltine: The shift of resources that I made was largely from London to the provinces. Within that shift there was significant proportionate gain to some of the inner city areas. That was necessary in order to deal with the problems that had been created by the Labour Government, who made such a major shift from the

871
provincial areas, including the metropolitan provincial areas, to London. The biggest shift took place because some London authorities very much overspent their targets and therefore, under the block grant mechanism, voluntarily went through a process where they accentuated the shift away from London. As part of the process of trying to regenerate capital investment in this country, we have to pull back on current consumption.
Mr. Michael Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one reason why this statement will be particularly warmly welcomed is that it will bring new work and new hope to the sorely stricken construction industry? Has he any intention of using the funds for fast-moving schemes, such as improvement schemes and land reclamation, because the problem is getting people back to work in the industry?
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal more than I do about the construction industry. I want to keep an open mind as to the schemes that I select. Having "put on the table" the sum of money that is available, I would be better advised to wait for the response of the construction industry and the leaders of local government about how the money should be spent. I shall be calling urgently for meetings in order to get that under way.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what sort of regional spread he envisages? Will he say how much will go to Merseyside, Humberside, the city of Hull, and so on, so that we may have some idea of whether our local councils should spend time preparing schemes?
Mr. Heseltine: I do not at present have in mind a regional spread. I am interested in the quality of the schemes and the work that can flow from them. I believe that local authorities, particularly the local authorities in the hon. Gentleman's area, will react quickly to ensure that they get a proper share of the available finance.
Mr. Den Dover: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the private sector will greatly welcome his further involvement of it in the rebuilding of inner cities? Does he accept that many of us welcome the fact that he is using public expenditure in the most effective and efficient way—by pump priming?
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is necessary to take every advantage that we can of the incremental expenditure from the private sector. I am aware that many local authorities have substantial capital receipts at their disposal which, under the new regimes, they are free to spend on capital programmes. They are not fully utilising those receipts.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Secretary of State accept that everyone on Merseyside, other than the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen), will consider his announcement as being inadequate to deal with the problems of Merseyside? How much of the £50 million being allocated to the urban development corporations will be spent on Merseyside? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a need not to distribute the rate support grant, which has already been greatly reduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in such a way that inner city areas such as Merseyside suffer once again?
Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has a meaningful dialogue with some people on Merseyside, but my experience shows that there is a real welcome for what I have been trying to do on Merseyside. It is curious that the hon. Gentleman has failed to notice that. It is difficult to allocate money to the UDC on Merseyside and then spend it in another part of the country.
Mr. John Sever: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the money he is prepared to allocate to Birmingham will be well spent? There is no shortage of schemes available to use the money. Does he recognise that the regeneration that he is looking for in such places as Ladywood, in the centre of Birmingham, will come about only when much greater Government attention is given to the problems of inner cities and far greater resources are made available? May we look at today's statement as being the forerunner of many others?
Mr. Heseltine: I agree that money spent in Birmingham under the schemes will be well spent. The response of the local people will be typical of the determination to help themselves which characterises many people in the West Midlands. I very much sympathise with that view. I understand the need to continue to exert pressure and to help the inner cities—provided the hon. Gentleman realises that that means public and private help in partnership.
Mr. Jack Straw: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the additional resources for land clearance will be available to the designated inner urban areas such as Blackburn? Is he aware that much of the problem of unused land in inner urban areas arises from the obliteration of the public housing programme, which has not been, and cannot be, met by the private sector? Are there any proposals to increase the allocation of funds to the public housing programme? Does he accept the truth—however unpalatable—that, in the words of his own minute to the Prime Minister, it took a riot to make the Government change their policy?
Mr. Heseltine: The whole House realises that it serves no purpose to pretend that the inner city problem grew up under this Government. The decline throughout the inner cities is long standing. Local authority capital expenditure was halved by the Labour Government, which must be remembered when attempting to apportion blame. Let us remove ourselves from trying to apportion blame. The derelict land programme can be considered for the area represented by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that it will make an appropriate bid.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the decline of public housing, which I have always been the first to recognise. However, that was continuing in a straight line downwards under the Labour Government, and the capital programmes were substantially reduced by them after 1975—as the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) know. I greatly deplore the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is doing his best—although not an effective best—to prevent new rental accommodation from being made available in the private sector. He is also doing his best to persuade people not to buy their council houses, which would provide cash for the improvement of other council houses.
I hope that the whole House will welcome the fact that our announcement about next year's capital programme

873
for public sector housing is the first time for many years that a Government have looked for stabilisation rather than decline in the programme.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend accept that additional capital investment in inner cities is greatly welcomed? Will he find some way whereby local authorities, if they keep within Government spending targets, may know in advance what capital sums are likely to be made available to them?
Mr. Heseltine: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's remarks. The more certainty and the longer period of notice that we can give in these matters, the more probable it is that we shall maintain the levels of expenditure. I am concerned because the local authority capital programmes appear to be significantly underspent. There are substantial resources that are not being spent but which could be spent under the freedom of the local government capital regimes. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear that in mind.
Mr. Guy Barnett: Is the Secretary of State aware that I agree with his emphasis on co-operation between public and private enterprise in the redevelopment of inner city areas? He will know that one of the best examples of that is pursued by the London borough of Greenwich, where there has been highly successful co-operation. I hope that he will learn from that. The whole of his package appears to concentrate on physical construction projects. Does he not realise that one aspect of inner city redevelopment is investment in people? What funds will he make available to extend nursery, adult and further education and skill training, all of which are vital to the redevelopment of industry in inner city areas?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman, perhaps through my fault, may have misunderstood the implications of what I said in my statement. While I wish to see the weighting of the programmes swung more and more towards capital investment, it is within the powers of the urban programme to support current expenditure. Indeed, a substantial amount of current expenditure is being sustained on the urban programme.
I said in my statement that the Government attach great importance to encouraging the voluntary sector in many of the inner urban areas. That can be supported by the urban programme. It is a question of balance. It is not an absolute determination that only capital sums should be brought into play during the coming year. It is a question of swinging the balance and trying to make correct judgments.
Later—
Mr. Ken Eastham: On a point of information, Mr. Speaker. As you know, it was announced on the television screens that there would be a statement on the inner cities. Some of us have a special interest in the subject, and we sat patiently in our places and attempted to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. What is the purpose of notifying us that a statement is to be made if we cannot join in the questioning?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not the only person who is disappointed. Many hon. Members will be disappointed later this evening when they fail to catch the eye of the Chair during the debate that has been delayed. If every hon. Member lets his indignation pour over me when he is not called while making what is not a genuine point of order, it will make life extremely difficult. When I was not called by the Chair, I used to go and have a cup of tea in the Tea Room.

Privy Councillors (Participation in Debates)
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether, among your various commitments, you have had the opportunity to read Hansard. May I refer you to your earlier remark that eight Front Bench speakers wish to take part in the debates today? Yesterday, when you were not in the Chair, I raised a point of order on two occasions. There was a continuous spate of Privy Councillors coming into the Chamber, making their speeches and walking out. They did not put in another appearance until the Front Bench speeches, and some did not return to the Chamber at all.
Some of my Back-Bench colleagues are not Privy Councillors. They have been trying to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. You said that questions would end at 4.5 pm, and I make no complaint. However, if there is to be a regular habit of Privy Councillors receiving preferential treatment, making their speeches and walking out, my hon. Friends on the Back Benches will not have an opportunity to speak.
Will you consider that matter, Mr. Speaker, to determine whether there could be a fairer sharing of time in our debates for all Members? Will you tell the Privy Councillors that only a limited number of them should speak? That would allow Back Benchers, who have very little time available to them, the opportunity to take part in debates.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced Member of the House. I shall certainly consider his constructive proposal for a limit on the number of Privy Councillors called in any debate. I realise the frustrations and difficulties that are caused.
The hon. Gentleman drew our attention to increasing evidence of the discourtesy—not limited to Privy Councillors—of Members speaking in the debates and then leaving. That is unworthy of the House. It has long been our tradition that if anyone participates in a debate he owes the House his attention for the remainder of the evening, at least until the debate concludes.

London Docklands Development Corporation
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. Can you assist and advise me? From debates in the House you will be aware that the London Docklands Development Corporation has taken over powers of local government in a substantial area of London, especially in relation to compulsory purchase, public land, and planning powers.
The three areas involved are Newham, Tower Hamlets and Southwark.
The only public representatives who can call the Secretary of State to account for any action of this particularly undemocratic and unelected body are the respective Members for those constituencies, who can pursue parliamentary procedures. An additional £50 million has been allocated to this undemocratic corporation for expenditure in my constituency and in others. I hope that you can advise me, Mr. Speaker, on the way in which I can call the Secretary of State to account and ask him questions when announcements of this sort are made.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot be as helpful to the hon. Gentleman as I was to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). However, I shall consider what he has said.

Orders of the Day
  SUPPLY
  [6TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered
  SUPPLY

    Common Fisheries Policy
    4.12 pm
    Mr. Bruce Millan: I beg to move,
    That this House reaffirms its commitment to a 12-mile exclusive limit, dominant preference in the 12- to 50-mile zone, effective conservation measures, and catch quotas for the United Kingdom which fully reflect the extent of fishing stocks in United Kingdom waters and the loss of fishing opportunities for the United Kingddom in third-country waters, as the essential requirements for the United Kingdom in any acceptable common fisheries policy.
    I am well aware, Mr. Speaker, that this is to be a short debate. I shall try to make a short speech, although there is a good deal of ground to cover. I hope that I shall be excused if I do not deal with some of the current issues that I know concern a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    The debate is especially well timed. We were hoping that there would be a settlement of this difficult and longstanding problem by the end of the year. We had hoped that there would be a settlement towards the end of last year, but those hopes were disappointed. The latest position, given the uncertainty following the Danish elections, does not hold out a great deal of hope that we shall get a satisfactory meeting and make progress before the end of the year. That being so, there must now be even greater worry and apprehension in the fishing industry than hitherto.
    On 1 January we shall go over to a Belgian Presidency, which will be followed by a Danish Presidency. By the end of 1982 the full rigours of the common fisheries policy will come into effect. Unless there is some agreement before then there will be literally nothing to prevent other Community members from fishing right up to the beaches of the United Kingdom. Therefore, there is considerable worry in the industry.
    When the Labour Government were in office they used to be told by Conservative members that if it were not for the obstructive and rather aggressive attitude of my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) they could have reached an agreement much earlier. We did not get an agreement, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend took a robust view of British interests. It is ironic that nearly three years after the Conservative Government came to power we are no nearer a satisfactory agreement. In fact as I shall show, the situation has deteriorated during the past three years.
    I shall not go into the wider issues of Common Market membership, but there is no way in which the common fisheries policy, as it is presently interpreted, can be anything other than prejudicial to the United Kingdom. If we were not members of the Common Market and were able to decide our fishing policy for ourselves, we would be in an extremely happy position, given 200-mile limits. We are trying to get the best deal that we can in what is
    878
    a fundamentally unsatisfactory situation, and one which will become more unsatisfactory as each month passes and we get nearer to the deadline at the end of 1982.
    I am rather surprised that the Government have tabled an amendment. There is nothing in our motion that is anything more than a reaffirmation of commitments that were taken on by the Labour Government and fully supported by Conservative Members. There is nothing in our motion that will divide the House. We are all agreed about the 12-mile limit, dominant preference in the 12 to 50-mile zone, effective conservation measures and satisfactory catch quotas to reflect the contribution that we make to stocks in the North Sea and elsewhere.
    Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
    Mr. Millan: No, 1 shall not give way. With respect to my hon. Friend and to Conservative Members, I hope that they will not seek to intervene too frequently. I shall try to make a short speech. It will help them and others if they are able to make their own contributions.
    Is the meaning of the Government's amendment basically the same as that of the Opposition's motion? If it is., the amendment is completely unnecessary, but does it mean something different? When one considers the terms of the amendment carefully, one realises that it becomes clearer and clearer that it means something different and that it represents a considerable weakening of the position that has previously been taken by all the parties in this place on these negotiations. I think that it is unlikely that the Secretary of State for Scotland and his hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be able to give the assurances that we require. Given the terms of the Government amendment and the likelihood that we shall not be given the assurances that we seek, we shall have to divide the House at the end of the debate.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend emphasise that the major difference between the Government's amendment and the motion is that "dominant" is left out before "preference"?
    Mr. Millan: I intended to deal with that issue and a number of others in the course of my speech. If my hon. Friend will be patient, I shall turn quickly to that matter.
    I am pleased that the Government's amendment represents no weakening on the commitment to a 12-mile limit. I ask the Secretary of State to tell us the Government's position on historic rights. I understand that there are difficulties. Many historic rights have suddenly appeared, and most of us were not aware that they existed. Many of them have never been exercised. We want to hear from the Government that our commitment is genuinely to an exclusive limit. If there is any question of negotiations on that issue, they must take place only on the basis that historic rights will be phased out within a measurable period. There can be no going back on that.
    On the 12 to 50-mile limit—
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Before the right hon. Gentleman passes from the 12-mile limit, will he note the significant difference in the wording on that limit? The Government's amendment refers to a policy that
    "must maintain the need to secure an exclusive … limit".
    It does not say that the policy is to secure it. It merely refers to maintaining the need for it.
    Mr. Millan: The right hon. Gentleman has a good point. He is confirming what I have said. The more we

    879
    consider the wording of the amendment, the more we become suspicious. The motion refers to a commitment to a 12-mile exclusive limit as part of an acceptable agreement. The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there may be an agreement that provides some hope that later we shall get an exclusive 12-mile limit. I think that there is a difference between the motion and the amendment, but if there is not the Secretary of State can clear up the issue.
    There is no doubt that there is a considerable difference when we come to the 12 to 50-mile zone. The terms of the motion are very different from those of the amendment. The Government amendment specifically avoids mention of the 12 to 50-mile zone. The concept of the 12 to 50-mile zone is that within that overall zone, which will go right round the United Kingdom, the first choice of fishing opportunities and control of overall fishing opportunities will go to the United Kingdom. It is as simple as that.
    That does not mean that in the whole of that zone there are equally desirable fishing opportunities. In some areas there are fish, while in others there are no fish in any quantity. Control over the whole of that 50-mile zone should be in United Kingdom hands, and where there are good fishing opportunities the United Kingdom should have first bite at them. I thought that there was agreement on that between the two sides of the House.
    The wording of the amendment is considerably weaker than that. We know that the Government have been thinking about the concept of fishing boxes in which some kind of preferential arrangements would apply. For example, there would be a North of Scotland box, and one that would take in the Irish Sea. I find it rather difficult to understand exactly how the boxes are intended to operate. The concept of boxes is a substantial derogation from that of a 12 to 50-mile preferential zone. How will the box system operate? Will there be limitations on the size of vessels? Will there be licensing arrangements? Will there be preferential quotas for the different boxes? If there are preferential quotas, what will be the United Kingdom's share? Most important of all, what will be the arrangements for keeping out foreign vessels, or at least allowing them in only under the strict control of the United Kingdom? Unless we have answers to those questions, even the box concept is a considerable derogation from that of the 12 to 50-mile preferential zone.
    The wording of the amendment goes much further than that and will weaken the Government's negotiating position because it appears that the preference outside 12 miles—which is not defined in geographical terms—is designed to protect particularly dependent fishing communities. What does that mean? I remember the discussions that I had with fishermen from Shetland who were anxious to have preferential arrangements for their fishing.
    Within a satisfactory overall common fisheries settlement there is much to be said for the United Kingdom having, and taking, the opportunity to manage its stocks in a way that pays particular regard to dependent fishing communities. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is something to which we can come only when we have a satisfactory common fisheries policy. It is not a substitute for a satisfactory overall settlement.
    Paying particular regard to dependent fishing communities might be all right for Shetland, but it will not
    880
    be all right for other parts of Scotland where there are disagreements over their interests and those of Shetland fishermen. For example, many people from the North-East of Scotland have traditionally fished off Shetland, just as much as the Shetlanders have done. Such a scheme would also be of no use to fishermen from the North-East of England, the east coast of England or other areas of England.
    I hope that the Secretary of State will not try to persuade those of us who represent specific Scottish interests that there can be some kind of settlement that will be satisfactory to the House if its provisions are acceptable to Shetland, but are not acceptable to the rest of the United Kingdom. What we want, and must have, is an agreement that protects the interests of all fishing communities in the United Kingdom.
    If, having achieved a satisfactory settlement, we wish to manage our own stocks in a way that has regard to particular local communities, that is fair enough. We can decide how to do that under our own steam, but not as a part of or as a substitute for an effective common fisheries policy settlement. The wording of the amendment is therefore extremely dangerous and represents a considerable weakening of the Government's position.
    I take it that the amendment means that, although the system of enforcement is Community-wide, the actual enforcement is under national control. If the right hon. Gentleman confirms that that is the meaning, we have no disagreement with it in principle, although some of us are highly dissatisfied with the practical working of it. Nevertheless, I do not believe that there is any difference in principle between ourselves and the Government on this.
    On quotas, too, there is a weakening of the Government's position. The motion states that quotas should
    "fully reflect the extent of fishing stocks in United Kingdom waters and the loss of fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom in third-country waters".
    Those words do not appear in the amendment. Interestingly enough on 26 November 1980 the Minister of State moved a motion on quotas which included precisely that matter.
    I understood that when we talked about adequate quotas we meant quotas that took account of the considerable contribution that we make in terms of overall fishing stocks—about 60 per cent. of the total stocks available to the Community—and the fact that, more than any other country, we have lost fishing opportunities in third-country waters. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the wording of the amendment is that, again, the Government have weakened their position on this essential matter. Quotas and access go together, and we must obtain satisfactory arrangements in both respects.
    I hope that the Secretary of State will not cite the 36 per cent. allocation of the seven major species as being in any way satisfactory. That allocation, which is roughly what we are working on at present, is highly unsatisfactory. The industry does not accept it. It has agreed to work to it only because there is nothing else available, but there is considerable dissatisfaction about it. It in no way reflects the fishing opportunities that we provide or the losses that we have sustained in third-country waters.
    Moreover, even at this late stage, we do not know what will be the position in 1982. It is not enough to obtain satisfactory quotas for one year. We need some

    881
    permanence and certainty in the arrangements. If we start from an unsatisfactory figure, it should be the Government's objective not to maintain but to increase it. The Labour Government at one time put proposals to the Commission which would have had a ratcheting-up effect. Having started from a figure which we regarded as highly unsatisfactory, the quota allocations for subsequent years would have been made according to a built-in formula which would have increased our percentage of the total allowable catches as the years went by. At present, not only are the figures on which we are working unsatisfactory, but if there is to be anything like a satisfactory settlement there must be some certainty about the future. I believe that within the settlement we need an arrangement to increase our quotas as the years pass in order to come closer to what the House would regard as satisfactory quota arrangements.
    As the situation stands, although the mackerel season in the South-West of England starts next month, we do not yet know what the quota arrangements will be. Nor do we know what the quota arrangements for mackerel will be next year for the west coast of Scotland. We also well remember the chaos which resulted from the Commissions's decision in the summer to open up the west coast herring fishery in a completely uncontrolled, objectionable way. To be fair to the Government, they eventually brought that under some kind of control. I am sure that the Government will not disagree when I say that the way in which the Commission behaved in that matter was not only objectionable but—I hope that I carry the Secretary of State with me on this—illegal. Yet, even in the light of that illegal action by the Commission we have seen no real sign of the challenge to the Commission that we expected from the Government.
    Once the Commission begins to arrogate to itself decisions that ought to be made by Ministers, we are in a very dangerous area indeed. This is a warning for the future, because unless we get a satisfactory overall settlement soon our own national rights will be completely abrogated and we shall be at the mercy of the Commission and another eight nations whose interests are basically hostile to the interests of the United Kingdom. Indeed, as each month goes by without a satisfactory settlement, our negotiating position gets weaker because the deadline of the end of 1982 gets nearer.
    I shall not go over the whole argument about restructuring. We welcome what has been done in the way of temporary aid to the fishing industry. That was needed, because at the end of 1979 there was a collapse in prices as well as a loss of fishing opportunities. Before that, increased prices had managed to shield parts of the industry from the full effect of the loss of fishing opportunities. Therefore, temporary aid was absolutely necessary; but it was only temporary aid. We still have no idea what the Government have in mind for the restructuring of the industry.
    There was a time when talk about overall structuring might have weakened our negotiating position in Brussels, because it would have looked as if we had given up the ghost about some of these major issues and were concerned only with the restructuring of the industry. We are now getting perilously close to a situation where disastrous things could happen to the fishing industry, yet there are no proposals for the necessary restructuring. That will have to happen even if we achieve an acceptable
    882
    settlement because of some of the developments relating to third country waters that are now absolutely irreversible within the context of the CFP.
    We shall not achieve a settlement of the CFP by continually having meetings of fishery Ministers going through the details of individual quotas and so on. A real political will to reach a settlement is lacking. That must be generated by the United Kingdom, because it will not be generated elsewhere. Indeed, if the other Eight sit back and allow this situation to continue without a settlement, they will be in the happy position that, by the end of 1982, they will be able to fish up to our beaches. That political will must come from the United Kingdom. It will not come from fishery Ministers on their own.
    We must make it clear to the other members of the Community that the absence of an acceptable CFP is a breaking point for the United Kingdom. It will create a crisis in the Community. It should be understood that a process of delay and dilatoriness on the part of the Eight will not lead to a complete collapse of will by the United Kingdom Government or the United Kingdom fishing industry.
    I am sorry to say that there are signs in the weasel words of the amendment that we are seeing the beginning of a collapse of political will on the part of the Government. That is why we shall vote against the amendment tonight.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    4.34 pm
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    "this House welcomes the progress achieved by Her Majesty's Government in the search for a satisfactory revised Common Fisheries Policy, particularly in relation to conservation and marketing; confirms that such a policy must maintain the need to secure an exclusive 12 mile limit, preference outside 12 miles to protect particularly dependent fishing communities, adequate quotas for the United Kingdom, effective conservation measures and a Community-wide system of enforcement as well as improvements in the marketing arrangements hitherto in force; and urges Her Majesty's Government vigorously to continue, in consultation with the fishing industry, the search for a solution on the outstanding issues".
    I was looking forward to hearing the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) give us his views on the state of these negotiations. I was hoping that he would reaffirm one of the most important features that has characterised these negotiations since they originally started—that every delegation that has gone to negotiate a CFP at Brussels has gone with the firm declaration of the fullest possible support from all sides of the House of Commons.
    Mr. Millan: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give way. I shall not interrupt him again. I agree with what he has said, but why did the Government table an amendment?
    Mr. Younger: I am sorry that I gave way, because I shall deal with that point. The right hon. Gentleman has conspicuously not reaffirmed that support this time. Bearing in mind that we must advance the strongest possible case for British fishing industry interests in these negotiations, I hope that whoever replies for the Opposition will make it perfectly clear that they warmly

    883
    support the Government in their efforts to negotiate a successful and acceptable deal, because anything less than that will be something with which we have not dealt before.
    The right hon. Gentleman spent much time talking about the amendment. He was quite unnecessarily defensive about the motion. The fact that we have tabled an amendment means only that we have referred to a number of important issues vital to an acceptable fishing agreement for the British fishing industry that are not covered in the motion.
    Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
    Mr. Younger: I am sorry. I must proceed with my speech because many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
    The right hon. Gentleman would have been much better advised to have addressed himself to the issues rather than creating quite imaginary differences between the two sides. Our negotiating position remains the same as it has been all along.
    The right hon. Gentleman made a great deal of play about the alleged difference in wording in respect of the 12-mile limit. I am sure that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) will back me up when I say that this is the same wording as that used by the hon. Gentleman when he said:
    "and in particular, maintains the need to secure exclusive access within 12 miles".—[Official Report, 7 August 1980; Vol. 990, c. 889.]
    The right hon. Gentleman's point is therefore torpedoed by the fact that his hon. Friend used precisely the same words, and he did not accuse his hon. Friend of being any less committed to our aims as a result.
    Sir Frederic Bennett: I do not see any sense in trying to settle completely the negotiating position of any Government. I took the same view when the Opposition were in office and supported their fishing policy. However, I seek an assurance that a 12-mile exclusive fishing zone for our fishermen is as sacrosanct to us as it is to Labour Members.
    Mr. Younger: I entirely appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. I confirm that. I shall go into it in greater detail later in my speech.
    The right hon. Member for Craigton also made a great deal of fuss about the absence of the words "dominant preference" in the amendment. That does not appear in the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East to which I have referred. Here again, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would accuse his hon. Friend of being any less committed to this matter. I really believe that the right hon. Gentleman has tried to make bricks without straw. There is really no difference between us.
    The motion says nothing about enforcement or marketing, which is important. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about inserts or excerpts in or from the motion and the amendment. He went on at great length about permanency in these arrangements, but there is no mention of that in the motion. He talked a great deal about restructuring but there is nothing about that in his motion. Both the Government and the Opposition can table motions if they so wish and it is not profitable to nitpick over each of the motions to find differences that do
    884
    not exist. The reason for the Government's amendment is clear—the Opposition's motion does not include the various important matters that are in the Government's amendment. For instance, there is no mention of consultation with the fishing industry, which we consider to be very important.
    Mr. David Myles: Consultations are most important. The fishing industry representatives are the ones who can decide and who know whether any agreement is acceptable.
    Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is right.
    I do not see any legitimate way that the Opposition can vote against the Government's amendment. I hope that they will think hard before doing so because it is most important that the negotiations should proceed with the full backing of the House for the British negotiating position. If the Opposition were to vote against the Government's amendment, it would add nothing to the proceedings
    Mr. Norman Buchan: Is the right hon. Member saying that his amendment in relation to the limits is the same as our motion? If so, why is he not accepting the words of our motion? He can still do so by withdrawing his own amendment.
    Mr. Younger: I shall not waste the time of the House by repeating what I have already said. I know that other hon. Members will wish to speak.
    I welcome the opportunity given by the Opposition for reaffirming to the House the Government's determination to achieve a satisfactory settlement of the common fisheries policy that will meet the requirements of our fishing industry. We have made clear in previous debates that we attach great importance to the need for a settled fisheries policy that will enable the industry to plan properly for the future.
    We have maintained the closest possible contact with the fishing industry's leaders at all times throughout the negotiations and have kept them fully informed of developments. I pay tribute to the helpful attitude that has been adopted throughout by the leaders of the industry. They could easily have been forgiven for losing their patience with these long drawn-out—and at times frustrating—negotiations. They have resisted any such temptation. My right hon. Friends and I have been grateful for their wise counsel and for the responsible way they have conducted themselves throughout a long and difficult period.
    I should now like to review the progress in the negotiations, which are due to resume on Monday in Brussels. Even if progress generally has been disappointingly slow, some useful progress towards an agreed common fisheries policy has been made within the Community during the past two or three years.
    It was fantastic to have to listen to the right hon. Member for Craigton saying that a political will was needed to achieve such a settlement. We took over negotiations in which no progress had been made for three or four years. What is more, of the entire Community, which was at that time nine nations, eight were ranged against the British. No agreement had been made—not even tentative agreements on any one of the headings before us. For the right hon. Gentleman, who was party to those negotiations, to tell me that the Conservative Government lack political will is to stretch credibility to its limits.

    885
    Towards the end of last year, agreement was reached on a comprehensive conservation regulation. This is largely based on the United Kingdom's own earlier measures and, although we have naturally continued to work to improve on it, it provides the basis for a lasting regime that will do much to preserve and improve the stocks that are vital for the future well-being of our industry. That was an aspect on which there had been no progress whatever when we took over.
    Equally important are the steps that have been taken to enforce the conservation and other measures. Here, too, useful progress has been made. The Council of Ministers agreed, in October last year, on the text of a regulation to provide for a uniform control regime in the Community. All this is particularly welcome to us and to the British industry. As the House knows, United Kingdom Governments have repeatedly stressed the need for strong and effective conservation and enforcement measures. Our consistent advocacy of the case for this has been instrumental in persuading our Community partners to agree to it.
    The regulation provides in particular for the maintaining of a log book and landings declarations to record catches. It is also proposed that the implementation of these and other measures by member States should be monitored by a small Commission inspectorate. The setting up of such an inspectorate is a matter in which the United Kingdom has taken a lead. I hope that this will ensure the more uniform application of such measures to the fishermen of all member States and allay the suspicions that some countries apply the rules less rigorously than others. This is essential if we are to create an atmosphere of trust. Discussions on the details of the proposals are continuing, and I hope that there will be an early conclusion on the remaining points. This is a second subject on which there had been no progress whatever and on which there is now virtually an agreement.
    With regard to marketing, the Council of Ministers agreed in principle at its September meeting to a new basic marketing regulation to take the place of the present one, which dates from 1976. The United Kingdom played a major part in the prolonged and complex discussions that led to the revised regulation. Every hon. Member who was present at those meetings will agree at least on one thing, if nothing else, and that is the outstanding and skilful contribution made by my right hon. Friend as President. It was an outstanding example of successful working in the Community and was widely admired by everyone. My right hon. Friend was very much instrumental in having this important regulation agreed in principle by the Council.
    The marketing document is a lengthy and complex one and it would be inappropriate for me to enumerate all the changes, but I should like to highlight one or two of the more notable differences, since the regulation contains several useful improvements in regard to our own industry.
    Of great importance to us—following the impact of low priced imports on our markets in the early months of the year—is the new obligation placed on the Commission to react speedily to complaints from member States about imports from third countries coming into the Community below the reference price and disturbing the market. We welcome this as a significant tightening up of present procedures and, once the regulation is in force, we shall
    886
    be prepared to use the new machinery wherever it seems to us that the third country imports are having a significantly adverse effect on our markets.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Younger: I am sorry, but no one else will have the chance to speak if I go on for too long.
    Other improvements include the addition of two species of importance to us—dogfish and ling—to the list of species covered by the withdrawal price system, and the addition of nephrops and crabs to the list of species eligible for private storage aid. There is also to be a deficiency payment scheme for salmon and lobsters and a carry-over premium to subsidise a limited amount of storage of fish when landings are heavy.
    The next step is to prepare the detailed regulations required to implement the new regime. We are pressing the Commission to proceed with all speed on this work. That is a third issue on which there had been no sign of progress and on which we are now virtually at an agreement, apart from a few small details. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will at least acquit us of the charge of having gone through the negotiations without making progress, because it does not lie within his power to say that with any credibility.
    Hon. Members will agree that the negotiations so far have made some progress. However, much remains to be done, and there are very difficult negotiations to be concluded on the major outstanding issues of quotas, access and structure.
    The Commission's current proposals on the quotas and on total allowable catches are contained in documents 8695/81 and 8696/81 respectively. Any quota settlement will be a vital component of a satisfactory overall settlement of the common fisheries policy. It must reflect the special needs of our fishing fleet and its historic performance in the fisheries as well as its loss of opportunities in distant waters.
    The suspicions of the right hon. Member for Craigton are wrong and the need for such provisions is included clearly in our negotiating position. The Government are at one with the fishing industry on that aspect and we shall not settle for less. It is important that the mix of species is right so that we are not getting an inadequate share of a species that is important to us and more than enough of a species of less importance.
    We also want to make sure that we do not have to go through these complex negotiations each year. There must, therefore, be some acceptable form of staying power for quota shares so that our industry can plan ahead properly. That is in answer to another point raised by the right hon. Gentleman and on which I agree with him.
    On access, we have made clear our need for a 12-mile exclusive zone and we shall continue working towards that end. However, as my right hon. Friends and I made clear on previous occasions in the House and to the industry, we may have to take account in the negotiations of some limited historic rights within 12 miles that are of importance to other member States.
    In relation to preference beyond the exclusive zone, we are seeking arrangements that would be of benefit particularly to those coastal communities that are heavily dependent on fishing. That was particularly mentioned in the Hague agreement to which the previous Labour Government were a party.

    887
    The House will realise that that is a particularly difficult area of the negotiations since other member States regard our objectives as encroaching on their rights under the treaties. Nevertheless, we have consistently made it clear in the discussions that these are essential objectives and that unless satisfactory arrangements can be agreed, we could not regard any settlement as satisfactory.
    A permanent structure policy is, of course, also a vital element in any CFP settlement. It is clearly essential that the future United Kingdom fleet should be able to exploit effectively and economically the share of the stocks that will be available to it. The question of structure is, therefore, linked with those of access and, in particular, quotas. For that reason it would be wrong to decide on a structural policy in advance of a satisfactory allocation of quotas agreed by everyone.
    There has, however, been much detailed discussion on the broad principles of a Community structure policy. The Commission proposal now under consideration envisages substantial expenditure on this over a period of three to four years. Rather more than half of that would be devoted to providing assistance for the construction and modernisation of vessels. Another important element is the provision of assistance for the permanent scrapping of older vessels. We attach great importance to those two essential prongs of our strategy to ensure that our fleet will in future comprise modern and efficient vessels and that the Community fleet as a whole should be restructured to a size consistent with the fishing opportunites available to it.
    Important as the negotiations on the common fisheries policy are, there are, nevertheless, other important issues affecting the industry. The right hon. Gentleman spoke in passing of the economic difficulties that it has gone through and I should like to refer to them. I should have thought that both sides of the House would agree that the Government have given ample proof of their awareness of the difficulties that have been, and still are, facing the industry. Last year, at a time of extraordinary financial difficulty for all sorts of expenditure in Britain—I do not need to remind the House of that now—special aid of more than £17 million was made available and this year we have pumped a further £25 million of aid into the fishing fleet under the fishing vessel temporary support scheme.
    By any standard, that is a significant level of assistance, particularly when compared with the total value of the catch of United Kingdom fishing vessels of about £222 million in 1980. I am certain that the leaders of the industry appreciate the support that it has had from the Government over the past two years. I am glad that we were able to do that at a time of great difficulty for the fishing industry.
    As the House is aware, negotiations have been taking place in recent weeks on the Commission's proposals for guide prices for fish which were originally set out in document 10710/81. I am well aware of the importance that the industry attaches to the outcome of the negotiations. I am grateful for an opportunity to hear the House's views and to make the Government's position clear. We have consistently said that the Community's institutional prices are too low and should be increased to more realistic levels. The Commission's proposals are, therefore, very disappointing and we have been pressing vigorously for larger increases. I must tell the House,
    888
    however, that there has been strong opposition from the Commission and most other member States to going further than the Commission has so far proposed. Nevertheless, we have been pressing for the largest increases that we can secure for the species that are important to us.
    Changes in the Community's institutional prices alone are not, of course, the whole answer. Of equal importance is an orderly and efficient distribution and marketing system. It is vital that improvements are made in this area in order to make the industry more competitive, in relation not only to foreign supplies, but to producers of other protein foods. I have been particularly encouraged by the positive response to the report on the marketing of fish that was drawn up recently by the three advisers appointed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The industry can do a great deal to help itself in that regard and the marketing advisers have pointed the way.
    Indeed, from my own frequent contacts with the industry, it is clear that the necessary goodwill exists among the various sectors of the industry to co-operate in seeking a larger share of the market. The recently appointed Sea Fish Industry Authority, which I welcome and wish well, has an important catalytic role to play and is well placed to take it on, given the breadth of experience of its members.
    Finally, if I may return to the main theme of the debate, the House can be assured that the Government will continue with all vigour to seek an early settlement of the outstanding issues in the negotiations, but while an early settlement is important to the industry in many ways it would not want us to settle at any cost. We will, therefore, accept a settlement only if it is fair and reflects its legitimate needs. The negotiations will continue to be very difficult, I am sure, but I believe that the measure of agreement already achieved has created a new impetus within the Community to reach a final settlement. I do not think that recent delays have affected the basic impetus and will to conclude the negotiations and I am hopeful that there will be further useful progress at the next Council or soon thereafter.
    Meanwhile, my colleagues and I have taken the opportunity in bilateral discussions with the Commission and other member States to reiterate the United Kingdom's position and I am confident that that has helped towards a better understanding of the equity of our case.
    The Government attach great importance to the fishing industry on which so many communities round our coast depend. We have stood resolutely by the industry during the most difficult time it has faced over the past few years. We shall fight for it in the negotiations with a determination to get the fair settlement that it feels that it can accept. We have no intention of letting the industry down.
    4.58 pm
    Mr. Donald Stewart: The House should not be unduly influenced by the claim of the Secretary of State for Scotland that what the Government have achieved so far has the enthusiastic backing of the fishing industry leaders, because some fishermen are keeping pressure on their leaders not to agree with anything that might be a sell-out of their interests.
    We have heard suggestions that there have been advances behind the scenes, but to most hon. Members the

    889
    situation appears to be exactly the same as it was in 1971. There have been assurances that we are getting somewhere, but now time is beginning to run out. The terms of the motion before the House are the absolute minimum that will be acceptable to the Scottish fishing industry. The present situation is totally unacceptable. If any further delay occurs in the negotiations, the Government should fall back—they should have done so before now—on the treaty terms that allow countries to opt out on the basis of overriding national interest. There has been ample justification for the Government to take such a course, on the basis that they were taking up their legal option of the 200-mile limit.
    I was sorry to hear the reference of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) to the Shetland plan and his view that the arrangements that would provide a good settlement in this respect might not benefit United Kingdom fishing as a whole. I was relieved that the Secretary of State for Scotland, in an interview some months ago, indicated that the Government had no objection to separate plans for the Orkneys, the Shetlands, the Western Isles and Clyde fishing, and that he believed that the Common Market had no objection in principle to those plans. I hope that those plans will be borne in mind for the benefit of fishermen in these areas that are principally composed of fishing communities.
    Mr. Millan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that the Commission has no objection because it is seen as a sell-out of the British position, with everything being abandoned for something that would be suitable for the Shetlands but nowhere else?
    Mr. Stewart: I take that point and I hope that the negotiators on behalf of the British fishing industry will bear it in mind. There should be, and I think that there can be, a settlement that takes into account the necessities of the areas that I have mentioned which are largely dependent on the fishing industry.
    Legislation should have been introduced to deal with the appalling scandal of pollution of large areas of the Minch and Cornwall by the dumping of fish. The protection fleet should ensure that this does not happen. I do not know the ill effects on prawns and other sea-bottom feeders when the bottom over a large area of the Minches is fouled. It is, however, affecting fresh fish catches, which have been contaminated by the rotten fish lying on the bottom.
    The Secretary of State made an ominous remark about rationalising the size of the fleet. It seemed to me to indicate a rundown in the size of the fleet.
    I should like to refer to conservation. The Government should be working with the Common Market to ensure that something is done about the method of fishing by purse-seining. In a world of shrinking stocks, it is high time that Governments, not only our own, examined this method of fishing and ensured that fishing was confined to people earning a living and not to those who have become wealthy by the method of purse-seining.
    The need for an early solution to the problem is shown by the case of the two German trawlers which were fishing illegally in the Minches in July with the connivance or at least approval of the West German Government. The fine imposed does not augur well for the chances of a fair deal in the negotiations. There has been gross over-fishing of the quotas. This is known. The Government may say that
    890
    they would like to receive evidence. The fact is well known. There have been films on television. This has happened not only in our waters but in Norwegian waters. It has reached the stage where Norway may demand that the EEC countries should not be allocated a quota in 1982—an example that the Government should follow. Even allowing for quotas, the question arises of how they will be enforced. What has happened in the past gives no confidence that quotas will be adhered to.
    The Government amendment shows a weakening of the basic requirements for anything that would be considered even remotely satisfactory. On the occasion of the Prime Minister's clawing-back of a section of the contribution that we make to the Common Market, a communiquéwas issued which implied that fishing had been abandoned as a separate issue on which the Government were dealing with the EEC. I have been convinced all along that no policy acceptable—
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): Has not the right hon. Gentleman heard the Prime Minister and other Ministers make it clear on a number of occasions that the question of fishing is to be settled on its own merits? Will he once and for all recognise that and not simply act on his own suppositions?
    Mr. Stewart: The statement to which I refer has never been repudiated by the Government. I am, however, willing to accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance. I shall bear it in mind.
    I have been convinced all along that no policy acceptable to the EEC countries, our so-called partners, will give our fishermen the deal that they deserve. Our position appears to be one of scaling down our demands. The Government may hope that the long negotiations will make everyone fed up and that they will settle for anything to finish them. The other countries of the EEC can afford to wait. We are close to 1982. Fishing was not taken into account when we entered the Common Market. The other countries needed only to keep their powder dry for 10 years and the issue would fall into their laps. That would appear to be the outcome of the negotiations.
    I am pessimistic about the Government's ability to do anything about this situation. There is no reason, however why the motion should not have been accepted. This leads me to believe that the rights of the fishing industry are being scaled down in the negotiations.
    5.7 pm
    Sir Patrick Wall: The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) will appreciate that the Government amendment is expressed in wider terms than the Opposition motion, and is, therefore, better suited to the industry. Hon. Members will agree that access and quotas are linked. The industry initially asked for a 50-mile exclusive zone and a 200-mile preferential limit. When proper negotiations began the demand was for a 12-mile exclusive zone and a 50-mile preferential limit. The previous Labour Government produced a zig-zag scheme. No one really knew how it would work. Now, however, there is broad agreement that we want, if possible, a 12-mile exclusive zone and a good preference in the 50-mile zone.
    Why, therefore, is the debate taking place? I suggest that the answer can he found in the editorial of Fishing News of 27 November, which says:

    891
    "The warning issued by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to the Government, emphasising the need to stand firm on a 12-mile exclusive limit as part of a Common Fisheries Policy is more than just a protest. It is the first sign that the industry is breaking away from a pact it made with fisheries minister Peter Walker in Brussels, last December."
    I believe that the Opposition have seized on this to try to divert attention from their own political difficulties. I agree that the inshore fishermen should have an exclusive 12-mile limit. Our historic rights have been removed from Iceland and Norway and many other parts of the world. Why should we be the only sufferers? I should, however, like to refer to an apt quotation from "Fish Trader" of 5 December. Mr. Leadley, chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, is quoted as saying:
    "UK vessels have been forced out of other countries' waters, and now our inshore grounds are threatened—there is nowhere else left to go except the beaches!"
    That is the whole point. If we do not get a settlement by the end of 1982, we do go to the beaches. Time is not on our side. We have, therefore, to compromise. Although we should go 100 per cent. for our exclusive fishing limit, it may be the case that a certain latitude must be left for some of the foreigners in the EEC if we are to get agreement. The choice may be clear—an exclusive limit with a small number of historical limits or no settlement at all. The industry will have to make the choice.
    I wish to turn to the question of total allowable catches. Last year's proposals set before the council gave us about 36 per cent. of the seven species and 30 per cent. of all fish. I agree that that is not enough, but I understand that even that amount has been held up by the Danes. Obviously, their general election created difficulties for the negotiating team.
    I want to quote the EEC TAC for 1981 in percentages. For the seven species, it was proposed that the United Kingdom should be given 36 per cent. and Denmark 24·1 per cent. For the other species, the United Kingdom was to have 8·6 per cent. and Denmark 31·5 per cent. Of herring, the figure for the United Kingdom was 30·4 per cent. and for Denmark 27·7 per cent. For industrial fishing, the figure for the United Kingdom was 11–7 per cent. and for Denmark 71·9 per cent. All those figures are in cod equivalents.
    I accept that it is not true arithmetic to add up all the percentages and compare one with the other, but it would give us some comparison. If one does that, this country gets 86·7 and the Danes get 155–2, yet the Danes are holding up agreement because they are not getting enough cod equivalent. I hope that the Minister will deal firmly with the Danes. I assume that the problem now is that they will take some time in forming a Government because the proportional representation system makes it difficult to form Governments. I hope that the Minister will be as firm as he can, because we must have a greater cod equivalent quota than has been suggested.
    There is no mention of marketing in the Opposition motion. Considerable progress has been made, largely due to the efforts of the United Kingdom—for example, in seeing that quicker methods for reference prices are observed by third countries, in revision of tariff arrangements for herring, the encouragement of producer organisations, and extension to other species of fish for producer support. All those improvements have taken
    892
    place since this Government came to power, and in my opinion they are largely due to the efforts of this Government.
    However, I understand that the EEC proposals for guide prices for 1982 are likely to increase them by only up to 6 per cent. My right hon. Friend will know that this affects both withdrawal prices and reference prices. The industry made it quite clear that it needs an increase of 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. The British Fishing Federation was firm on an increase of 50 per cent. I realise that it is not in the Minister's power to effect these matters, but I hope that he will do everything possible to ensure that withdrawal prices are considerably increased. That would stimulate the rise in first-hand prices, which are essential for the future of the industry. However, they are needed early in the year. The British fishing industry wants increased prices in January and February. Most of the European countries do no need them until the summer, and might try to delay the whole procedure. Moreover, too much fish has come into this market below the official withdrawal prices. The Minister set up an inquiry into this matter, but as he mentioned that in his speech, I shall not dwell on it.
    The new Seafish Industry Authority is increasing its levy by about 50 per cent. It is difficult to swallow that increase in our present economic circumstances, but I accept that it is right. It is double the levy that the White Fish Authority imposed in the past. The WFA has gone, but I want to pay tribute to its late chairman, Mr. Meek, who did a great deal for the fishing industry. I think it will be agreed that the WFA's research, training and overseas consultancies were particularly successful.
    Conservation regulations and control have been greatly improved—again, thanks to the work of this Government. Great progress has been made. However, licensing and identification of ships at sea are vital, and progress is necessary is this connection. It is vital to be able to distinguish trawlers from the air, and their numbers should be painted so that they are visible from the air.
    Inspection at ports is even more important. The EEC has agreed to a certain number of inspectors, but I doubt whether there are enough of them.
    Finally, I want to say a word about the distant water fleet. In Hull, it is now down to single numbers, and it has almost disappeared. It is kept going by mackerel fisheries, and as I am sure my right hon. Friend will realise, it is the only thing that is keeping the remains of the distant water fleet going. I understand that my right hon. Friend's powers to license offshore factory ships—Klondikers—has not yet been used, and I hope that he will tell us whether he intends to use those powers.
    I remind the House that time is not on our side. December 1982 is not far away. I doubt whether we shall get 100 per cent. of what we want. Industry must make up its mind for or against. I am sure that the Government have already made considerable progress, having already increased the total allowable catch on two or possibly three occasions. I am sure that they will get the best possible result, with a near-exclusive 12-mile limit, and with the best possible preference up to 50 miles. I have every confidence that they will obtain the best possible results for the industry.
    5.16 pm
    Mr. James Johnson: I begin by expressing my amazement at the Minister's

    893
    outburst when he rose to speak. I wonder what skippers and deckhands who are at sea catching fish think about a Minister who indulges in such semantic squabbles.
    I see little difference between the motion and the amendment to it. However, there is one significant omission from the amendment about third party agreements. I ask Conservative Members to scan the amendment. Those hon. Members who represent Humberside, Fleetwood, Peterhead, Aberdeen and Lowestoft will say that there is nothing in the amendment for them. Ten years ago Hull landed 224,000 tonnes of fish. Now it is not landing any fish, and the amendment envisages no possibility of the Government negotiating third party agreements for a share of fish similar to the quantity we caught in the past.
    Sir Patrick Wall: Does the hon. Member agree that the main reason for that is the high prices charged by the docks board in Hull compared with other ports?
    Mr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman's interjection is trivial and beside the point. We are to be sacrificed, and I want to say a few words about that.
    Whether our motion is a minuet and the amendment is a waltz is of little importance, because there is not much difference between them. Basically they are the same. Conservative Members want a settlement, because they work and speak on behalf of fishermen in their own constituencies, particularly north of the Tweed, just as we on these Benches speak for miners in England. Of course, there are also miners in Scotland and Lanark. I cannot believe that Conservative Members wish to sell out the inshore men. Hence the 12-mile limit—or, indeed, up to 50 miles.
    For years, Ministers and Back Benchers from both parties have almost boasted that we are elected to be the salvation of those in the fishing industry. That has been true ever since the Fleck committee in the early 1960s. What has upset the apple barrel, or rather the fish barrel, is this. Since joining the EEC we have been waiting for Godot. However, no Godot has turned up, and now it is too late. There is little more than 12 months left before the inevitable.
    I have listened to fishermen in my constituency and I believe that the industry is facing disaster. The cash outflow is cruel to those fishermen who have incurred bank loans. The industry is bleeding and has a major haemorrhage. Yet the Secretary of State spoke blandly and the word "compromise" was used. Our job is not to compromise, but to fight and to do the best that we can for our people. I do not wish to cry wolf too often, but I say that all boats longer than 80 ft. will disappear from the ports that I have mentioned unless the Government do something immediately.
    The outlook is grim, but the industry is not at fault. Indeed, it is the innocent victim of events. We are a member of the EEC, yet the Community has been unable to devise an enforceable policy. That is the top and bottom of it. Hull skippers tell me that we may well see the demise of our ports by Easter. The Government claim that they are doing the best that they can in the Fisheries Council and that they are seizing every chance of reaching an agreement. What are our chances? I understand that on 2 January there will be a Belgian chairman to succeed the British chairman. After that the Danes will take over the chair on 1 July. Neither the Danes nor the Belgians are
    894
    enthusiastic about giving us what we want. It is an even bet whether the French are better or worse under Mitterrand. Fishermen in the French fishing ports vote Socialist, but are determined to safeguard their corner. Therefore, Mitterrand will pay attention to those votes. It would seem that we have less chance as a result of the French elections.
    We must take unilateral action about 12-mile limits and the 12 to 50-mile limit. If we are taken to the court at The Hague, we must fight. With some temerity, I suggest that the Minister must ensure that if we are taken to The Hague we have the Commission behind us. However, the Commission's blessing will take some getting. Our partners, whether Belgian, Danish or French, sit tight while time flies past. Can the Government stave off the seemingly inevitable? Is the Minister at fault? I do not think so. He is a helpless victim of events.
    The deplorable state of earnings on the quayside is evident to all. The men are losing money. They have loans and mortgages that they must pay for. I forecast that when there is a check on the balance sheet—perhaps on 2 January—their agents will tell them just how much they owe the bank. They will then be in an awful financial mess. The Government must think now—never mind boasting about the £27 million or £47 million that they have given—about giving those men as much help as possible in the new year.
    5.24 pm
    Sir Walter Clegg: It is always interesting to speak after the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson). This time, he began by complaining about semantics. I hope that I shall not indulge in semantics, because, like the hon. Gentleman, I believe that they are profitless.
    My right hon. Friend knows the situation in Fleetwood well, because last week, at the drop of a hat, he received a delegation from Fleetwood. My right hon. Friend has consulted the industry to an extent that I have not seen reflected in any of the other industries in my constituency. Ministers are available at all times. Most importantly, representatives of the industry were able to accompany Ministers to Brussels and to stand alongside them as they tried to reach an agreement. I know that that consultation will continue.
    The pattern of Government policy has been to reach a satisfactory agreement for the industry. If the industry is satisfied, the House will be satisfied, but if the industry is dissatisfied, the House will be equally dissatisfied. Long may that policy continue. The situation in Fleetwood reflects many of the problems mentioned in the motion and the amendment.
    The pattern on the fleet has changed. Restructuring has already begun. Since being turfed out of Icelandic waters, the size of our inshore fleet has grown substantially and it now lands about 50 per cent. of the total catch landed at Fleetwood. However, we still have an efficient and modern middle-sea fleet. Its size has diminished, but it is still an effective fishing force.
    We want the negotiations to produce a 12-mile limit to protect the inshore men. At the same time, it must protect other waters that our middle-sea fleet can fish. Fleetwood cannot survive without both categories of fishermen, particularly in winter when the weather is rough and inshore men cannot go out. Therefore, we need the middle-sea fleet and the catch that it can land. I am worried

    895
    that some United Kingdom fisherman may wish to keep out the bigger vessels. That would unbalance the nation's fishing effort. That is what worries me about a box, particularly one to the north of Scotland. Some inshore waters may need protection. For example, my inshore fishermen would like a restriction on the size of vessel fishing the northern part of the Irish sea. They would like beamers banned. In addition, purse seiners are devastating fish-catching methods.
    The Government must try to achieve a settlement that fulfils the ambitions of the inshore and middle-water fishermen. I can speak only for Fleetwood, although my points may apply to other ports. In the past three years there has been a struggle to maintain the port's landing facilities and infrastructure. We welcome the money that the Government have injected into the fishing industry. Without such money, we clearly would not have survived. Today, the port is capable of handling fish efficiently.
    I think that my right hon. Friend got the message from the delegation that he saw last week. However, in the near future help may have to be given directly not to the catching side of the industry but to the fleets' bases. I hope that the Minister will not close his mind to that aspect.
    The debate is short, but I have tried to explain the problems that face Fleetwood. When the Government go to Brussels, they will do their best to achieve a settlement. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West. I do not know what will happen when the Danes and the Belgians are in the chair. It is now 11.30 pm and midnight falls at the end of next year. In the coming year there must be a settlement. We must make clear to the Common Market that, if we do not get a fair settlement, we shall bring the Community to a screeching halt.
    5.30 pm
    Mr. A. J. Beith: I came to the debate with the intention not of criticising or attacking the Government, but of strengthening their resolve to stand firm on the issues raised by their own amendment and the Labour Party's motion. However, I must tell the Secretary of State and the Minister that I was quite amazed that they saw any necessity to table an amendment to the offical Opposition motion. The motion covers points that the Government have hitherto accepted.
    The Secretary of State said that he believed that some points should be added. There are very few. Had he felt strongly, he needed only to table an amendment adding the items to it. He did not need to table an amendment to leave out everything in the motion and to replace it with a lengthier formula which, by its very length, gives rise to suspicion. If it takes almost twice as long to say the same thing, one inevitably suspects that there is a weakening in the position.
    Several hon. Members, including the right hon. Members for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in an intervention, pointed to specific differences between the amendment and the motion. I ask the Minister, and the Secretary of State who is now with us, on what grounds can they possibly vote against the words of the original motion? When we vote it will be to decide whether the original words stand part of the question—in other words, whether the official Opposition's motion becomes part of
    896
    the record of the House. I ask the Minister to search his heart and to tell the House how he or any of his right hon. and hon. Friends can possibly vote against those words, especially as he argued in his speech—and I accept the sincerity with which he argued—that his amendment was not intended to detract in any way from the Government's commitment to those principles?
    Mr. James Johnson: Unless, perish the thought, having missed out on third party agreement, the Government are happy to see the death of Hull, Fleetwood, Peterhead and Aberdeen. Without the access to those waters that they once had, those towns will no longer be able to sustain their fleets.
    Mr. Beith: I want to be brief, but, before turning to my main point, I reiterate my question to the Minister: can he, in all conscience, argue that his right hon. and hon. Friends should vote against the words in the motion? It would be to the disadvantage of the united front that we have genuinely tried to maintain in all fishing debates if Ministers found any necessity to do so. Unless they make some extensive disclaimer, a vote against the motion could reasonably be taken outside the House to be a sign that the Government disagree with the words of the motion.
    It is not too late for the Minister to decide that he need not vote against the motion at all. I invite Ministers in all seriousness to consider that course of action, because, from what they have said from the Dispatch Box, they do not disagree with the content of the motion. Let them demonstrate that agreement by not voting against it. The future of the fishing industry is at stake. If Ministers show a determination to abide by conditions that they have accepted in the past and say that they do not wish to vote against the motion, they will do a service to the House.
    If Ministers do not relent, I invite their right hon. and hon. Friends to read the Opposition motion and ask themselves how they can possibly vote against a single word of it.
    I turn to the issue to which I wish to devote my speech. Many other issues have been raised. I agree that they are important, but I wish to concentrate on one aspect which needs emphasis at this stage of the negotiations. I refer to the 12-mile limit. It is the essential home ground of our inshore fishermen. They are worried for obvious reasons. They are worried because of the danger to the limited stocks within the 12 miles. They are worried because it is within the 12 miles that fixed gear men operate. Fishermen using lobster and crab pots will be severely affected if there is a major incursion of foreign vessels manned by crews who are not familiar with where the gear is situated.
    The inshore fishing industry sees the 12-mile limit, in the words of secretary of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations as "our bottom line". It is not the bottom line; it is the sea wall. The 12-mile limit is the barest minimum demand which could be made, and it has been made again and again. I plead with the Government to be firm with that demand in negotiations.
    I have put the key question about historic rights to the Government on many occasions. Historic rights claims are being made by other countries, but many of the claims are spurious. I ask Ministers not to accept such claims at face value. I have been worried about the issue since I questioned the Minister about the Government's attempts to assess the validity of historic rights claims. I asked the Minister:

    897
    "whether he has any evidence that fishing vessels from any European Economic Community country have ever fished for herring within 12 miles of the Northumberland coast."—[Official Report, 20 March 1981; Vol. 1, c. 203.]
    The right hon. Gentleman said that under the 1964 London convention vessels from the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany were entitled to fish for herring off north-east England and had fished there between January 1953 and December 1962. All the evidence that I have is that the fishing that took place between 1953 and 1962 was 16 or 17 miles off the coast. The Department has not yet found any evidence to the contrary.
    In the reply the Minister also referred to the treaty of accession and the six-mile to 12-mile area that was given away at the time that the treaty was made. I hope that the Minister stands by the assumption that the six to 12-mile give-away was one of the unacceptable features of the treaty which it is the object of the negotiations to change. It is as unacceptable as the prospect of fishing up to the beaches in 1982 which was also part of that treaty.
    I challenge the Minister to use his Department's resources to assess the validity of claims to historic rights. What historic rights were exercised by beam trawlers, stern trawlers and purse seiners? If he looks at the records he will discover that fishing for herring off the north-east of England, for example, was by drift nets. Will he really allow the Dutch and the Germans to come within 12 miles, where they did not normally fish before, with new fishing methods which could cause immense damage to stocks? Will he really invite the Dutch and the Germans to fish for other species which they have not sought to catch before?
    The Minister must not be taken for a ride by claims of historic rights, the basis for which is dubious. Few of the claims can be substantiated. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in a reply to me on another occasion, said that every unreasonable claim anyone could think of had been made at a recent Council of Ministers meeting. I hope that the Minister will take his cue from that robustly sceptical attitude on the part of his right hon. Friend and not assume, as some of his answers imply, that there is evidence to support every claim that every country lays on the table.
    There are great dangers to all sections of our fishing industry in proposals by other member countries. I rest my case on the dangers to our inshore industry of any departure from the 12-mile limit and any failure to recover that part of the 12-mile limit which was wrongly lost in negotiations at the time of the treaty of accession. I ask all hon. Members to recognise that the best outcome of today's discussions would be to let the Opposition motion go through, because its words serve to strengthen that resolve.
    5.40 pm
    Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I welcome the fact that the Opposition have decided to use their sixth allotted Supply day for a debate on the common fisheries policy. It is one of the most important subjects requiring the House's attention. I need not delay the House with the history of the many abortive attempts by successive Governments to secure a satisfactory common fisheries policy, because I wish to devote my remarks to the urgency of its finalisation.
    I cannot accept the wording of the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and his right and hon.
    898
    Friends. I much prefer the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and her right hon. and hon. Friends, which I believe is better described and shows a greater Government commitment. I need not remind the House that the common fisheries policy is one of the most emotive issues in Britain and raises similar emotions in the European Community.
    Emotion is generated in Britain, especially in Scotland and in constituencies such as mine—which is one of the largest fishing constituencies in Europe—because it has become a matter of life or death. Entire communities have been driven out of existence during the past 10 years because of the need for conservation and the loss of fishing grounds. That loss was accepted reluctantly by the fishermen on the basis that, in the long term, their earnings would return and that life would go on as before. They believed that there were prospects of even greater earnings and a long-term future for the industry that would maintain the employment of those who have resided in such small communities for centuries. Generation after generation has gone to sea to catch fish and similar generations have remained ashore working in the allied industries to process the fish as it comes ashore.
    Very little has come from those hopes, but it is fair to say that the Government have given more cash aid to the industry than any previous Government. The fishing industry now wishes to see an end to the seemingly impossible position, which is deteriorating rapidly. Soon the industry will again present itself to the Government and ask for financial aid, unless the common fisheries policy is finally agreed by the member States to the entire satisfaction of the British fishing industry.
    The amendment of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is right to draw attention to the progress that has been made by the Government in Brussels. It can be argued that the previous Labour Administration failed to secure the finalisation of the common fisheries policy during their term of office. Much of the blame must lie at the door of the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who had its finalisation in his grasp during his final months as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. His failure made it all the more difficult for the incoming Conservative Government to go to Brussels with a strong hand in order to get a quick decision.
    I am prepared to admit that the blame cannot be attributed only to the right hon. Gentleman who, with his well-known anti-Market stance, did nothing to instil confidence that Britain would be influential in the negotiations. When the Labour Government renegotiated the terms of Britain's entry into the Common Market, they, too, failed to take positive and satisfactory action to gain the completion of the common fisheries policy. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), who is now the Opposition spokesman on agriculture and fisheries and who was for some time a Minister in that Department, said in the House some time ago that he could not understand why the Labour Government had failed to renegotiate the common fisheries policy when they renegotiated the terms of Britain's entry to the Common Market. However, that is all history, regrettable though it may be. The only thing that it has proved is that successive Governments—[Interruption.] I am not unaware of the remarks being made from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), but I take no notice of such remarks.

    899
    The only thing that history has proved is that successive Governments have failed to gain what is essential for the salvation of the fishing industry both onshore and offshore.
    The Government are trying to finalise the policy. I wish to pay tribute to Opposition Members for all the support that they have rendered to the Government during the past two and a half years. They know that the crisis in the fishing industry has not been a one-party matter, but is a problem that has been accepted by all hon. Members in the face of opposition from the member States of the Community. In that connection I wish to pay a particular tribute to the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas Hamilton) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson), who have consistently assured Ministers that they are totally behind their efforts to secure the completion of the common fisheries policy.
    Mr. James Johnson: We all know the hon. Gentleman for his deep sincerity and passion in defending his constituents. He belongs to East Scotland, quite near to Peterhead and Aberdeen. What does he think about the omission in the amendment of anything to do with third country agreements for ports such as Kingston upon Hull and those in Scotland?
    Mr. McQuarrie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment. The question of third countries is not on the original motion.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell rose
    Mr. McQuarrie: I shall not give way to the hon. Member for Grimsby in any circumstances.
    Although I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West for mentioning the matter, fortunately Peterhead has not suffered much. Of course, I am concerned about other ports that have suffered. However, Peterhead has grown to become one of the largest ports in the United Kingdom.
    I congratulated Opposition Members. I cannot say the same about the hon. Member for Grimsby, whose speeches in the House about fishing have done more damage than any other hon. Member's speech. He has a non-constructive approach to the position, despite the problems that abound in the fishing industry in his constituency.
    The Opposition motion asks the Government to reaffirm their
    "commitment to a 12-mile exclusive limit, dominant preference in the 12- to 50-mile zone, effective conservation measures, and catch quotas for the United Kingdom which fully reflect the extent of fishing stocks in United Kingdom waters and the loss of fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom in third-country waters".
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the hon. gentleman voting for the motion?
    Mr. McQuarrie: It may be boring to you, but it is not boring to the fishing industry. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition—
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I did not say that the hon. Gentleman's speech was boring. I asked whether he was voting for the motion.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought I heard the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) referring to me, but I was reading a note at the time. Perhaps he will not do that again.
    Mr. McQuarrie: I took it that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North made that comment. If he did not, I apologise.
    I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition and all Opposition Members will be pleased to know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and all Conservative Members, confirm that a 12-mile exclusive zone is essential. I must make it clear, with my large constituency interest, that nothing short of that will be acceptable to British fishermen.
    It must also be the continued aim of the Government to secure a dominant preference for a 12 to 50-mile limit. Access to our waters for other nations must be severely restricted. If necessary, a strict licensing system should be introduced. Licences should be granted only where there is some reciprocal agreement with the other member State.
    The question of quotas must be looked at together with conservation, and we must not allow what is happening in the South-West of England to continue. British fishermen are being denied the right to fish for mackerel, while the vessels of other member States continue to fish and to take the catch away to freezer trawlers, which go to foreign ports. The practice denies our fish processing factories the stocks to keep their people employed. Will our fishermen be allowed to fish for mackerel in the South-West? With the devastating cost of fuel, that information should be available before the boats leave my constituency and other parts of the North-East in the hope of making a living during the remainder of December and in January.
    I am pleased that there is to be another meeting of fisheries Ministers in Brussels on 14 December. We all sincerely hope that there will be a final breakthrough, but if there is not we must not waver. We must put our vital fishing interests first and foremost. The welfare of our fishing communities must be paramount. An agreed policy must be based on the fact that 68 per cent. of the fish caught in Community waters is caught around our shores. An agreement must also take account of the fact that the 200-mile limit has deprived many of our fishermen of access to traditional grounds.
    We must insist on access, quotas, preference limits and enforcement as the bases of agreement to new policy. We must also strongly protect the onshore fishing industry and the fishermen who use the static gear that has been used for centuries.
    The Opposition should accept the amendment. The Government are determined to get a fair deal for the fishing industry. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has always said that there will be no sell-out in the renegotiation, and she is totally supported in that by her Ministers and all hon. Members with fishing interests. No one should make the mistake of thinking that, because the majority of Conservative Members believe in the European Community, we would be ready to accept a settlement totally unacceptable to the industry or to the nation as a whole. Over the years our stocks have been looted. We are now in a position to take a measure of control. We have the whip hand and we must use it.
    The fishing industry looks to the Government and to Parliament to get the policy settled once and for all. My right hon. Friend and her Ministers are to be congratulated

    901
    on the progress so far made, which has in the main received the wholehearted support of the fishing industry. The House—although perhaps the Scottish nationalists will not agree—should accept the amendment without a Division, and show the industry, our people and the European Community that we are at one in our determination to get agreement on a common fisheries policy that will last and that will restore the industry's faith in Parliament's ability to see that justice is done. I commend the amendment to the House and congratulate my right hon. Friend and her Ministers on bringing it forward.
    5.53 pm
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: I listened with amazement when the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) said that we have "the whip hand". We have been here before, perhaps in December 1971, when I sought to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9,
    "for the purposes of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the failure of Her Majesty's Government to obtain satisfactory arrangements for the British fishing industry in near, middle and distant waters before the signing of the Treaty of Accession to the Treaty of Rome."—[Official Report, 13 December 1971; Vol. 828, c. 73.]
    Ten years have passed, and we have only one year to go before the other fishermen can fish up to our beaches.
    I should like to believe that a solution will be reached satisfactory to the interests of our fishing industry, but I know that we shall take what we are given and be grateful if we are able to keep the 12-mile limit with historic rights. The reason goes back 10 years, when the Tory Government accepted an agreement cobbled together by the then members of the Community. At the time of the referendum I and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) asked the industry where the British lake was and whether it was satisfied with the arrangements for renegotiation. It now finds itself with no lake and no fleet sailing from our major deep-sea ports.
    I am brazenly making a constituency speech. In my constituency 831 registered fishermen are unemployed. Let us use the accepted multiple of five to six shore workers—process workers, workers engaged in shipbuilding, riggers and boilermen—for each fisherman. Of the 27,000 unemployed in my constituency nearly 5,000 are connected directly with the fishing industry. That is a measure of the effect of the common fisheries policy on the port of Hull.
    It may be argued that the harm has been done because we have been pushed out of Icelandic, Norwegian, Canadian, Greenland and the Faroes waters, but we have 200 miles of sea around our shores in which the fishermen from those countries wish to fish, yet we are not able to bargain directly with third country fishing interests. People are unemployed, many of whom are members of my trade union, because we cannot negotiate third party agreements. That fact does not appear in the Government's amendment.
    The Secretary of State complacently tried to measure the Government's success. He mentioned quotas and the registering and recording of catches, but there are no tachographs on fishing vessels and we do not have adequate policing. Catches are under-recorded and the regulations on the size of fish caught are ignored by our Community partners.
    902
    We talk about the 12-mile exclusive zone and the 50-mile dominant preference, but what happened to the other 150 miles, from which a great part of the quotas comes? We have gleefully surrendered them. Is not that a sufficient contribution to Community fishing?
    Then there are the problems affecting the former deep sea ports, in particular Peterhead, Fleetwood and Hull. We once had over 100 trawlers of 80 ft and upwards sailing out of Hull. We now have fewer than 10. We once had busy quaysides and secondary and tertiary industries based on the fleet; we now have unemployment.
    I have continually sought promises from the Government. I doubt whether the Government will get their common fisheries policy, but, if they do, how will they compensate the port of Hull—and Grimsby to a lesser extent, because it has a good inshore fleet? How will they bring jobs back? The deep sea fleet has gone and it will not reappear. We shall not see vessels stacking up one against the other in the William Wright and Albert docks in Hull as we have in the past. What will the Government do? What proposals do they have for jobs, for retraining, and for bringing industry to our areas? We are entitled to claim that our problem arises, not from the recession, but directly as a result of matters over which the people of Hull have no control—a common fisheries policy, for which their heritage was sold by the Heath Government, and the 200- mile limit that they cannot even negotiate in their own interests.
    Mr. Myles: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that if we had had a fisheries policy that allowed all the vessels from Hull, Grimsby and all the other ports to fish we could have had a market for all the fish?
    Mr. McNamara: We were landing thousands of tonnes of fish in those ports and selling it. We had a prosperous industy. The foundations of the houses in Swanland and Kirk Ella in the constituency of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall) were built upon cod bones. Of course, we would have had a market for the fish. We would have had a good, strong industry and one that may have had a little decency and equity for the fishermen. That has gone from my city. Instead, we have unemployment. Young people who would have had jobs and apprenticeships are walking the streets. All their opportunities have gone.
    Mr. Myles: Over the last two years?
    Mr. McNamara: No, not over the last two years, but over the whole period of this policy. That is why I went back to 1971, when I tried to get an emergency debate on the matter. We are selling our past. There are no safeguards for the fishing industry. That has been proved right by debate after debate over the last 10 years.
    Within a year other countries will be allowed to fish up to our beaches, yet the Government are still trying to claim that they have had some success. They have sold all our interests down the river.
    If there is one major justification in my area for the Labour Party's policy of seeking to leave the European Community, of seeking to regain control of our economy, of seeking to be made capable of making decisions that are relevant to the people who live in our area and to our constituents, it is the fishing industry. We have seen what has happened as a direct result of entering the EEC. The

    903
    people who are the ambassadors and prophets of the Community have done nothing to bring solace, jobs or employment to our area, or to Hull generally.
    6.3 pm
    Mr. Kenneth Warren: I am flattered to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I was beginning to believe that this was a debate on fishing in Scottish and northern waters, particularly when my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen all represent elegant Scottish constituencies. I was concerned about whether we would talk about the other half of the fishing industry—the inshore fishing fleets around the coasts of this country that are too rarely mentioned in the House.
    I wish to comment on three points relating to the Government amendment, which I hope to be able to support. First, what is meant by
    "a satisfactory revised Common Fisheries Policy"?
    The word "satisfactory" needs much explanation, not just qualification. Secondly, I should like to explore a little further the exclusive 12-mile limit, which I thought was clear in the minds of all hon. Members. However, there was some qualification in the Secretary of State's comments. Thirdly, I should like to comment on our ability to enforce the policy if we actually achieve it.
    First, we must get an acceptance in the Common Market that we are the premier fisherfolk of the EEC. We must realise that the EEC member States are looking to us for a lead. They are expecting us to give a lead, and they are waiting for us to give a lead. We do not go in as equal members, we go in in a strong position.
    In my area of Hastings we have the largest fishing fleet in the South-East—about 44 boats—and we have been conscious of the invasion from Europe ever since 1066. Nowadays trawlers come in overnight to poach in our grounds. The problem is not simply the detail of what is happening night by night in the South-East, but the fact that in their motion the Opposition have introduced a note of dissension in what has always been a common attitude to fisheries policy in the House. During the last 10 years hon. Members on both sides of the House have always tried to reach a common approach to the fisheries policy.
    Mr. Millan rose—
    Mr. Warren: No, I shall not give way because many of my hon. Friends wish to speak in the debate.
    I ask the Opposition to consider the fact that they have introduced a note of dissension, which is unfortunate.
    If we get the agreements that I believe both sides of the House want, can they be enforced? We have problems these days on net sizes, catch quotas, the times of fishing, and beam trawling. At present, the people on the other side of the Channel cannot enforce their own restrictions. What hope have we that they will do anything just because we have signed a common fisheries agreement?
    On the last day of office of the Conservative Government in 1974, my right hon. Friend the present Leader of the House declared to the House that beam trawling would be banned. We have moved far too slowly in trying to get to grips with the way in which we would enforce a common fisheries policy.
    On the issue of the 12-mile limit, I understood my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to say earlier, in answer
    904
    to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Sir F. Bennett), that there would be no qualification and that 12 miles was sacrosanct. I understood him to say later that there could be certain places where, for historical reasons, the 12-mile limit could be invaded. I hope that in his reply he will return to a clear declaration that the 12—mile limit is sacrosanct all around our coasts. If it is not, the inshore fishing fleet has nowhere else to go. I counsel my right hon. Friend to realise that what the other Europeans want from our fishing grounds is our fish and then to say goodbye. They have taken, whenever they have had the chance, whatever fish they could grab from us because we do not have the ability even now to enforce control over our grounds.
    The inshore fishermen have nowhere else to go. They have small ships operating over limited areas—traditional and historic fishing grounds. The death of their fishing grounds will be the death of their jobs. I am afraid of the strengh of the advocacy of the people across the Channel. The Government have still not realised that the French and the Belgians, having destroyed their own grounds, are now seeking the legalisation of their invasion of our grounds through a common fisheries policy.
    We must realise that the inshore fishermen have only these jobs and these livelihoods—and they are seeking to catch our fish. Why should we say that they are our fish? We do not have any disagreements in the House or in the EEC about whether we should share out German or French iron or coal deposits. We do not have arguments about whether we should share out Danish, Dutch or Belgian butter. Why should they be allowed to catch our fish? Why do we not have arguments about their ability to take our North Sea oil? Why should we even consider allowing them to take our fish from us? It is nonsense that our partners in the Community have any rights greater than ours.
    The Government must listen to their advisers in the House, rather than to the advisers outside, who do not show the courage on land that our fishermen display each day at sea. The common fisheries policy must be the maintenance of our present rights, jobs and industry.
    6.20 pm
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is curious to hear the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) criticise the Opposition for striking a discordant note in the motion, which simply reaffirms the basic principles that the House has confirmed in the past which are the basis of our negotiating position.
    Will the Minister say why the words
    "quotas … which fully reflect … the loss of fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom in third-country waters, as the essential requirement"
    have been omitted from the Government's amendment? For ports such as Grimsby, Hull and Fleetwood, those quotas are essential not only for the local argument but for the national argument.
    Britain has a stronger case than any other country for preferential treatment because of the losses that it sustained in distant waters during the mid-1970s. It is an important issue for Grimsby and Hull. Why have the words to which I referred been omitted? Our fear is that it is to prepare the ground for dropping that requirement as part of the negotiations. The quotas that we have been given do not reflect our losses in distant waters. I hope that the debate will serve as a warning to the Government that

    905
    the concessions that have been made in the continuous process of negotiating against ourselves have gone far enough.
    At the outset of the negotiations the House clearly confirmed that it wanted conservation measures in waters up to 200 miles, dominant preference in waters up to 50 miles, and a 12-mile exclusive limit. We have been retreating in the negotiations. We appear to be negotiating away even the exclusive 12-mile limit. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations has made it clear that it wants an exclusive 12-mile limit, or nothing. That does not include historic rights.
    Once we concede the principle of historic rights, how do we police them? What is to stop vessels coming into our waters and taking what they want on the ground that they are exercising historic rights? I know that that is an important issue on the south and south-west coasts because of the activities of French fishermen. It is also important on the Yorkshire coast where German fishermen catching herring are exercising their historic right. That is potentially disastrous for our industry. I am delighted that, at last, a battered, bemused and betrayed industry is standing up for itself and saying "Thus far and no further". An exclusive 12-mile limit means no erosion of that principle.
    There has been a series of negotiations against ourselves. We have exchanged national conservation measures—which the Conservative Party manifesto said would be used to bring pressure in the negotiations—for unsatisfactory Common Market agreements. We have given up dominant preference in waters up to 50 miles. That has been reduced simply to surveillance zones, even though the Conservative Party manifesto talked about preference zones. All that is left is the exclusive 12-mile limit. That, also, was included in the Conservative Party manifesto. I am worried about its future, because the other items in the manifesto have been sold.
    The negotiations are becoming a piecemeal series of sell-outs, with disastrous consequences for the industry. The Government are bringing in not a Trojan horse, but a Trojan horse kit form—bit by bit. There have been concessions on marketing, quotas and conservation. When, eventually, the Trojan horse is fully assembled and the Government say to the industry "Take it or leave it", the industry will be in a difficult position. I hope that, even then, it will leave the Trojan horse. It will probably be a Trojan camel—a horse designed by an EEC committee.
    There has been great trumpeting about the basic marketing agreement. The guide price has been increased by between zero and 6 per cent., which is wholly inadequate. It bears no relationship to costs, market sales or the state of the industry. All we have achieved from the agreement is a marginal improvement in the system. Next January, as last January, we shall be faced with a flood of imports. They will decimate the price in the market. People will ask the Government to do something about it. The Government were asked to do something last January. A decision on action was taken in June and brought into effect in August. That will be the pattern again. Even if the marketing framework is in force in January, it will be too slow. The Commission has no need to act. It can rule against the complaint. It must consult the fishing management group. By the time the machinery is invoked, the threat will have passed because the market disruption will be over in four months from the first incursion.
    906
    Ministers threw away the Canadian negotiating coin which would have brought pressure on the Germans, whose views on price were crucial. Their position had to be eroded, yet we threw away the means to bring pressure on them. We did so for the price of 20,000 tonnes of cod fillet, most of which will come back to the British market through the displacement factor. It will displace fish that would otherwise be sold on the Continent.
    We have entered the negotiations in the spirit of boy scouts with tied hands. Britain enforces the rules, not the other countries. We have made concessions and played fair. We should be following the example of the French and the pressure that they brought to bear in the lamb war. That worked and gave them the deal that they wanted. They are using exactly the same tactics on molluscs. There is now a total ban on the importation of molluscs.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the agreement on lamb was not a good deal for United Kingdom farmers, consumers and New Zealand?
    Mr. Mitchell: The essential question in the lamb war was how to get Britain's lamb into France. How much goes to France now? I suspect that it is very little. It is a good deal for French farmers, because their prices have risen. The French have achieved what they wanted. Britain wants a good deal from the common fisheries policy. We should use similar tactics.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the exporters of lamb to France. He should check his facts before he comes to the House.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There will be a chance later for the Minister to reply to the debate. I am hoping to call other hon. Members to speak.
    Mr. Mitchell: The Minister cannot deny that the French achieved exactly what they wanted. They achieved a good arrangement for themselves at the price that they wanted. That was the essential requirement. We have tied our hands in the negotiations. We have failed to use the legitimate negotiating pressures—which are part of the tactics of negotiations in the Common Market—to save the vital interests of our industry. If we do not use those pressures, why do we not seek to remove the pistol that is pointed at our heads in the argument about fishing up to the beaches in January 1983? Why are the Government not negotiating with the Commission for a statement that its understanding is that the present arrangement continues after 1983? The industry believes that the Government want that negotiating pressure to bring pressure on the industry. There is fear that the Continentals will fish up to the beaches. Why are the Government not negotiating with the Commission to remove that pistol that is pointed at our heads?
    The negotiations appear to be a process of concession after concession. That fills us with fear about the final agreement. The industry is slowly, painfully and agonisingly sinking into debt. The aid is inadequate. The Minister should increase the aid package. The new French Government have increased their aid to their industry. The Grimsby industry during the past year has been kept going only by the marginal aid that the Government have conceded.
    We also face continuous pressure from the British Transport Docks Board which is taking back the aid that the Government are providing and increasing levies on a

    907
    diminishing base of productive capacity in exactly the same way as the Government's economic policy has been applied to the ports.
    There is a need for an increase in aid and a commitment that aid will continue to be made available to keep the industry going. It is essential that the Government pledge themselves to the fundamental principle—it is the only part of the package that has not been sold—of an exclusive 12-mile limit with no concessions.
    6.21 pm
    Mr. Robert Hicks: I shall direct my remarks primarily to the requirements of West Country inshore fishermen. I wish to focus attention on two specific aspects: first, the need to secure an exclusive 12-mile limit as part of any future common fisheries policy, and secondly, the need for conservation.
    Before mentioning each aspect in turn, I shall make a general observation about CFP negotiations. The 10-year derogation comes to an end at the end of December 1982. We all know the unsavoury background that led to the derogation being necessary. Should difficulties arise during the final 12 months of the derogation, the United Kingdom Government must not fall into the trap of agreeing to something that falls short of their legitimate requirements and rights. We must get the terms of a revised common fisheries policy correct, however long it takes.
    I turn to conservation and the related need for effective measures. As an example, I refer to the experiences with mackerel that have taken place in the coastal waters off Devon and Cornwall this autumn. The Minister of State was obliged to suspend the fishing in the area ahead of schedule last weekend. I wholeheartedly support my right hon. Friend in his action. The mackerel season in the South-West opened later and there were smaller quotas. The total catch was soon in excess of the notional figure used by the Ministry and the size of the fish caught seemed to get progressively smaller week by week.
    I appreciate that my right hon. Friend's decision created difficulties, not least for the larger trawlers, which, since the dramatic reduction in distant water fishing grounds, have been obliged to come to the South-West's mackerel fishing area in recent years. The processors were adversely affected as their consistency of supply has been threatened. But to those who may, for whatever reason, be critical of the decision, I remind them of the experience of the old Looe fishermen, who repeatedly tell us that in their younger days herring was the dominant fish and that it came and it went. Later the same applied to the pilchard. Since the mid to late 1960s the dominant fish has been the mackerel. It is the practical judgment of the Looe fishermen that there is a danger of their mackerel going. That illustrates the need for effective conservation measures, which, in turn, mean realistic quotas that are sensitive to changing circumstances and adequate policing and monitoring. The United Kingdom Government must not surrender any sovereignty in respect of their responsibility for administering and implementing conservation measures.
    Finally, I turn to the important issue of the exclusive 12-mile coastal band and the associated question of historic rights. The House will know that the French have considerable historic rights off the coast of Devon and
    908
    Cornwall, the Belgians less so. I advise my right hon. Friend that local fishermen and local public opinion feel strongly that historic rights should be eliminated as part of any fishing settlement.
    As my right hon. Friend knows from his visit to Looe in my constituency, West Country fishermen feel extremely vulnerable. The French have exhausted their coastal fishing waters and no doubt they look eagerly at the prospect of being allowed to continue fishing in our coastal waters, including off the coast of Devon and Cornwall.
    The importance of fishing to the economy of the South-West, especially to rural coastal settlements is significant. Only the combination of effective conservation and the maintenance of an exclusive 12-mile coastal zone will ensure that fishing continues to contribute in a positive way to regional and local economies.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan rose—
    Mr. Buchan rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I understood that the Front Bench replies were to begin at 20 minutes to seven o'clock. That is the information that came to me.
    Mr. Buchan: Thank you very much for that information, Mr. Speaker. I regret to say that it is new information to me. May I ask when the debate will finish if the Front Bench replies commence at 20 minutes to seven o'clock?
    Mr. Speaker: That depends on how long the two Front Bench spokesmen take. If they go on too long, they will take time out of the next debate.
    6.27 pm
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: I assure the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) that I shall not detain the House too long. I know that hon. Members are anxious to proceed to the next business.
    I support much that has been said by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks). Social Democrats generally are extremely sympathetic to the hon. Member in these matters as in others.
    The Government have behaved in a somewhat puzzling fashion in seeking to divide the House on an issue which previously has been dealt with by the House on a united front. Why have they adopted this approach to what we hope will be the final negotiations to relieve the industry of its legitimate anxieties? Why have they chosen to depart from the form of words chosen by the official Opposition, which reflects precisely the views that have been expressed by successive Governments and the targets for negotiation with the Community? It will not do for the Minister to say that his amendment encapsulates the essence of the Opposition's motion. That is simply not the case because his proposal is different in two important respects. The Government amendment refers to:
    "preference outside 12 miles to protect particularly dependent fishing communities".
    That is a clear watering down of the language in the Opposition's motion, which refers to a
    "dominant preference in the 12 to 50-mile zone".
    What do the Government mean by the phrase "particularly dependent fishing communities"? Does it mean those communities where there is no alternative industry to

    909
    fishing? If that is so, there must be a poor lookout for the town of Peterhead, for example. As we all know, Peterhead is enjoying a boom from the oil and gas industries. Is Peterhead's fishing to be sacrificed by the Government?
    It is also a watering down of the Opposition's motion to speak of
    "adequate quotas for the United Kingdom".
    What are adequate quotas? The Secretary of State for Scotland in opening the debate, gave no clue as to what the Government regarded as "adequate", whereas the Opposition motion makes clear the basis on which the adequacy or otherwise of the quotas is to be tested.
    I make it plain that for the Social Democrats as, I believe for the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, the adequacy of the quotas at least will depend on their being substantially greater than those in the European Commission's current proposals. In a letter sent to hon. Members on both sides by the President of the Federation, Mr. Gilbert Buchan, it was made plain that the proposals would allow the United Kingdom only 36 per cent. of the seven principal species, which would be less than our historic share. Indeed, the Federation's own proposal of 36·07 per cent. cod equivalent is also less than our historic share, without taking into account the preference that we should receive under the Hague agreement and the compensation for loss of long-distance fishing. Mr. Buchan concluded that
    "there is no way that the United Kingdom must accept less".
    In replying to this short but extremely important debate, will the Minister of State assure the House that he is not prepared to go beyond what the Scottish Fishermen's Federation stated to be its bottom line on quotas?
    Will the Minister of State also say what is the Government's position on the zone between 12 and 50 miles? Here again, the Government amendment contains weasel words which seem to mark a considerable departure from the negotiating posture previously adopted. I endorse what has been said by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) about historic rights and need not repeat it.
    On guide prices, we heard rather chilling remarks from the Secretary of State for Scotland, who warned that the Government had already encountered nothing but opposition to their proposals. Here again, let it be placed on record precisely what at least the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is asking for, that is,
    "increases in official withdrawal prices of the order of 25 per cent. for 1982 and also in reference prices."
    Given the collapse in prices experienced by the industry in the past year, that is the absolute minimum and the House cannot regard anything less as acceptable.
    Finally, on structure, the Secretary of State referred to the need for marketing and promotion. Will the Minister of State tell us why, in bringing forward their proposals for the Sea Fish Industry Authority, the Government deprived it of the £380,000 available for promotion to its predecessor, the White Fish Authority? For the Government to make statements about the importance of marketing and then to deprive the authority of finance for promotion is inexplicable and inexcusable.
    6.33 pm
    Mr. Alex Pollock: I accept the Government's argument that we may have to hasten slowly in trying to achieve a common fisheries policy
    910
    because of problems with other member States. Nevertheless, I wish to suggest two important interim commitments that the Government should reaffirm today.
    First, pending any settlement, we must make clear our determination to maintain a viable inshore industry that will be able to take advantage of any settlement when it comes. If that involves further temporary financial aid, the Government should make clear today their preparedness to listen sympathetically to any requests for such further aid. The fishermen in my constituency do not enjoy going cap in hand to the Government. It is not their style, but I fear that at present they have little choice.
    Secondly, in speaking to the amendment, the Government have argued that they have the political will necessary to achieve a settlement adequate to protect our national interests. I trust that they will also retain the political will to take any other national measures that may be deemed necessary—for example, on quotas and access—to protect our home fleet, pending any settlement. I stress particularly in that regard that in the absence of an agreement the Government must not allow political initiatives that properly lie with us to be taken over by the European Commission. That is a highly dubious activity that should be firmly resisted.
    If the Government can give assurances on those two preconditions, I believe that the industry will recognise that as tangible evidence of the Government's determination to support it in the difficult times which lie ahead.
    6.36 pm
    Mr. David Myles: I am grateful to have five minutes in which to speak, although I may take even fewer. The arguments made in today's debate have been repeated on many occasions.
    The Government amendment encapsulates almost everything—I stress the word "almost"—contained in the Opposition motion and makes some very necessary additions that will secure the "seven Cs" that I once said were required for the fishing industry. By that, I do not mean that it must fish over the seven seas, but that it requires seven conditions. I shall repeat them again today.
    The industry requires catches, and it requires waters with adequate stocks of fish for it to catch. It requires cash for that fish through the marketing initiatives set up by the Government. It requires control. This applies to our own as well as to European fishermen. I sincerely hope that control will be a top priority in any agreement.
    The industry also requires co-operation in the different sectors of the industry and in the regions and the districts. It is no use playing one against another, as the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) is wont to try to do, and destroying the purse seiners when that is the most efficient way of catching pelagic fish.
    Construction is also an important requirement. The boatbuilding yards in the North-East of Scotland must be kept in business so that vessels coming into port can be adequately repaired.
    Lastly—
    Mr. Maclennan: There are two more.
    Mr. Myles: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow me to finish. The last and most important requirement is confidence. The fishing industry desperately needs confidence to look ahead and to go on into the future. I do not believe that it would obtain that confidence from a

    911
    split, mixed-up Opposition who do not know whether to stay in the Common Market or come out of it. It is impossible to know what kind of fishing policy might then obtain. I therefore plead with the Minister to go ahead and to achieve a policy that will give the fishermen of Scotland and of Britain as a whole confidence in the future.
    6.38 pm
    Mr. Norman Buchan: I am told by my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench that the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) has already missed one "C". Perhaps he has given that one up for lost. He says that he approves of the Government amendment because it includes things that are missing from the Opposition motion. There is a simple solution to that. Why did not the Government make those additions but retain all the proposals in our motion? That is not what the Government have done.
    I hope that we shall agree on two matters today. The first follows from the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). Whatever else may be said about the Common Market, it has been a disaster for the development of British fishing. Secondly, in tabling their amendment, the Government have done a gross disservice to the fishing industry. I believe that those two points are acceptable to the entire House, and I hope that the Government are not so foolish or harmful to the British fishing industries as to suggest that Conservative Members should vote against our motion.
    I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that if they did so, it would sow doubts in the industry and confirm to the people with whom we are to negotiate in Brussels that the Government are a soft mark. Both things would be disastrous.
    The firm view seems to be that the problem we now face has been posed by the tabling of the Government's amendment. I would have liked to refer to other aspects of the fishing industry because I have been involved with it for a long time, but, because of the Government's action, we must try to clarify the situation. The best way to do that would be for the Government to support the motion.
    For example, the Secretary of State went to great lengths to pretend that where it mattered the amendment said the same as the motion. That was quite nonsensical. He said that similar amendments had been tabled in the past, and cited the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang). He pointed out that it referred to preferential access within 12 to 50 miles and, more important, to losses incurred in third country waters.
    I remind the right hon. Gentleman that that amendment was tabled by my hon. Friend to strengthen a weak motion that had been tabled by the Government. All they had to say was that they wanted support for their objective of a satisfactory overall settlement of the CFP. Indeed, that attempt to strengthen that motion was accepted by the Government. To attempt to portray it as a weakening of the position pushes the rules and laws of debate a little far.
    There was some support for the Government. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) supported them in a strange way. He said that they had the
    912
    whip hand. He could have fooled me. The hon. Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) pointed to the truth when he said that there was half an hour left to midnight.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) said that a Standing Order No. 9 application in December 1971 dealt with the same issue. That debate was about the 10- year derogation, which is what we are now facing. Far from the Government having a whip hand, with each day that passes they are in a weaker position to obtain the aims of our motion which, up to now, we believed were firmly believed in by both sides of the House.
    The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East said that the Government had the whip hand and should use it. He said that we should congratulate the Government on what they had achieved. The hon. Gentleman said that the Prime Minister and her colleagues had to be congratulated on what they had achieved, but went on to say that the situation was deteriorating rapidly. That is an astonishing form of compliment, but the hon. Gentleman is extremely good at such compliments. For example, he was also in a complimentary mood when, with the same justification, he said:
    "I congratulate my three hon. Friends on their brilliant performance in Brussels yesterday. … Even though they were unsuccessful, it was a brilliant performance."—[Official Report, 28 July 1981; Vol. 9, c. 990.]
    That is the best that the Government can get in the way of support both for their amendment and the speech defending it today. With friends like that, they do not need many enemies.
    The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East and others, including the Government Front Bench, suggested that all of this was due to the intransigence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), on the grounds that he could have finalised the issue. Of course, anyone could have finalised the issue. The question is "At what cost?". As the Government have failed to stand up to their European partners on access and limits—in fact, sometimes it resembles a cockpit rather than a Common Market—so it becomes more difficult to achieve a settlement with each day that passes.
    Although the hon. Gentleman was unable to find the quotation, he reminded me that I had said that I could not understand why the Labour Government did not renegotiate the terms. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the context in which that was said. That was said in 1974–75, when I had left the Government, during the preparation of the renegotiations for the referendum discussion. That was the context and it was right.
    The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said he agreed with the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks), who referred to the rather unsavoury circumstances of the derogation. They were indeed unsavoury. Ten years were given, and the veto was placed firmly in the other camp. We had no means of exercising our veto to protect our interests. It could only be exercised to destroy our interests.
    It was even more unsavoury than the hon. Gentleman thinks, because the Government succeeded in hoodwinking many of their own supporters, including the old pike himself, Bob Boothby of Aberdeenshire. It was indeed unsavoury, and we are now paying the penalty. We must understand that on this issue at least our entry to the EEC has meant that we have given away one of our major assets—the possibility of a 50 or 100-mile fishing limit for

    913
    Britain—[HON. MEMBERS: "A 200-mile limit."] I am trying to be helpful. I am looking for a compromise. I remember Nye Bevan saying that only an idiot could ruin this country when it was built upon coal and surrounded by fish. The Government are now the idiots, because they are fiddling while the situation is deteriorating.
    I should like to examine the specifics of the Government amendment, which it is said adds to the motion. They have certainly included qualifications. Has that added to the motion? They say that
    "such a policy must maintain the need to secure an exclusive 12 mile limit".
    Commenting on what we say about a 12 to 50-mile zone, they refer to
    "preference outside 12 miles to protect particularly dependent fishing communities".
    What in heaven's name do they mean by that, and what in heaven's name is the purpose of saying that it adds to the motion? They have weakened the case disastrously. They say that we can exercise this interest only in the interests of a particular fishing community. Which community is that? Is it Grimsby? Is it Merseyside? That has had a hammering. Is it the Shetland Islands? If so, what happens to the rest of the British fishing industry? As was pointed out, it may be thought that Aberdeen does not need such help because of the presence of oil. That is a disastrous addition, which the Government claim strengthens the motion.
    Something might have been achieved out of the wreckage had the Government amendment referred only to "dependent fishing communities", but to add the word "particularly" underlines the extent of their sell-out. My hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) described it as a piecemeal sell-out. It is more like a fishmeal sell-out.
    The amendment also refers to "adequate quotas", and the Government argue that that is also an addition to the motion. What are adequate quotas? The Government might have reminded our Common Market partners that two-thirds of the waters and fish are ours Because of that, 66⅔ per cent. would be a reasonable quota on which to start arguing, rather than speaking of "adequate quotas".
    The Government have missed out two salient factors. They are in the business of adding to our motion but the 50-mile limit is missing from their amendment. The Minister said that the question of the third country loss and the effect of the loss of our Icelandic waters was missing. That is true but the motion refers to
    "the loss of fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom in third-country waters as the essential requirements."
    Therefore the Secretary of State was wrong.
    However, even if the Secretary of State had not been wrong, he overlooked the one overriding factor of the approach of 1982 and an end to the derogation. The fishermen are clearer than that. The Secretary of State advised us to consult the fishermen. We did—I met them a week ago. It was because we consulted the fishermen that we worded our motion as precisely as we did. We want
    "commitment to a 12-mile exclusive limit".
    That is not a 12-mile limit hedged around with historic rights of one kind or another. The Government did not even put in their amendment that historic rights must be phased out. However, we put it in our motion clearly and precisely, and for the Government to oppose our motion will be a signal to Europe that it can push them over even more.
    914
    The fishermen have said that the 12-mile limit was their bottom line. They said:
    "Alarum bells on the access question began ringing around the industry when it became known that a document invoking the Hague agreement and preference areas would be on the negotiating table at … the talks set for Brussels on December 14th."
    Is the preference area to be on the negotiating table? Is that what the talks are to be about next week, and not about a fight for the 12-mile exclusive zone and the 50-mile dominant preference, which it should be?
    The Hague preference areas, where 12-mile limits apply, take in most of the Scottish west coast, the Northumberland coast, and the Yorkshire coast down to Flamborough Head. The Opposition are not only concerned with the Scottish waters and the waters down to Flamborough Head. The fishermen of both sides of the border are saying that they want and need—and that the industry requires—the 12-mile exclusive limit. That is what the Opposition motion says, that is what the House has hitherto agreed, and the Government would put that at risk if they were foolish enough to recommend Conservative Members to vote against our motion tonight.
    I point out to the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) that it was not the Opposition who introduced dissension. We have tabled a motion setting out a policy that has been understood by the House for years. The Government have chosen to move against it. It is the Government who have lost the opportunity of having a united House of Commons behind them when they go to Brussels. They have thrown away one of their biggest weapons. No amount of semantics from the Secretary of State for Scotland can compensate for that stupidity.
    The hon. Member for North Fylde said that there was half an hour to midnight. I plead with the Government even at this late stage to support the Opposition motion, to go to Brussels armed, to listen to the industry, to fight for the 12-mile exclusive limit and for the proper dominant preference over the 50 miles, and to save something out of the wreckage even now.
    7.5 pm
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I start by welcoming the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) to the Front Bench. This is the first time he has spoken since he took over his responsibility. I also pay respect to him personally. I know of his great interest in the fishing industry, which stems from his family connections and experience over the years. However, I cannot be certain that his service on the Front Bench on this occasion will be any longer than it was when he was last on the Front Bench speaking on these matters. Over a relatively short period he found it difficult to agree with the policy of his Front Bench colleagues. Only time will tell whether he will disagree with the Labour Party's policies, although they are even more uncertain now than they were when he was last on the Opposition Front Bench.
    I have been asked several specific questions on important matters affecting the fishing industry. A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House mentioned the mackerel fishery, particularly in South-West England. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) that I was aware that when I closed that fishery, problems would be faced not only by his

    915
    fishermen but by the processors. However, the stocks of mackerel in the South-West were being put at risk, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) reminded me.
    At the start of the fishery we made plain that it was liable to be a much shorter one this year than in previous years. All the evidence showed that the catch that should have been taken would be exceeded and the quality of fish was low. In those circumstances, in spite of the difficulties this year, it was necessary, if we were to be able to continue fishing in future years, that the fishery should be closed. I have taken note of what was said about the fishery early next year. I hope that my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall), will be reassured by my remarks. We shall be having discussions with the industry on Friday this week on the arrangements for next year. We shall not delay in letting the fishermen know what the arrangements are. I appreciate that they have to know in order to plan their activities.
    I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice that we have been watching closely this year the mackerel fishery and the activities of the Klondikers. We have powers in relation to licensing and once we have assessed our experience of this year's fishery we shall look not at the fishery in the early part of the year, but at the main fishery which starts in the summer.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice also referred to the matter of guide prices for 1982, as did other hon. Members. This is a vital matter for the fishing industry and affects its economic viability. In the negotiations in Brussels the Government will fight as strongly as they can for the best possible deal, although if other countries and their industries are supporting us in this the message is not getting through. The negotiations for guide prices are proving a hard struggle, but I shall bear in mind the hon. Member's remarks.
    The hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) and for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) raised the problems of the deep-sea fleet or the middle-distance fleet. This matter was put to me by the delegation that I met last week, and I can assure hon. Members that I am aware of the problem, and of the anxieties of that part of the industry. However, to blame the problems of that industry on the common fisheries policy is flying in the face of the facts. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central cannot get away with that.
    When speaking of the Opposition motion, which, referred to a preference in the 12 to 50 mile zone, the hon. Member asked "What about the other 150 miles?" When the United Kingdom negotiated entry to the European Community it did not have a 200-mile limit. However, when the Labour Government renegotiated terms of membership the 200-mile limit was coming up. As far as our outer limits were concerned, we had already passed this through the House of Commons at the time of the Hague agreement in 1976. If it was such an important matter then, that is when it should have been raised, and the objections should be addressed to those Labour Members who were involved at the time. [Interruption.] It is typical of Labour Members to say "But it is not our fault". The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West this evening tried to make the same excuse—that he was not
    916
    responsible at the time when these matters were negotiated; he had resigned. It shows the total irresponsibility of the Labour Party's approach.
    Labour Members like to say the things which appear to be politically popular and which are easy to say, but when the Labour Party was in power it did not try to ensure that those policies were carried out. It could not be better exemplified than by the speech of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). He said that the arrangements for lamb were a disaster and that no United Kingdom lamb was going into France. That is demonstrably untrue. He showed no more knowledge when he spoke of fish.
    Mr. Buchan: The Minister makes allegations about Labour Members saying one thing when they are in power and another when they are not in power. Will he recall the circumstances in which we were bound to the present limits? The Common Market put through its own fisheries policy within days of the vote in favour of our joining the Common Market, and the matter was disguised by Conservative Ministers. From that point on we were faced with that policy decision.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The matter was not disguised at any time by Conservative Ministers, whatever the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West may say.
    The hon. Member for Grimsby—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] The hon. Member's interest is shown by the fact that he is not present to hear the answers to his points. The hon. Member completely misunderstands the realities. Although the matter was not mentioned by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Grimsby said that the Government should be introducing national conservation measures up to 200 miles. He completely ignored the fact that our right to introduce and enforce national measures was given away in the Hague agreement of 1976 by the Labour Government.
    I remind the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that it was the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who now graces the SDP Benches, who had responsibility at the time in question. It is easy to pass on responsibility to other people without having to worry about dealing with the problem oneself.
    The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) tried yet again to criticise the reopening of the herring fishery and completely ignored the fact that the Labour Government of which he was a member gave away our right of enforcement.
    The debate has centred on the question of the exclusive zone. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) mentioned historic rights. These are, however, historic rights as defined in international agreements. If we could have a word together, I could perhaps explain precisely to him the meaning of historic rights.
    As my right hon. Friend said, it is our objective in the negotiations—as it always has been—to secure a 12-mile exclusive zone, but equally, as my right hon. Friend and I have said before in this House, within that objective we may in the negotiations have to consider the historic rights of other countries. I give the hon. Member the absolute assurance that there will be no question of our considering rights that are spurious or unexercised. We are not as silly as to think of anything such as that. I have made the position absolutely clear to the House. I did so in the

    917
    debate in May last year. I have constantly made the position clear to the industry. It has been made public and is well known.
    The right hon. Member for Craigton referred to an exclusive zone and also mentioned historic rights. To be fair, he said that those historic rights should be phased out, but the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West missed out that part. He said that there would have to be an exclusive zone and nothing else. It is clear that the right hon. Member for Craigton agrees that the matter of historic rights has to be considered in negotiations.
    Mr. Millan: There is nothing between us on this. When will the Minister tell the House why he is advising his hon. Friends to vote against our motion, which represents the agreed position, up to the present, not only of the offfical Opposition but of the whole House, including the Government?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Nothing said in the debate has persuaded me that the Government were not correct in tabling their amendment. The Opposition have used the debate simply as an occasion for attacking the EC as a whole and for making political capital for their own advantage.
    The right hon. Member for Craigton was totally unprepared to give any recognition to what has been achieved in the negotiations. He spoke of a lack of political will, but Conservative Ministers have fought harder than anyone on these issues. He spoke as though there had been no progress whatever, yet when the Labour Party left office the United Kingdom Government stood against eight other Governments. That position has been completely turned round, so that the majority of EC countries now believe in the correctness of our approach. The position has been turned from one of disadvantage to one of advantage for Britain and the fishing industry. The right hon. Gentleman in his typically grudging manner, was not prepared to admit that conservation measures now apply on a European-wide scale and protect the livelihood of our fishermen. Similarly, the marketing regulations protect our markets and give our fishermen more protection. None of that is mentioned in the Oppositions's motion. For those reasons, it is right that we should mention them in our amendment.
    On the crucial matter of the exclusive zone, I ask the Opposition why they have changed their wording. My right hon. Friend, at the beginning of the debate, explained that the words in the Government amendment are similar to those used by the Opposition when the matter was last debated.
    One of the most important aspects is whether we have a satisfactory relationship with the fishing industry. It is the fishing industry and the fishermen's livelihoods that matter. Throughout all the negotiations we have taken the industry with us, and we shall continue to discuss matters with them. For that reason, more than any other, I urge my hon. Friends to reject the motion and to vote for the amendment.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the motion:—
    The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 300.

    Division No. 20]

    [7.09 pm

    AYES

    Abse, Leo

    Anderson, Donald

    Allaun, Frank

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Alton, David

    Ashton, Joe

    918

    Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

    Golding, John

    Bagier, Gordon A.T.

    Graham, Ted

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Grant, George(Morpeth)

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

    Grant, John(Islington C)

    Beith, A.J.

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

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

    Bennett, Andrew (St'Kp't N)

    Hardy, Peter

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Bottomley, Rt HonA. (M'b'ro)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

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

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Home Robertson, John

    Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)

    Homewood, William

    Brown, Ron(E'burgh, Leith)

    Hooley, Frank

    Buchan, Norman

    Howell, Rt Hon D.

    Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

    Huckfield, Les

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

    Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Hughes, Mark(Durham)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Cartwright, John

    Janner, Hon Greville

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

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

    John, Brynmor

    Coleman, Donald

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

    Cook, Robin F.

    Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

    Cowans, Harry

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Kilfedder, James A.

    Crowther, Stan

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Cryer, Bob

    Kinnock, Neil

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Lamborn, Harry

    Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

    Leighton, Ronald

    Dalyell, Tam

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Davidson, Arthur

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

    Litherland, Robert

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    Lyon, Alexander (York)

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

    Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

    Deakins, Eric

    Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    McCusker, H.

    Dempsey, James

    McDonald, DrOonagh

    Dewar, Donald

    McElhone, Frank

    Dixon, Donald

    McGuire'Michael(Ince)

    Dobson, Frank

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Dormand, Jack

    McKelvey, William

    Douglas, Dick

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Maclennan, Robert

    Dubs, Alfred

    McMahon, Andrew

    Dunlop, John

    McNally, Thomas

    Dunn, James A.

    McNamara, Kevin

    Dunnett, Jack

    McTaggart, Robert

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

    McWilliam, John

    Eadie, Alex

    Magee, Bryan

    Eastham, Ken

    Marks, Kenneth

    Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)

    Marshall, D (G'gowS'ton)

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

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    English, Michael

    Maxton, John

    Ennals, Rt Hon David

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    Meacher, Michael

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

    Ewing, Harry

    Mikardo, Ian

    Flannery, Martin

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Miller, Dr M.S. (E Kilbride)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby)

    Ford, Ben

    Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

    Forrester, John

    Molyneaux, James

    Foster, Derek

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W' shawe)

    Foulkes, George

    Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

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

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Morton, George

    Freud, Clement

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Garrert, John (NorwichS)

    Newens, Stanley

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    George, Bruce

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    O' Neill, Martin

    919

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Palmer, Arthur

    Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

    Park, George

    Stoddart, David

    Parker, John

    Stott, Roger

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Strang, Gavin

    Penhaligon, David

    Straw, Jack

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

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Prescott, John

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

    Race, Reg

    Tilley, John

    Radice, Giles

    Tinn, James

    Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

    Torney, Tom

    Richardson, Jo

    Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Wainwright, Rt (Colne V)

    Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

    Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Watkins, David

    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

    Weetch, Ken

    Rooker, J.W.

    Welsh, Michael

    Roper, John

    White, Frank R.

    Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

    White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Rowlands, Ted

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Ryman, John

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

    Sever, John

    Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

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

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Wilson, William (C' try SE)

    Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

    Winnick, David

    Silverman, Julius

    Woodall, Alec

    Skinner, Dennis

    Woolmer, Kenneth

    Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

    Wright, Sheila

    Snape, Peter

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Soley, Clive

    Spearing, Nigel

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Mr. Hugh McCartney and Mr. Frank Haynes.

    Stallard, A.W.

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Burden, Sir Frederick

    Alexander, Richard

    Butcher, John

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Cadbury, Jocelyn

    Ancram, Michael

    Carlisle, John (Luton West)

    Arnold, Tom

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Chalker, Mrs.Lynda

    Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

    Churchill, W.S.

    Atkins, Robert (Preston)

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

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

    Clegg, Sir Walter

    Banks, Robert

    Cockeram, Eric

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Colvin, Michael

    Bell, Sir Ronald

    Cope, John

    Bendall, Vivian

    Cormack, Patrick

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (T' bay)

    Corrie, John

    Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

    Costain, Sir Albert

    Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Best, Keith

    Crouch, David

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Blackburn, John

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Blaker, Peter

    Dover, Denshore

    Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    Bowden, Andrew

    Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Durant, Tony

    Bright, Graham

    Dykes, Hugh

    Brinton, Tim

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Elliott, Sir William

    Brotherton, Michael

    Emery, Peter

    Brown, Michael (Brigg&Sc'n)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Bruce-Gardyne, John

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

    Faith, Mrs Sheila

    Buck, Antony

    Farr, John

    Budgen, Nick

    Fell, Anthony

    920

    Fenner, Mrs Peggy

    Luce, Richard

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Mc Crindle, Robert

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

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

    MacGregor, John

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    MacKay, John (Argyll)

    Forman, Nigel

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

    Fox, Marcus

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

    Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

    McQuarrie, Albert

    Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

    Madel, David

    Fry, Peter

    Major, John

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Marland, Paul

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Marlow, Antony

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Marshall Michael (Arundel)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Marten, Rt Hon Neil

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Mates, Michael

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

    Goodhew, Victor

    Mawby, Ray

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Gorst, John

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Gow, Ian

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Mellor, David

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Gray, Hamish

    Miller, Hal (B'grove)

    Greenway, Harry

    Mills, Iain (Meriden)

    Grieve, Percy

    Mills, Peter (West Devon)

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

    Mitchell David(Basingstoke)

    Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

    Moate, Roger

    Grist, Ian

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Grylls, Michael

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Gummer, John Selwyn

    Moore, John

    Hamilton, Hon A.

    Morgan, Geraint

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Hannam, John

    Mudd, David

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Murphy, Christopher

    Hastings, Stephen

    Myles, David

    Hawkins, Paul

    Neale, Gerrard

    Hawksley, Warren

    Needham, Richard

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Nelson, Anthony

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Neubert, Michael

    Henderson, Barry

    Newton, Tony

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Nott, Rt Hon John

    Hicks, Robert

    Onslow, Cranley

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr' th 'm)

    Osborn, John

    Holland, Philip (Carlton)

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Hooson, Tom

    Page, Richard (SW Herts)

    Hordern, Peter

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Parris, Matthew

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

    Patten, Christopher (Bath)

    Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Pawsey, James

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Percival, Sir Ian

    Hurd, Hon Douglas

    Peyton, Rt Hon John

    Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

    Pollock, Alexander

    Jessel, Toby

    Porter, Barry

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Raison, Timothy

    Kershaw, Sir Anthony

    Rathbone, Tim

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    Renton, Tim

    Knox, David

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Lamont, Norman

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Lang, Ian

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Latham, Michael

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Lee, John

    Roberts, M. (Cardiff N W)

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Rossi, Hugh

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Rost, Peter

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

    Loveridge, John

    Scott, Nicholas

    921

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)

    Townsend, Cyril D, (B' heath)

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

    Vaughan, Dr Gerard

    Shersby, Michael

    Viggers, Peter

    Silvester, Fred

    Waddington, David

    Sims, Roger

    Wakeham, John

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Smith, Dudley

    Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

    Speed, Keith

    Walker, B. (Perth)

    Speller, Tony

    Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

    Spence, John

    Wall, Sir Patrick

    Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

    Waller, Gary

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Walters, Dennis

    Sproat, Iain

    Ward, John

    Squire, Robin

    Warren, Kenneth

    Stainton, Keith

    Watson, John

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Wells, Bowen

    Stanley, John

    Wheeler, John

    Steen, Anthony

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    Stevens, Martin

    Whitney, Raymond

    Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

    Wickenden, Keith

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Stokes, John

    Wilkinson, John

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Williams, D.(Montgomery)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Wolfson, Mark

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Thompson, Donald

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

    Mr. Anthony Berry and Mr. Robert Boscawen.

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes the progress achieved by Her Majesty's Government in the search for a satisfactory revised Common Fisheries Policy, particularly in relation to conservation and marketing; confirms that such a policy must maintain the need to secure an exclusive 12 mile limit, preference outside 12 miles to protect particularly dependent fishing communities, adequate quotas for the United Kingdom, effective conservation measures and a Community-wide system of enforcement as well as improvements in the marketing arrangements hitherto in force; and urges Her Majesty's Government vigorously to continue, in consultation with the fishing industry, the search for a solution on the outstanding issues.

    Lorries, People and the Environment
    Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    7.21 pm
    Mr. Albert Booth: I beg to move,
    That this House, believing that the measures proposed in the White Paper "Lorries, People and the Environment" are inadequate to solve the problems of existing heavy lorries, is opposed to any increase in heavy lorry weights.
    Few transport issues have aroused such widespread and continuing concern as the proposal to raise the legal limits for the weights of heavy lorries that run on the roads of this country. In view of the previous decision taken by the House on the issue, it is understandable that the Government should have proceeded with considerable caution in their approach to their own proposals. Having set up the Armitage committee, having published its report a year ago and having read carefully, I hope, the 58 recommendations that the committee made, the Government have taken 12 months before putting their proposals in a White Paper and laying it before the House. That is understandable. What is almost impossible to understand is why the White Paper bears only the faintest resemblance to the Armitage proposals.
    In a previous debate, I was among those who criticised the Armitage proposals for not going far enough. However, the White Paper contains only the faintest shadow of the safeguards that Armitage proposed. It does not begin to approach what is required to deal with the problems of today's heavy lorries, let alone the heavier lorries that are proposed. It is therefore not surprising that most, if not all, of the major bodies that have made representations to the Government on the issue have expressed their considerable opposition.
    The Association of County Councils has expressed considerable disappointment. That puts things mildly. The Association of District Councils has said that the White Paper opens the floodgates to a storm of protest. That reflects the situation more fairly. The Association of Metropolitan Associations has expressed its total rejection of the Government's heavy lorry proposals in the White Paper. Most environmentalist bodies concerned with Armitage are totally dismayed at the proposals in the White Paper. Even the road haulage industry must be embarrassed at the lack of a package that embraces the heavyweight lorry proposal in a defensible way.
    I wish to endear myself to hon. Members by giving two assurances. First, I do not intend to speak on each of the 58 recommendations of the Armitage committee. Secondly, I realise that many hon. Members wish to express views. I shall therefore restrict my remarks to a few of the issues. This is not to say that I consider them the only issues or the most important issues. I hope that will be understood.
    I wish to deal first with the Government's proposition that heavier lorries will mean fewer lorries. On that, the Government rest a number of their assertions in favour of what they propose. The Government's proposition flies in the face of experience in this country and of the statistical evidence taken by Armitage. In fact, statistical evidence and experience show that each time there has been an increase in the maximum permitted weight of lorries, there has been a big increase in the number of heavy lorries on our roads. I wish to take only three of the most recent and, I think, apposite increases to demonstrate what I say.

    923
    In 1955, when the 24-tonne lorry was permitted for the first time on our roads, the number of lorries over eight tonnes unladen weight was 5,000. In 1960 the figure was 11,000. When the 32-tonne articulated lorry—the lorry that has given rise to considerable concern—was first allowed on our roads, the number, by the same definition, increased from 24,000 in 1965 to 55,000 in 1970.
    The most recent increase of any significance followed the introduction of the 30-tonne fixed four-axle lorry in 1972. The number of heavy lorries, by the same definition, was 96,000 in 1975, and that number had increased to 121,000 by 1979. There is no evidence that the increase in the maximum permitted weight will do other than encourage, for understandable reasons, those in the road haulage business to go for more freight business. They can, by virtue of the increased lorry weights, compete more effectively with the railways, helped by the motorway programme carried out during the period to which I have referred. With each increase in lorry weights, the amount of freight carried by rail, expressed on a tonnene mileage basis, has declined both in percentage and absolute terms, whereas the amount carried by lorries on our roads has increased.
    In 1953, more freight in tonne mileage terms was carried on the railways than was carried by lorries on the roads. By 1979, lorries were carrying five times as much freight in tonne mileage terms as the railways. On the evidence available and in the light of experience it is almost impossible to believe that an increase in the permitted weight of lorries, as proposed in the White Paper will mean fewer lorries on the roads. The signs are that there will be more. This affects what the Government—
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell): The right hon. Gentleman is dealing with a very important point. I think he said—I hope I do not misrepresent him—that the Armitage report did not support the view that there would be fewer lorries if they were allowed to carry a full load. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is correct. Paragraph 360 of the report reads:
    "Heavier lorries should reduce the total amount of lorry traffic on the roads. If heavier lorries were allowed, the reduction in lorry traffic compared to what the traffic would otherwise be, might be about 450 million—500 million miles by 1990"
    Paragraph 361 reads:
    "It has been suggested in evidence that allowing heavier lorries might increase lorry traffic, through the attraction of business from competing modes, principally the railways. This is not likely to be very significant."
    All the scientific evidence refutes what the right hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Booth: I agree that this is an important issue. What Armitage said in those chapters contradicts the statistical evidence.
    Mr. Howell: The right hon. Gentleman said that Armitage contradicted the proposition that there would be fewer lorries if they were allowed to carry the full load. That is not so. He should withdraw what he said.
    Mr. Booth: I shall not withdraw what I said, because the statistical evidence taken by Armitage bears out what I said. I do not want to waste the time of the House. I shall discuss that matter with the right hon. Gentleman later. However, I assure him that I have checked the figures
    924
    carefully. If he wants to check them, he should turn to table 4 on page 6. That table shows the actual tonnage by road, rail, coastal shipping, and so on. Table 5 on page 7 shows that 22·8 thousand million tonne miles were carried by rail in 1953 as opposed to 19·7 thousand million tonne miles by road. That bears out my contention. The right hon. Gentleman will see in the same table that in 1979 road was carrying 64 thousand million tonne miles, and rail was carrying only 12·2 thousand million tonne miles. That is exactly what I said—that five times as much freight was carried by road as by rail.
    The statistical evidence taken by Armitage bears out exactly what I said. Armitage's assumption about road damage, particularly in a free market as opposed to the Community where there is strict quantity control licensing on heavy lorries, is little more than an assumption and does not relate to the statistical evidence.
    Mr. Gary Waller: I do not want to get bogged down in an argument about statistics with the right hon. Gentleman, but he is being selective. Between 1949 and 1979, the number of lorries in Great Britain increased by only 74 per cent., whereas road vehicles generally increased by 500 per cent. Can he explain that other than that there was a trend towards heavier lorries, which reduced the number on the roads?
    Mr. Booth: The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) is being selective. If he is talking about the total number of vehicles, including cars, over the past decade, there has been a greater increase in the number of lorries of three axles or more than in the number of cars. If he is talking about heavy lorries, I must point out that that my definition was 8 tonnes unladen weight. If he is talking of lower weights, he will find that, even at the lowest weights taken by Armitage, an enormous increase in the number of the heaviest lorries is needed before there is any fall-off in the number of smaller lorries.
    I am not being selective. Experience in this country has shown that the railways have lost freight in absolute and percentage terms to roads as we have increased lorry weights and built motorways. That is not being selective; that is reality. That is the experience of this country.
    Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Would the right hon. Gentleman read table 32, which deals with the estimated number of heavier lorries?
    Mr. Booth: I have read the estimated number. I have also read—the hon. Lady does not appear to have done so—the actual number of lorries in Armitage and the actual number of goods vehicles. Table 1 on page 5 shows that the number of lorries of over 8 tonnes unladen weight has risen consistently from 1946 to 1979. The number of lorries "not over 1½ tonnes" has also risen consistently during that period. It is only the small category of lorries of unladen weight between 1½ tonnes and 3 tonnes that has shown any sign of decline, and that only during the past five years. The hon. Lady should listen to what I say if she wishes to take part in the argument. The actual numbers, as opposed to the estimates, support my contention.
    That is important, although not conclusive, to the Government's argument about road damage. The Government claim that road damage would be reduced by the introduction of heavier lorries. Again, that statement needs to be questioned against evidence and experience.

    925
    To be fair, the Government say that, although some of the lorries that they are proposing are more damaging, the fact that the number would come down pro rata to the increase in their permitted payload would more than offset the increased damage caused by those lorries.
    Mr. Peter Fry: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the evidence given to the Select Committee on Transport, Sir Henry Chilver, the vice-chancellor of the Cranfield Institute of Technology, said:
    "if we move into the heavier lorries, we would indeed, if we transferred goods to the heavier lorries, do less damage"?
    Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the opinion of one of the leading experts on this subject in the country?
    Mr. Booth: That is a highly selective quotation, if the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) will allow me to say so. The overwhelming bulk of qualified technical opinion is that the damage that an individual lorry does tends to rise with the sum of the fourth power of its axle weights. Whether the bigger lorry does more or less damage depends on the axle weights and how many axles there are.
    Armitage said that 90 per cent. of the damage to our roads was done by the heavy lorry. If the statistical evidence supports the idea that there will be more larger lorries on the roads, there will be even more damage.
    Let us suppose that the Government are right and that the number of lorries drops in strict proportion to their increase in payload. If the operators of the 32·5-tonne gross weight lorry, which will be allowed under the Government's proposals to run at 40 tonnes, say "We do not need so many lorries now. We shall scrap a number pro rata, and run the remaining number on our roads at 40 tonnes", they will still do 15 per cent. more damage, according to the calculation in the Armitage report. The reason includes the fact that the Government are proposing that most of the new lorries will be allowed to have two or more axles at heavier weights. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He cannot have read the Armitage report if he does not accept that the 34-tonne lorry that he proposes has a higher damage and standard axle number than the existing 32·5-tonne lorry.
    The Government are proposing that every axle weight on a 32·5-tonne lorry should be allowed to be more heavily loaded. That is bound to do more damage. It is proposed that the 38-tonne should have higher steering and drive axle weights than the 32·5-tonne.
    The right hon. Gentleman proposes a 40-tonne vehicle. According to the Armitage test, the lorry proposed by the right hon. Gentleman does the least damage to our roads. Again according to the Armitage test, it would do less damage than some existing lorries. However, it would still do more damage than the 44-tonne lorry. That lorry will be allowed to run with a higher steering axle weight and higher semi-trailer axle weight than the existing 32·5-tonne lorry. The White Paper, in paragraph 25, states
    "people wrongly believe that there are plans afoot to make lorries even bigger."
    In addition, in paragraph 30, it states:
    "It is essential to ensure that heavier lorries can be no bigger than the biggest lorries we have at present."
    Why does the Secretary of State contradict himself? In the same paragraph as he says that it is essential that lorries should not be any bigger, he states:
    "The Government also proposes to increase the legal limit on articulated vehicle length to 15.5 metres".
    926
    Therefore, there is no doubt that an increase in vehicle dimensions is being proposed for articulated vehicles.
    There are two other proposals in the White Paper that will also result in bigger vehicles on the roads. First, I refer to the increase in specialised vehicles. At present, they are built to limits appropriate to the loads that they carry. A petrol tanker is a good example. Today, the petrol tank is built to carry a payload that brings the vehicle's total weight to 32·5 tonnes. However, if the Government's proposals are carried, petrol tankers will have tanks that are big enough to carry a payload that will bring the total gross lorry weight to 40 tonnes—if it is a two-drive axle lorry—or to 38 tonnes, if it is a single drive axle lorry. Therefore, there will be bigger lorries.
    I am even more concerned that the proposed increase in weight will act as an incentive towards using many more trailer combinations on our roads. Those combinations are undoubtedly longer. We do not see many on British roads, but they are on the roads in Germany and other countries and they are considerably bigger than our biggest articulated wagons. They are longer by an amount that is greater than my height and I am not the shortest Member of Parliament. Therefore, the lorries will be far too big for many of our roads, which are unsuitable even for existing lorries and were never designed to take 40-tonne lorries.
    The White Paper claims that we should accept heavier lorries because the Government have a trunk road programme that gives high priority to bypasses. Of course, bypasses relieve some of the most serious effects of heavy lorries. If that claim were borne out, several people might be influenced. The Government's evidence to the Armitage committee was that 400 additional bypasses were required. That was a conservative estimate in both senses of the word. The County Surveyors Society said that 600 or more additional bypasses were justified on economic grounds alone.
    The truth is that only 21 bypasses are under construction. The White Paper brings forward a further 11 bypasses for construction. That will leave 31 of the bypasses in the suspended list. I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind that that includes the Dalton bypass on the A590 in my constituency. Indeed, that is a classic example of a road that is unsuitable for 40-tonne lorries. The programme will leave 32 of the bypasses in the 1984 onward reserve list and 37 that will not start before 1984. The road haulage industry regards that as part of an inadequate road programme. The British Road Federation contends that road construction is now half what it was 10 years ago. Traffic, particularly heavy lorry traffic, has increased during that period.
    I was interested to note the question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes), which was answered on 30 November in col. 46 of Hansard. It gave the Government's estimate of the amount of new road to be opened next year. The question reveals that the Government's estimate is that only 39 miles of new motorway and trunk road will be opened next year. In 1978, 87 miles were opened. In fairness to the Government and their predecessors, I should add that 264 miles were opened in 1971.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Of course, 1971 was some time ago. The right hon. Gentleman complains about the low mileage figures for next year. Will he look, in the same answer, at the number of miles to be opened in 1983? The

    927
    right hon. Gentleman will find that a dramatic increase is expected, over and above any of the mileages achieved under the last years of the Labour Government.
    Mr. Booth: I could point to dramatic increases in mileage under the Labour Government. I cited 1982, because presumably that is the year that the Government have in mind for the introduction of heavier lorries. They intend to introduce such lorries although they are cutting expenditure on trunk road construction. Within a total transport expenditure cut of £220 million, at 1979 survey prices—I cite the Government's estimates for expenditure—they are cutting trunk road construction.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having given way yet again. I shall not intervene again in his speech. However, he knows that we are reducing expenditure only because we are getting a better bargain for the taxpayer, because contract prices are lower than forecast. Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that we are delivering the trunk road programme in full? As he has the answer in front of him, will he give the mileage for 1983 and compare it with the mileages under the last years of the Labour Government? In 1983 there will be a dramatic increase in the mileage of new roads to be opened. That undermines the point that the right hon. Gentleman was trying to make by saying that we are failing to deliver the bypasses.
    Mr. Booth: I have not got the answer in front of me, but I read it carefully before attending the debate. I chose 1982, because that programme was entirely within the Government's control. If I had chosen the programmes for 1981, 1980 or 1979, some of the roads opened would have been begun under the Labour Government. Equally, if I had chosen 1975, some of the roads would have been started under a Labour Government. I chose a year that seemed appropriate. I listened with great interest to the Under-Secretary of State when he said that there had been a cut in expenditure because we were getting better value for money. That is a nice change in defensive argument. Not long ago we were told that the Department of Transport's budget was being cut because the Government—reasonably, from their point of view—expected the Department to make some contributions to public expenditure savings. If such cuts have been made to achieve better value for money, it makes a delightful change of tune.
    Generally, the White Paper pays little regard to Armitage's serious proposals about how to deal with the problems of heavy lorries. It offers a reduction in lorry noise that will be barely detectable to the human ear and is to be introduced by means of regulations that will come into force in 1983. It offers further reduction which might be brought about in the future by collaborative research and development. It does virtually nothing more to deal with the problems of ground vibration, fumes and safety standards, on which it is particularly non-committal.
    The White Paper appears to deny the evidence of water and gas boards and local authorities that heavy goods vehicles are damaging to our cities' underground services. That is particularly noteworthy as Manchester has just produced direct evidence that when heavy vehicles were re-routed underground services suffered enormous damage on the new routes.
    928
    The White Paper dismisses as insignificant the effect of heavy lorries on bridges, in spite of the fact that the Institution of Highway Engineers says that we shall probably have to spend another £100 million on improvements to cope with the proposals.
    One of the clearest signs that the Government are backing away from the serious issues that heavy lorries raise is their failure to make any proposals for more effective control of operators and more effective enforcement of lorry weights. Illegal running and overloading are serious problems. With the introduction of heavier lorries, even the displacement of a metre either way can make a significant difference to axle loading and damage to the roads. The Government have no proposals for the adequate staffing of enforcement bodies. They do not propose a programme of dynamic weigh bridges which will be needed to check the heavier lorries.
    If the Government seriously believe that little can be done to reduce the harmful effects of heavier lorries, the White Paper is at least honest. Any Armitage recommendations that the Government do not ignore are confined to further research and investigation. The recommendations that they accept can be delivered in only a few cases because the resources are not to be made available. The Government are vague about what should be studied and what should be discussed.
    In only one area is the White Paper hard and fast and crystal clear in its recommendations—where it proposes the increase in heavy lorry weights. It is so clear about that that the Government have already published for consultation their draft regulations to introduce the increases in weights under the construction and use regulations.
    Heavy lorries are seen by most who suffer from them as vehicles which produce intolerable noise, fumes, vibration damage and congestion. Hon. Members know, from the Government's response in the White Paper, that it will be a long time before there is any improvement. We cannot do much to deal with that, but we can do something to ensure that in the meantime conditions do not become much worse. We should vote for the motion.
    7.53 pm
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    `this House, believing that environmental and social problems arising from heavy lorries must be tackled comprehensively and vigorously and that industry should be helped to keep down transport costs, welcomes the Government's commitment to a continuing and substantial programme of by-pass construction to which further additions are steadily being made, and considers that decisions should not be taken on the White Paper until there has been adequate time to consider fully all the measures proposed in the light of consultations on the draft amending Regulations published for that purpose.'.
    I am glad to have the opportunity of setting out in more detail the proposals in the Government's White Paper for grappling with the heavy lorry problem. I shall deal with some of the arguments expressed by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). I find less attractive the Opposition's attempt to bounce us into decisions on a White Paper that the right hon. Gentleman has recognised involves matters of great complexity that deserve careful discussion.
    We are dealing with the interests of tens of thousands of people in our villages and towns. We are dealing with

    929
    the jobs of 300,000 people in road haulage. We are dealing with the jobs of thousands of people in the truck-building industry, where demand is way down and there is a great need of certainty and orders. My right hon. and hon. Friends are absolutely right to be anxious about the difficult problems but I am sure that the House and the country will see that the Opposition's attempt to hustle us into an instant decision, on a matter that the right hon. Gentleman agrees needs careful consideration, will not be welcome. It will be dismissed.
    The issue has been debated on several occasions. Only last January the right hon. Gentleman said that two months was not nearly enough time in which to examine the Armitage report before a debate. We have had barely a week. The Government have produced a detailed White Paper and after a week we are being hustled into a decision.
    The House has been assured—and I gladly repeat the assurance emphatically—that there will be a full debate on the Government's proposals. We are proposing a two-month period of consultation on the draft regulations. After that, regulations will be tabled. I have said, and I repeat, that the Government's mind is open to new evidence, and obviously I shall listen carefully to what is said in debate and in the consultations. That is the proper way to go about dealing with a matter that involves many people's interests, welfare and jobs. The right hon. Gentleman has not approached the matter in the way that he should in proposing that we should be pushed into a decision tonight, only one week after the publication of a White Paper containing many complex aspects.
    Mr. Paul Dean: Did I understand my right hon. Friend to say that his mind is open on all the decisions with which we are concerned, that the consultation will be genuine and that no decisions will be made until that process is complete? Is that the assurance that he is giving to the House?
    Mr. Howell: I am assuring the House that the Government's mind is open to new evidence and that the Government will listen carefully to what is said in debate and in the consultations. That is the right way to go about dealing with a matter of great complexity when, as I shall argue later, there are substantial environmental and industrial gains within our grasp. To seek to telescope the discussions into one week is not the right way to deal with such serious and difficult issues.
    The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness argued a number of points. At one stage he seemed to be confused about the evidence in Armitage. For that reason alone it would be wrong to rush into a decision. Clearly the right hon. Gentleman's confusion about the figures is considerable. He is unable to interpret clearly the precise figures in the Armitage report about heavier lorries leading to fewer lorries.
    Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The Secretary of State has been asked whether his mind is made up. Will he give an undertaking that the consultations will be real? It is clear in the White Paper that the Government's mind is made up. The White Paper states:
    "These objectives cannot be achieved overnight: road improvements take time and the lorry fleet can only be changed as vehicles are replaced."
    Why did not the Government produce a Green Paper for consultation instead of a White Paper?
    Mr. Howell: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), I made it clear that the Government's proposals have been put forward. Draft regulations have been circulated. A decision on regulations to be tabled and debated by the House will have to be made. That is the right way. The right hon. Gentleman's way is the wrong way. The country and people deeply interested in these matters will not appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's way.
    Mr. Booth: The Secretary of State said that my evidence was confused. He will be able to read the figures that I gave in Hansard. He can check tables 1 and 5 of the Armitage report at pages 5 to 7 and if every figure that I have given is correct he should come forward with an appropriate apology.
    Mr. Howell: The right hon. Gentleman's recognition that I must examine many figures reinforces my point that trying to hustle the House into a decision tonight is wholly inappropriate. I ask him to consider paragraph 360 of the Armitage report and reconcile that with his apparent statement that Armitage does not recognise and validate the point that if there were a move to fully loaded lorries there would be fewer lorries. It does just that. It is there in black and white. I shall need his recognition of the confusion in his mind about the matter. I am sure that he is right to say that the figures are complex. He seems now to be arguing against his own motion and saying that we need more time in which to consider the different figures.
    I turn to the purpose of the Government in putting forward our proposals in a White Paper. The purpose is clearly to get lorries away from people and to reduce industrial costs for freight haulage. The position now is becoming worse. Some of my hon. Friends rightly have said that this is a difficult issue. I must tell them that the position is not static. The 32·5-tonne lorry presents a problem that is becoming considerably and unpleasantly worse for many people. We must recognise that fact and face it.
    Sir Arthur Armitage reminded us of this in paragraph 139 of his report when he said:
    "Our objective must be to recommend a combination of policies which will be sufficient to reduce substantially the adverse effects of lorries overall, and to reduce the problems caused by lorries in as many as possible of the places which already suffer severely or which would suffer a large deterioration in conditions if nothing further were done."
    That is the purpose put forward in the Armitage report and it is certainly the Government's purpose in putting forward the White Paper.
    I turn now to the question whether lorry trailers are bigger, about which there has been much public comment. The cab is 1½ ft—half a metre—larger, but the containers are no bigger. I must make that clear, because I have read in the newspapers that hon. Members fear bigger juggernauts. I, too, would fear bigger juggernauts. We do not wish to see bigger juggernauts on the roads. On the contrary, the proposals in the White Paper introduce, for the first time, restrictions on height for the new heavy vehicles. Nor was it proposed in the Armitage report that there should be bigger trucks on our roads. I would not advocate that such a proposal should be brought to the House for decision during the next two months. That is the first point that must be made clear—we do not propose to have larger containers on British trucks.
    The next issue that I wish to take up is the one to which the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness has returned

    931
    several times, as have other hon. Members. They say that in the White Paper we are selecting from the Armitage report proposals that will be of particular benefit to the road haulage industry and freight transportation in Britain. That is wholly untrue. There are 58 recommendations in the report. We have said straight away that we accept 46 of them. We have said that we shall pursue a further four recommendations, which are vitally important. Of the remaining eight recommendations one deals with weight markings, which we do not believe to be necessary. Although the lorries will be no bigger, they will have an extra axle. Another recommendation is addressed to local authorities and three others deal with section 8 grants.
    I wish my hon. Friends to be clear, when considering their views about the White Paper, that the Government are accepting the overwhelming majority of the Armitage proposals, because we see the set of proposals and policies as a package dealing with the deterioriating problem of the heavy lorry, where action is required for environmental and economic reasons.
    The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness also mentioned bypasses. It is absolutely fair and proper to ask: what are the Government doing about the bypass programme, given that it is the Government's aim, as it was of Armitage, to keep lorries away from people and to get them off roads for which they were never designed? I must say to the House—because I do not believe that hon. Members will have got the right impression from the right hon. Gentleman's words—that the bypass programme is both substantial and growing. During the next few years we expect to start new trunk road schemes of a total value of about £800 million. Of that sum, about £200 million is accounted for by schemes that are specific bypasses of towns or villages. The total value of our longer-term programme is £2·5 billion, of which £600 million is for specific bypass schemes.
    We are continually adding to the programme. The new and speeded up bypasses that we announced in July and November and in the Armitage White Paper are not the last word. The programme is kept under regular review and I hope to announce the results of our current consideration in January. If we can sensibly do more, we shall, but the essential point is that we are already doing a great deal. That is the central Government trunk road programme.
    As to local bypasses, there are 50 schemes now under construction at a value of £300 million. In the transport supplementary grants settlement for 1982–83, which I hope to announce before Christmas, I have given high priority to county councils with urgent proposals for bypasses and relief roads. The funds that I make available will enable local authorities to go ahead with another 35 bypass projects worth about £130 million, with a further 47 schemes worth about £280 million in the pipeline and proposed to be started during the next two or three years. I repeat that it is a total of 82 bypasses valued at £400 million on top of the local authority schemes already under construction. Those schemes make a striking contrast to the selective figures picked out by—
    Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Howell: I shall not give way. The debate is a short one and I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
    932
    I turn now to lorry control and what more we can do to ensure that lorries travel more on roads that are capable of holding them and less where they are unpleasant and unwelcome. Local authorities have extensive powers on such matters, but we should try to do more about three matters. We shall be reviewing the needs of local authorities when putting their powers into effect. We shall issue further advice, drawing on experience since the 1973 Act introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), to consider how the powers work. We shall pursue lorry action area proposals urgently with the local authorities.
    I know that some hon. Members have said that it is essential that that aspect of the package should be emphasised. There is no doubt that it is a vitally important part of the package.
    Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my right Friend give way?
    Mr. Spriggs: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Howell: I shall press on a little more, as time is short.
    The right hon. Gentleman made great play with the question whether there will be fewer lorries on the road if they are allowed to run fully loaded and with the extra axle rather than with the four-fifths load. The TRRL states, and the Armitage report accepts, that if there are heavier lorries there will be fewer lorries. Paragraph 360 of the report states:
    "There would be an absolute increase in the mileage of the heaviest lorries, but the increase would be some 20–25 per cent. less than if the maximum weight remained at 32·5 tonnes."
    That statement draws on the TRRL's extensive research, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot brush it aside.
    Greater economic activity will mean that more goods will be transported and that lorry and freight traffic will increase, but that will happen if we do nothing. However, if we do not allow the fuller loads proposed in the White Paper, we shall have more large lorries on the roads. That fact must be faced in making our decision, after proper consultation on maximum weights.
    Mr. Spriggs: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Howell: No. Many of my hon. Friends wish to speak, and I am now coming to a close.
    Finally, it is said that the proposals are just for industry. We should not be ashamed to seek ways to help industry. As it is frequently said, it is vital to keep down transport costs. We are a business nation. We should carefully consider the pros and cons when we have the opportunity to do something practical. Industry would welcome the benefits. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce with 57,000 members, major chemical industries, such as ICI and major agricultural interests, such as the NFU, urge us to proceed along the lines of the White Paper.
    I should not dream of putting forward the proposals if there were to be no substantial environmental gains, but there will be fewer lorries, as Armitage and the TRRL confirms, and they will be safer, quieter and cleaner. Those advantages have been confirmed by thorough study. The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness sought to refute those facts, but he merely got himself deeper into a quagmire of statistics.

    933
    We have the right to assess the case and we are entirely right to reject the motion, which would deny us the opportunity to consider a vitally important matter, with a potential for great environmental and industrial gains.
    Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Howell: I ask the House to support the amendment and to reject the motion.
    8.13 pm
    Mr. T. W. Urwin: Despite the importance of the discussion, I wish only to make a brief contribution to assist others who wish to intervene.
    I give my unequivocal support to the motion, which reflects the attitude of many of my constituents who lobbied extensively following the publication of the Armitage report last December. A large number of my people reacted violently to the proposals for heavier lorries. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) said, many of our roads are inadequate. Some were built for eighteenth century traffic, and they are overcrowded with an ever increasing number of large vehicles. Not all major roads are even built to resist the excessive wear and tear.
    I have some sympathy with the lobby to increase lorry weights, which includes the British Road Federation and the General Council of British Shipping, but I am even more mindful of the escalating problems in many towns, cities and seaports if the weight is increase to 40 tonnes, as proposed by Armitage.
    If the decision were implemented the problems that my constituency already has to endure would be considerably accentuated. The number of heavy vehicles on the roads in my constituency is increasing. We have six coal mines, two coke works and coal mines to the south and to the north. Two of my coal mines operate under the North Sea and are situated near the beach. The nuisance of dust, noise and vibration continues and affects people's health. Nowhere is the problem more acute than in the small town and port of Seaham.
    We are grateful to the National Coal Board for providing jobs in an area with excessively high unemployment, but its extensive operations produce divergent problems. Stockpiling coal gives rise to heavy traffic to move that coal. Coal is also moved to be blended to comply with the requirements of the steel industry.
    The small port in my constituency is vigorous, bustling and thriving because of good management. Since the export of coal ceased, it has had to diversify its activities, although it is again now marginally operating in coal exports. The divergence of its activities creates extra heavy traffic in a small, built-up and heavily congested area. As many as 120 heavy vehicles, carrying coal or perhaps slurry from pits, pound up and down a narrow built-up street throughout the day and night. The 5 per cent. reduction in the number of lorries if heavier lorries were introduced would be a great blessing to my constituents. At 3 o'clock in the morning they would be able to consider the fact that only six fewer lorries would pass by in the next 24 hours.
    I pay tribute to the National Coal Board, to the Seaham harbour dock company, the Durham county council and the Department of the Environment, who have joined me in trying to solve the problem. We are on the way to finding a partial solution to benefit many of my people,
    934
    but, whatever improvements are made, a large number of heavy vehicles will still travel through my constituency, so I give my wholehearted support to the motion.
    8.20 pm
    Mr. John Peyton: I hope that I shall not be misunderstood if I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) yesterday and say that I only want to be helpful.
    I shall support the Government's amendment for three reasons. First, it states that the Government will take "adequate time" to consider representations. Secondly, it strengthens the commitment that has already been made to bypasses. I shall say more about that later. Thirdly, my right hon. Friend has assured the House that he has an open mind on the subject. I believe that he would have done better if he had made it clearer in the White Paper that he faces a difficult task. He has to reconcile the need for an economic, efficient transport system in this country and an opportunity for our manufacturing industry to make a contribution to it with the resentment felt by many people at the intrusion of huge vehicles into places where there is literally no room for them.
    From time to time, the House should be reminded that White Papers exist officially to promote public understanding. It is a long time since any of us has seen a White Paper that goes even a few inches down the road of promoting public understanding. I cannot resist the temptation of calling the attention of the House to one gem in this White Paper, which has one merit—it is brief. Paragraph 19 states:
    "It will be important to keep the methodology of assessment under review to keep pace with improved techniques and changing circumstances, and the Government will ensure that this is done."
    I wonder what that adds to the sum of human happiness and wisdom. That sort of claptrap could be easily dispensed with.
    On page 9 of the same document—there are only 12 pages in it—the Government finally came to the real point, their intention to increase the laden weight of a lorry to 40 tonnes. I cannot for the life of me understand why my right hon. Friend and his Department did not state clearly in the White Paper that they were thinking of introducing a new vehicle that would carry a heavier load, that would be minimally larger in order to accommodate a better and safer cab which would be allowed to go faster but that the axle loading would be unchanged. It would also, in time, become less noisy, less smelly, less dirty, and there would be a limit on its height. It would be safer, more efficient and pay more towards road costs. That would be a reasonably honest and intelligible summary of the position. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State will make it clear in his reply whether he accepts my summary; if he does not, I hope that he will adopt it because it is a great deal better than anything that the Government have managed to come up with.
    If the Government adopted my advice, the way would be open for discussion of some of the important points. I should like to know what the Government mean by their reference to a research and development programme. Many people in public life frequently mouth those words, but they have long ago forgotten what they mean. The House is entitled to know something about the details of the research and development programme—which is very

    935
    necessary—that the Government contemplate. The Government should also say how they intend to meet the problem of enforcement, which is a real problem. We cannot have the roads littered with people stopping every road vehicle. That drives one to the conclusion that only ferocious penalties will deal with the problem. Anyone who breaches the law seriously should be in danger of having his vehicle and load impounded for an indefinite period. That would make people think pretty hard.
    We should also consider the details of how the contribution of the so-called customer to the costs of the track will be measured. The House is entitled to know the side effects on the numbers of vehicles with draw-bar trailers. Their use is legal now, but they are uneconomic unless and until the overall weight is raised. Have the Government formed any estimate of numbers?
    I also welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on bypasses, but we have to think about the meaning of words and measure their meaning and value against the background of our procedures, which too often are those of a tortoise that has lost its sense of direction. Our progress in building roads is incredibly sluggish. It is not only the fault of Ministers, for this country has carefully preserved an ability to prevent almost anything. I am not yet satisfied with the rather brusque way in which the possibility of lorry routes has been pushed on one side simply because it is a difficult problem. The whole problem is difficult, and this aspect of it needs serious thought.
    I do not wish to take up much more of the time of the House because I believe that ex-Ministers returning to their old stamping ground are a nuisance. I conclude my remarks with two requests to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I hope that they will bury deep the strongly held official belief that one can get a quart into a pint pot as long as one turns away and does not look at the process. I invite my right hon. and hon. and learned Friends to come to my constituency. I hope that I shall not be accused of being parochial, but I should like them to look at the quaint old lanes that meander through Montacute, West Coker and Langport. All three quaint old lanes are class A roads. To describe them in that way, of course, violates language. Before the Government brush aside further consideration of lorry routes, they should think of the condition of those quaint old country lanes now masquerading as main roads.
    I am overflowing with hospitality this evening. I should like my right hon. Friend to come down to my part of the country and to make his way on a summer weekend through Ilminster. The building of its bypass has unaccountably slipped because of the tortoise-like procedures to which I referred earlier.
    I do not want to be unkind. I know the difficulties faced by my right hon. Friend. However, I hope that he will take away the White Paper and pulp it. He can then return to the House with a clearer and more forthright statement of his intentions, and how he will carry them out. It will then be possible for those who now feel threatened to think that their cause has been understood. They may even understand something of the difficulties faced by the Government. They may then lose the strongly held impression that they have been sold a pup in a rather shabby way.
    8.30 pm
    Mr. John Cartwright: In view of the concluding remarks of the Secretary of State, I want to make it absolutely clear that my colleagues and I appreciate and recognise the contribution made by the road haulage industry to the British economy in general, and to industry in particular. We recognise that, whatever action is taken to promote alternatives, road transport will play a leading role in the carriage of goods, especially those that need to be moved efficiently and rapidly.
    However, I am not persuaded that everything possible is being done to switch freight away from road transport where that can effectively be undertaken. I represent a South-East London riverside constituency. My constituents point out that the river Thames is the broadest, simplest highway into the centre of London that can carry goods with no environmental damage. More should be done to use the waterways, as is done successfully by our European neighbours.
    The Government rest their case for allowing heavier lorries on the argument that they are presenting a package of environmental safeguards and improvements. I am not persuaded by what they set out in the White Paper. It is certain that we shall have the heavier lorries. The environmental improvements and benefits are much less certain. The White Paper argument is that heavier lorries mean fewer lorries. The Secretary of State rests that argument on paragraph 360 of the Armitage report. We must remember exactly what that paragraph states. It includes the sentence:
    "Heavier lorries should reduce the total amount of lorry traffic on the roads."
    It does not say that they will, but that they should. That estimate is based on forecasts made by transport economists.
    Mr. Fry: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if there is no increase in lorry weights and there is economic recovery there will be even more lorries on the roads, many of which could do even more damage than the proposed 40-tonnes?
    Mr. Cartwright: I understand that argument. However, the Government say that heavier lorries mean fewer lorries. That is based on estimates by transport economists. There is healthy scepticism about all economic forecasting. I do not know why transport economists should be different. All the evidence shows that when we have increased lorry weights we have not decreased the number of lorries. In fact, they have increased.
    The White Paper does not take account of the movement of foreign lorries. Movements through the port of Dover between 1967 and 1979 increased more than 24 times, from 21,000 to 506,000. That shows the problem.
    I turn to the Government's proposals for bypasses. They may be an ideal solution for the problems of heavy lorries that threaten small towns, but they do not offer a solution to the problems of the conurbations and the metropolitan areas.
    In my part of South London it is absolutely impossible to have a system under which lorries shift goods from factories and warehouses to the trunk road system without passing through residential streets and shopping centres. It may be suggested that urban motorways are the solution to the problem, but we all recognise their cost in

    937
    environmental damage and financial investment. It is clear that in the great conurbations and metropolitan areas the bypass programme does not offer a solution to the problem of the heavy lorries.
    Paragraph 2 of the White Paper suggests that lorries are already far too noisy. It refers to the 1983 proposition to reduce noise levels to 88 decibels. That will mean a high level of noise—about 1 decibel less than the 1970 permitted level. The White Paper pays a great deal of attention to the QHV90—the so-called quieter lorry—that will have a noise emission of 80 decibels, about the level of the noisiest car. That development has been promised throughout the 1980s, but we have only one prototype. I understand that the 80-decibel limit will depend on agreement with our European partners. There can be no guarantee of success, and no assurance to the long-suffering public of quieter lorries in the short term.
    There is also the problem of vibration. Paragraph 20 of the White Paper states that people dislike vibration. I suggest that they more than dislike it. They believe that vibration damages their property, and there is good evidence to support that view. The White Paper seems. to be silent on vibration and on the impact that the proposed heavier lorries will have on the vibration problem.
    There is one humorous but slightly chilling comment in paragraph 33 of the White Paper:
    "the greater impact of the heavier lorry in a collision would only increase marginally the severity of accidents".
    That is of small comfort to anyone who is run into by a juggernaut.
    If we couple the increased weight with the higher speed of lorries as proposed in the White Paper, we have an even more chilling prospect. If the Secretary of State were offered a choice between being hit by a 32·5 tonne lorry at 40 mph and a 40-tonne lorry at 50 mph, I think I know which one he would choose.
    Parking is another major difficulty. Those who have large lorries parked outside their homes find the visual intrusion of such lorries distressing. In urban areas there are the problems of drivers sleeping in their vehicles, refrigerated lorries with their motors running, and early morning starts which wake up everyone when the lorries finally trundle away. We should give local authorities more encouragement to enforce overnight parking bans in residential areas.
    I know that the White Paper mentions strengthening the licensing legislation, but the problems are with us now, and they demand more than legislation in future.
    Finally, I accept that there is a case for heavier lorries, but the public will accept it only if they recognise that it is balanced by environmental improvements and safeguards. The White Paper fails absolutely to set out a convincing programme of that sort, and that is why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will vote against it.
    8.37 pm.
    Sir Philip Goodhart: The White Paper cheerfully records that 215 of 275 towns in England with populations over 10,000 now have bypasses. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred with pride to the size of the current programme. Like the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) I am conscious that there is no bypass for the largest city of all—London.
    I regret that London's ring roads were not completed, because the centre of our capital city is now being strangled by juggernauts which are unsuited to our streets.
    938
    Some months ago I was travelling in a Ministry car down Knightsbridge when a juggernaut turned slightly erratically and went straight into the side of the car. A week later, in my constituency, I watched a juggernaut demolish a small car, pressing it against a robust pedestrian crossing beacon. Only last week I saw a juggernaut stuck in a mews 100 yards from my home. It appeared that the lorry would demolish a cottage and a garage. Only the driver's exceptional skill enabled him to extricate it.
    Those are an everyday event in the centre of our capital city.
    The White Paper refers to the planned improvements at Wisbech and West Walton, Narborough, Kelsall, Brockworth, Bridport, Brecon and Holywell. There is no reference to London or any of the major conurbations unless one reads that in the riveting sentence at the beginning of paragraph 13 which states:
    "Controls over the routes lorries may use are a useful means of protecting residential and other areas from traffic."
    The central argument of the White Paper which has been bandied between the Front Benches this evening is that if we allow heavier loads, there will be 12 per cent. fewer heavy lorries on our roads.
    Hon. Members have referred selectively to the Armitage report. I was particularly struck by table 38, which shows that, even with low growth in the economy and even if we have heavier lorries, we shall have more than 1,000 million miles per year of extra heavy lorry use on our roads by the end of the decade. That suggests to me that there will be several thousand more heavy lorries. However, we shall never know whether the Government's prediction is accurate.
    I was glad that the hon. Member for Woolwich, East referred to safety because, given equal braking power and steering capacity, a heavier lorry will obviously be slightly less manoeuvreable than a lighter lorry. There are hundreds of thousands of heavy lorries on our roads. Therefore, it would be rash to assume that all brakes and all power steering systems will work effectively at all times. The damage caused by a heavy lorry when safety systems fail is clearly much greater than that done by a lighter lorry. The Transport and General Workers Union was quick to point that out when putting in its wage demands.
    I turn to damage to roads and bridges. When I was partly responsible for this subject in Northern Ireland, some experts were concerned about the effect of total weight—not just axle weight—on roads built over peaty soil. Perhaps their fears have been allayed, but there is clearly a great deal that we do not know about the potential damage to roads, and particularly strain on bridges. I found the Armitage report particularly equivocal on the subject of bridges. It is highly critical of the EEC proposals, but in paragraph 414 the report asks a simple question:
    "'Where will it all end? What is to stop there being subsequent increases in weights until eventually we have 100 ton lorries on our roads?' The answer is simple: it will end right here. The reason is: bridges. 44 tonnes is the maximum weight of lorry of present dimensions that can be tolerated on the bridges of this country."
    If anything over 44 tonnes will bring our bridges tumbling down, can we be sure that an increase to 40 tonnes will not result in a far bigger bill for repairing and strengthening our bridges than the Armitage report suggests?

    939
    On the question of lorry dimensions, which has such an important psychological impact, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) drew attention to the drawbar problem. Paragraph 365 of the Armitage report states:
    "There are some commodities of which a full weight load at present can just be carried within the dimensions of an articulated lorry. To carry a greater weight of such a commodity it would be necessary to switch to drawbar combinations, which can carry a greater volume of goods. On British roads there are few drawbar combinations relative to the number of articulated lorries. If maximum lorry weights were increased, our judgment is that the use of drawbar combinations would increase slightly".
    If that judgment is wrong and the number of drawbar combinations increases substantially, it will mean an increase from 15·5 metres to 18 metres. Armitage suggested that the Department of Transport should monitor this aspect, but the White Paper does not go as far as that. One is therefore faced with the question of what to do this evening. The Secretary of State said that he wants more talks on the White Paper, but I do not believe that it provides a proper basis for a national plan for heavy lorries. Therefore, unless the Minister can speak with the tongue of angels, I regret that I shall not be able to support the Government in the Lobby tonight.
    8.47 pm
    Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: In the short debate today and in the two debates on the Armitage report in the past 12 months it has been unfailingly shown that the case for the heavier lorry has not been substantiated in the minds of the general public or of anyone else.
    I remind the House of the events of three years ago. One wonders about the activities of the Department when the new Minister comes to the House to support the idea of heavier lorries. A report appeared in The Guardian just over three years ago of an internal Department of Transport memorandum which had been leaked—the notorious Peeler memorandum, named after its author, Joseph Peeler, then head of the Department's freight directorate. He argued that the purpose of an inquiry on heavier lorries would be "presentational", and its
    "fact-finding value … heavily subsidiary"
    to making the case for the heavier lorry. It would, he said,
    "offer a way of dealing with political opposition".
    That means us—Members of Parliament elected to provide that opposition. The memorandum suggested a way to soften that political opposition
    "to a more rational position on lorry weights, and an opportunity to the road haulage industry to improve its public image and its organisational cohesiveness".
    That is the real answer. The road haulage people who have been behind this all along require an economic return. The argument is economic. It has nothing to do with the environment or the opinions of the people. It is the economic return. Mr. Peeler went on to say that the main objective of the inquiry would be
    "the establishment in the public mind of a clear and overwhelming case for heavier lorry weights".
    Mr. Leadbitter: That is a perfect example of "Yes, Minister".
    Mr. Bagier: Yes.
    Mr. Peeler, of course, received his just desserts. He no longer heads the freight directorate. He was moved on to quieter pastures—no doubt for proper reasons.
    940
    On the basis of what we have heard tonight, can Mr. Peeler's approach be vindicated? Has a clear and overwhelming case for heavier lorries been made that satisfies both Members of Parliament and the public? Certainly, based on the correspondence that I have received, it has not. The public do not want to see heavier lorries.
    It looks as if we have a Minister who is conceding the case. He has told us that there will be more consultation and a chance to go into this matter more deeply, but I understand that the only debate we shall have will last one and a half hours on an order. I do not regard that as full consultation, yet that is all that will be allowed for the House to put forward its views. This, therefore, is a false prospectus. I hope that the Under-Secretary will confirm that that is not so and that we shall have more time for debate so that hon. Members on both sides can discuss this matter.
    The suggestion that heavier lorries will mean fewer lorries and that this will be an environmental gain is a plain untruth. It is almost a con on the public to suggest that there will be fewer lorries. If, as we hope, the economy grows, there are bound to be more lorries. It will be to the economic benefit of lorry owners to go for the heavier type that carry larger loads.
    According to Armitage, lorry traffic is estimated to grow by a minimum of 28 per cent. by 1990. The high growth figure quoted by Armitage was an increase of 40 per cent. It is a peculiar logic that suggests that a minimum increase of 28 per cent. in lorry loads can be of benefit to the environment. If the Government are so sure that heavier means fewer, perhaps the Minister will spell out how many lorries he believes will be on our roads by 1990. What is the Department's estimate of the number of lorries on our roads? As my right hon. Friend said so forcefully, there has always been an increase in lorry loads, and it is completely bogus to suggest that there will be fewer lorry loads.
    The Secretary of State admitted in a written reply last week that it would be perfectly possible for operators to load an extra 1½ tonnes on to their existing 32·5-tonne lorries and that the immediate consequence would be an extra 12 per cent. damage to road surfaces. The Minister admits that fact, yet we hear that he is not convinced that roads will be damaged by heavier loads.
    Not a friend in court would back the right hon. Gentleman on that assumption. The only correspondence that I have received that denies that assumption is from the road haulage industry. I do not blame it, because it is to the industry's economic benefit to have larger lorries.
    I shall not dwell on what will happen to bridges, because the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) gave the figures and said that a considerable sum of money would be needed to strengthen them.
    It is suggested that underground services will not be affected, but that case has not been proved. The King report on serious gas explosions made it quite clear that such explosions were caused by heavier lorries running on roads above gas mains. It recommended that that should not happen. Whatever the underground services are, be they gas mains or sewers, we should ensure that they are effective.
    This proposal also ignores the 1974 City university study that placed the responsibility for pipe failures on heavy vehicular traffic. The White Paper ignores those reports.

    941
    It also seems that loading provisions have been ignored in many areas. The right hon. Gentleman has already said that he does not propose to take action on a metering system so that loads can easily be identified. That is an absolute requirement. According to my research, in random checks in Kent over the 12 months from April 1980 to March 1981, nearly 50 per cent. of the lorries were overloaded. Yet, because of Government spending cuts, the enforcement staff were run down by 15 per cent. in 1980. That was in Kent, the garden of England. I hope that Conservative Members, who are keen to put the point to the Minister, will be forceful.
    The additional costs of the heavy load will be made up by road and bridge maintenance, bypasses and so on, and will affect the so-called benefit to the consumer. It is difficult to see how there will be an economic advantage to the consumer. In paragraph 4, the White Paper implies that the consumer will see the benefit in more competitive prices in the shops. The right hon. Gentleman owes an explanation to the House, because the economic arguments are absolute rubbish.
    It is thought that the saving to the road haulage industry may be about £150 million if it has heavier lorries to carry goods. However, that ignores the fact that user expenditure on road freight last year was £16,700 million, and £150 million is 0·1 per cent. of that. It means a saving of one-tenth of a penny in the pound for the consumer. Therefore, I hope that we shall hear no claptrap from the Minister about the saving for the consumers or the great rake-off they will have from the increase in lorry size.
    Mr. Michael Brown: If we accept the hon. Gentleman's arguments for doubting the savings to the consumer, will he tell the House why he and many other hon. Members were so agitated earlier this year on behalf of the road transport industry? When the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed an extra 20p on derv, arguments were advanced from both sides of the House—and most vociferously from the Opposition—in favour of reducing the duty on dery for the benefit of the haulage industry and, therefore, indirectly, for the benefit of the consumer.
    Mr. Bagier: Obviously I should not have given way, because that intervention has nothing to do with the Armitage report on heavier lorries. My case is that the £150 million was the sum estimated to be saved by the road haulage industry and passed on to the consumer. However, that is a bogus case and there would be no real effect on consumer prices.
    As a railwayman, I am particularly interested in another section of the report which the Minister has seen fit to ignore—the part on the section 8 grant. If we are trying to improve the environment and, even more important, effect energy conservation, ignoring the section 8 grant is wrong. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at this again before saying that he can do nothing about it.
    There are thousands of citizens who suffer from the effects of heavy lorries, particularly in small villages, and whose days are made hell by them. No doubt hon. Members representing constituents in small villages will make their case. There is nothing in the White Paper for the towns and villages, although the right hon. Gentleman, after being activated, gave an impressive list of bypass proposals. There are only four extra bypasses included in the Minister's list in the White Paper, over and above the Department of Transport list.
    942
    It is slightly unfair and dishonest of the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that without the heavier lorries the bypass programme would come to a halt. The bypass programme is desirable not only for heavy lorries but for cars and for the peace and tranquillity of the people in hundreds of towns and villages. As has been said, the larger cities and the ring road programme will get nothing out of the proposal.
    Ordinary people will have to pay a high price if heavier lorries are introduced, and there will be no benefits for them, but the road haulage industry has got everything it could have wanted. The Government and the Minister have bent their knees to benefit the road hauliers. They are flying in the face of public opinion. They are flying in the face of the hundreds of thousands of people in Britain who do not want heavier lorries and who will not accept the statistical evidence that has been produced in favour of them. The number of deputations and of people who will be tackling the Minister and his hon. Friends, and also Opposition Members, will show that public opinion is totally against the proposals.
    Will the Minister confirm that the only consultation available at the moment is through a debate for an hour and a half on a statutory instrument? If that is not so, will he tell us how the House is to be consulted, and in what way we can stop the introduction of heavier lorries?
    9.2 pm
    Mr. Terence Higgins: I declare an interest as a director of a group of companies whose interests include road transport.
    We are debating a matter that raises important issues of timing and politics as well as economics and technology. I welcome the timing of the debate. It is appropriate, after the Secretary of State's announcement, that we should have an opportunity to debate it without delay.
    I agree with what the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) said about a debate on the orders. It would be entirely wrong if the House were to be allowed only one and a half hours to debate the orders. Having said that, I feel bound to say that the Opposition's motion is premature, since it effectively rules out any opportunity for consultation with my right hon. Friend. Although many of us have already sat through long debates on the Armitage report and had many other discussions, it is important that my right hon. Friend should now listen wth an open mind to what is said on the specific proposals that he has put forward in the White Paper and the supporting documents.
    The second important point is the timing of the implementation of the regulations concerning lorry weights in relation to improvements in the environment. That relationship is crucial in this context.
    The problem is not one of new, large lorries or new, heavier lorries; it is the problem now created by existing lorries. Apart from a slightly greater length at the front end, which will enable lorries to be quieter as well as better in other respects, the Secretary of State is not proposing an increase in the size of lorries. Indeed, he is proposing, for the first time, to have a limitation on lorry height. These points have not been fully appreciated, either by cartoonists in London newspapers or by the Federation of Sussex Amenity Societies. Bigger lorries are not proposed. Heavier lorries are proposed, and the crucial

    943
    question is that of axle weight. In that respect I have important reservations concerning my right hon. Friend's proposals.
    I am not convinced that my right hon. Friend has any need to go to 40 tonnes. My impression is that many people in the industry would have been satisfied with 34 or 38 tonnes, and more justification is needed for the limit that is now proposed.
    Secondly, I am doubtful about the proposals on 34-tonne lorries on four axles. That is not necessarily a point that ought to be conceded by the Government. Thirdly, I share the views already expressed about the problem of tow-bar trailers and the extra length that they involve. In my view, they are already too large and my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary should also consider that point carefully.
    I am somewhat sceptical about the economic advantages advanced. The CBI has advanced some very high figures and the Armitage report talks in terms of £150 million a year. We must weigh that potential advantage against the problems that heavier weights are likely to cause.
    The Under-Secretary would be right to give his estimate of the effect on the cost of living of the proposed changes, because that is relevant in considering the arguments on one side of the equation and the other.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) placed great stress on the fact that the number of lorries is likely to diminish. They tended to talk in overall terms for the country as a whole, but it is also relevant to consider, for example, the sort of situation that occurs in my constituency and in many others—a factory at the end of a residential street. It is probable that either lorries will not be carrying any heavier loads—depending on their cargoes—or, if they are filled to the maximum allowed weight, the number using that residential street will tend to diminish.
    Despite the discussions between my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness, my right hon. Friend's overall point is crucial to the argument. The number of lorries, compared with what the number would otherwise be—there has been some confusion on that—would diminish as a result of increasing the weights.
    Mr. Douglas Jay rose—
    Mr. Higgins: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, many other hon. Members wish to contribute and I want to be as quick as I can in making three more specific points.
    First, there is the question of enforcement. In that context, we are discussing the economic benefits to the country if we proceed with what the Government propose. That is clearly something in which the Treasury has an interest. If the Treasury supports the proposals, it is right and proper that it should also supply adequate funds to enable enforcement to be carried out properly. Enforcement is an important issue in the debate and in decisions on future orders.
    We would find a great deal less overloading of lorries—whatever limits are determined—if lorries that were found to be overloaded were taken straight off the road at the nearest safe point and not allowed to proceed until the excess load was removed. It would be preferable
    944
    if the driver of a lorry had to walk back and tell his employers about that. Such a sanction would probably prove effective.
    Another point that I want to make in this context concerns greater safety measures and, particularly, side-guards. I do not understand why we need to delay on safety measures such as side-guards, under-run protection and so on. They should be made a condition of existing lorries being allowed to carry heavier weights. The same should, of course, be true of new lorries. We should not concede the extra weight if we are unable to get the safety measures that are required with them.
    Finally, I want to say something on the vexed question of bypasses.
    Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop rose—
    Mr. Higgins: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to continue, because I know that he and many other hon. Members want to contribute.
    There has been much discussion in the past few days on the state of the economy and whether there is overcrowding as a result of various increases in Government expenditure. The Treasury and Civil Service Committee rejected the argument about overcrowding in physical terms. We do not have a lack of adequate resources with regard to construction industry, road building and so on. I also have considerable doubts about financial crowding out.
    Therefore, I return to the point that I made earlier. If the Treasury thinks that the economic arguments are sound, it ought also to provide adequate funds to ensure that the bypasses are built. It is important that we should be clear about the Government's overall plan for bypasses. If we are to go along with what is now proposed, we want a comprehensive plan, covering the country as a whole, of the bypasses that the Government think will eventually be built. The time taken to build bypasses depends to a great extent on the time that is needed to plan and to go through the process of public inquiry, which can be lengthy.
    With an overall plan of proposed bypasses I see no reason why many of the procedures that at the moment delay the building of bypasses should not be carries out in advance of the sums being available for their construction. This would persuade many hon. Members that what the Government propose, on merit and in terms of the environment, is intrinsically worth while. There is also a need to take positive steps of the kind that I have sought to summarise.
    We should seek to persuade my right hon. Friend in the course of the next two or three months that this kind of action needs to be taken as part of the overall plan that he has in mind that includes the more debatable and difficult question of the actual increase in lorry weights
    9.10 pm
    Mr. Stephen Ross: I shall be brief. In the representations made tonight and those made in the country at large, which the Secretary of State will receive in the period of consultation he has provided, I do not think that he will find that anyone seriously believes that there will be a reduction in the number of heavy lorries. There is every reason to suppose that if weights are increased the size of the average heavy lorry will also increase. There is great scepticism among professional engineers about the

    945
    calculation of the road and bridge damage effects of the proposed new lorries. There is anger over the proposal that heavier lorries should come into operation in advance of environmental and safety approval.
    The Secretary of State will also be told that law enforcement in road haulage is a travesty and that the present taxation regime discriminates in favour of the heavy lorry and against the railways and the private motorist. If the lorry is to be made more civilised, there is no doubt in my mind that positive steps need to be taken to reduce lorry noise and spray, to improve safety by fitting side-guards, anti-locking systems and better brakes. These matters need attention before weights are increased. I recognise that hauliers need an incentive to make the necessary improvements.
    The Secretary of State should consider a package of improvements that will encourage the development of a more acceptable lorry, gain some of the economic benefits of heavier loads and spare the vast majority of the population from additional nuisance. The right hon. Gentleman should be willing to issue special licences to operators who wish to use heavier lorries.
    The lorries would have to meet stringent environmental conditions and operate over designated routes. They should be equipped with tractor units with a double-drive axle to ensure that road damage is minimised. They should operate at maximum noise levels of not more than 80 decibels. Such lorries should operate over trunk routes or motorways and normally outside residential areas. The routes should be "permitted routes" cleared beforehand. Such lorries should be specially marked. If they stray from permitted routes, the operator should lose his licence and the driver suffer a heavy personal fine. One advantage would be that own-account and other major operators could take the opportunity of improving productivity. I am not against industry. I want it to be efficient and to take advantage of what is available to improve productivity.
    Furthermore, distribution from railheads of fully-loaded containers could be permitted, as in Germany. There would be a much-needed stimulus to the vehicle building industry to meet the new requirements. There would be really stringent safeguards for the population at large.
    Mr. Matthew Parris rose—
    Mr. Ross: I am sorry. I intend to sit down in two minutes, if possible. I wish to highlight a constituency problem. The roads on the Isle of Wight are totally unsuited even for the 32½-tonne lorry. Road surfaces are breaking up. The roads on the island were never properly built. Vehicles and buses are shaken to pieces. The same terrible damage is seen throughout the City of London. Pavements, drains and bridges have been broken up.
    The people of the Isle of Wight do not share the optimism of the Armitage report about the effects of heavy lorries on carriageway structures. There is concern to maintain the visual amenity of the island. We were not reassured by the statement of the Secretary of State for Transport last week. We regard the advent of the 38 or even 40-tonne lorry with great alarm.
    In 1978 we advertised an order under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, which would have imposed a ban on all vehicles entering the county with a laden weight exceeding 32·5 tonnes, but we accepted that any such measure would require the consent of the Secretary of
    946
    State before it could be implemented. Our latest advice is that such a move is premature, in advance of any Government decision on the matter.
    I ask the Secretary of State, in drawing up the regulations, to consider seriously the position of a place such as the Isle of Wight, which cannot take any larger lorries—in fact, it would like to get rid of some of the larger ones that go there now—and to see whether it is possible for a limit to be put on the weight of vehicles which are allowed on our island roads.
    9.15 pm
    Mr. David Crouch: The case for heavier lorries is being made strongly by industry through all the powerful federations and trade associations that represent industry. I have seen such representations. We have heard from those associations that it would save £150 million a year. I agree that there is an economic case for the heavier lorry. However, there is also a case for the people and the environment.
    From what we have heard this evening, the Government believe that there is a case for the heavier lorry. They want to give industry this £150 million, and have made a strong case for it. What a wonderful gesture to give industry this handout now. The Government have refused to give industry other major handouts, or to remove burdens from it, but this they want to do. They have refused to take off the national insurance surcharge, or to have another look at high energy costs, but this £150 million is suddenly of vital importance to industry. We have heard this evening that industry spends £16 billion a year on road transport, yet this gesture of £150 million is suddenly of the utmost importance.
    What about a gesture to the people? They, too, have a case, but they do not have powerful associations to speak for them, or federations to put their case. They have the Civic Trust, which does a great job in protecting our environment. It is a responsible guardian of our environment and heritage. They also have the Council for the Protection of Rural England, which speaks up for the environment and people.
    The people also have a spokesman in every town and village—their Member of Parliament. I speak today just as an ordinary Member of Parliament. My constituents do not want heavier lorries. They want me to speak on their behalf. I have received an enormous mail from all over the country because of some notoriety that I achieved in this connection.
    I have seen heavy lorries going through my constituency for the past 16 years. It took 16 years to get the bypass for Canterbury. I am glad that it was opened by my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary two months ago, and I am grateful for it. It takes a long time to get a bypass, a lot of persuasion, a lot of argument and sometimes a lot of protests. That is true in many other places, notwithstanding the Minister's agreement to introduce a programme of increased building of bypasses.
    In my constituency I have also seen the damage that heavy lorries do to new roads. The Canterbury bypass has just been opened, but there is a five-mile stretch of the A2 leading to it on the London side that is now under extensive repair. That part of the road is a dual carriageway trunk road that was built barely six years ago, and it has been completely broken up during those six years by 32·5-tonne juggernaut lorries on their way to and from Dover and the Continent. Six years' wear and tear

    947
    have destroyed a new trunk road. The experts are amazed. The road construction unit is amazed. The county surveyor is amazed. The Department of Transport is amazed. However, my constituents are not amazed. Nor am I. We could see what was happening, as we watched the freight traffic going to and from the Continent. We also knew the figures for the growth of that freight traffic through the port of Dover. In 1967, there were 21,000 lorries. In 1979, 506,000 lorries passed through. We could see what was happening. The new road simply could not stand the strain.
    I must not get emotional. I must stick to facts. I am not an anti-lorry man. I am a roads man. I have always been in favour of roads. I have campaigned for roads to take freight traffic, for new bypasses, for motorways and for better trunk roads. I may have succeeded in getting a bypass for Canterbury and for the famous village of Bridge in my constituency, but that is all. That is where my achievements end. There is still no motorway from London to Europe. The M2 stops 20 miles short of Dover, at Brenley corner, and then continues as an A trunk road only. The M20 is not completed and neither is the M25. Hon. Members should look at the chaos where the A2 meets the London sprawl at Falconwood and Welling. When we come a little closer to the heart of London, what do we see? We see juggernauts in Parliament Square. That is ludicrous. The Metropolis is crammed with vast, noisy and evil-smelling vehicles. I am not against them. Of course, we need them. However, we need to prevent them from being so noisy and from emitting foul fumes. We need to inspect them more often. In short, we need to put them under much stricter control for the sake of the people and the environment. They are already a menace. If we give the go-ahead to a further extension of their weight we shall encourage the development of one of the most intrusive dangers to our environment.
    Why should industry always be allowed to get its way like this? The time has come to say "No" to its rapacious demands on our way of life. I have had enough of the beguiling arguments that industry must have this and that. Industry must live with society, respect the people and be respected by them in turn. In the nineteenth century, industry sprawled across the Midlands, the North, Wales and Scotland. Today we regulate and control industrial development. We do not allow factories to be built anywhere. Why should we allow heavy lorries to go where they like today? They do not stick to the motorways or trunk roads, and in my constituency lorries that come from Dover deliberately use the minor roads and lanes, often to avoid police checks and weight checks in Canterbury.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a programme for more bypasses, for which I am grateful. That is a move in the right direction, but much more needs to be done before our roads are ready for heavier lorries. It is said that the heavier lorry will not be any bigger. I accept that. It is said that it will be quieter. I do not accept that. It has not happened yet. Government and police controls are simply not effective enough and as the White Paper says, and as I well know, "roadside checks are limited". I understand that vehicles are sometimes inspected only once every four years.
    It is said that the new, heavier vehicles will not damage our roads any more than the existing 32-tonne lorries do. I am not prepared to accept that. I want more proof. It is
    948
    said that there will be fewer vehicles, but I do not accept that. Every time that lorry weights have been increased the number of lorries has increased. Even the White Paper says that the proposal might stimulate additional traffic. It might. I am not sure. It is said that an accident with the heavier lorry will be only "marginally" more serious. I am appalled at that statement. The case for the 40-tonne lorry—worth £150 million per year to industry—has simply not been made. The story is not convincing. Our roads are not yet ready for them, nor are the people and nor am I. These lorries will have to wait until the case has been proven in fact. Armitage, theory and prototypes are simply not enough. The heavier lorry will have to wait until we have roads fit for the juggernaut of that weight. Now, we must say "No". We have gone far enough already. We must say "No" tonight.
    9.25 pm
    Mr. Les Huckfield: If ever the House had a role to play in the nation's affairs it has been demonstrated tonight in the speech by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be joined in the Lobby by many of his hon. Friends and that they will be prepared to make similar declarations.
    I declare an interest as I am sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union. The members of that union will be asked to drive the heavier vehicles if the proposal is approved. The union is totally and implacably opposed to the increase in gross vehicle weights.
    My main objection is that the Secretary of State has always tried to argue that the Armitage report contains not a single proposal, but a package of proposals. I echo other hon. Members in stressing that only one part of the total Armitage package is to be implemented in the proposals before us. On all other items or ingredients in the report the Secretary of State says that action has been taken already or that he has the power to take action. He does not make any other new proposals.
    The Secretary of State is proposing a total change in overall transport policy. It is nothing less than that, and he should not try to conceal it. He must not pretend to the House that only road haulage is affected.
    I am worried because the Secretary of State cannot even enforce the present limits on gross vehicle weights. I shall give my reasons for that briefly. A high percentage of goods traffic is carried in containers. It is impossible to know how heavy a container is without weighing mechanisms. Freightliner has an interest in keeping traffic off the road. Even Freightliner is prosecuted because it does not have weighbridges to weigh its containers travelling to and from its depots. That illustrates the seriousness of the problem.
    The Freight Transport Association has been persuasive. It has always been a reasonable voice in the road haulage lobby. The diagram in its pamphlet "Industry needs heavier lorries" illustrates the point. It shows that one can put a slightly heavier load in a container if a third axle is fixed, but unless there are weighbridges it is impossible to tell how much there is inside a container.
    The Secretary of State must tell the House how he intends not only to increase enforcement powers and restrictions for the present GVW limits, but to step them up if the limit goes up tonight.
    I have some worrying figures to give to the House. They come from the right hon. Gentleman's vehicle

    949
    testing stations. On 2 December the Secretary of State, in a reply, gave me the figures for successes and failures of heavy goods vehicles processed in his Department's testing stations. It is alarming that since 1975 20 per cent. of vehicles tested in each year failed the test. That means that in 1980–81 147,000 heavy goods vehicles failed the test at his Department's testing stations.
    Is the Secretary of State saying that he will put even heavier vehicles on the roads when existing vehicles do not meet the standards set and imposed—at least they should be imposed—by his Department?
    It is difficult to enforce the law on foreign vehicles because of the tremendous difficulties of securing arrests and convictions. The Secretary of State, in his answer on 2 December, said that in 1980 about 2,000 of 11,000 foreign vehicles stopped were found to be committing some offence. I have rounded up the figures, but I think that the Secretary of State will agree that I have done that fairly. The majority of those offences were for overloading. In the figures for this year up to September, 1,500 of 8,500 foreign vehicles stopped were found to be committing an offence. Again, the majority of those offences were for overloading.
    Those are serious problems. The Secretary of State does not have the weighing mechanisms for weighing containers. His Department's vehicle testing station records show that one fifth of the vehicles that pass through them fail the test and that there is a serious overloading problem with foreign vehicles.
    The Secretary of State has omitted so far this evening to present any evidence of the effects of his proposals on preventing a transfer to rail. Many Opposition Members believe that the effect of the implementation of the proposals will be to prevent, not enhance, the prospect of much of that heavier traffic being transferred to rail, which we believe is necessary.
    There are many Conservative Members in the House this evening. I can see that there is much concern about what the Secretary of State said tonight. He is trying to tell the world outside and Opposition Members that he has made up his mind and he is trying to tell Conservative Members that he has not made up his mind. I hope that the Minister, when he replies to the debate, will come clean. Has the Secretary of State made up his mind? If the concern that we have heard is echoed in other contributions, I do not believe that he will get this proposal through this evening.
    At the end of the day, I and many of my hon. Friends will support the Opposition motion, because we believe that the beneficiaries of the proposals will be not people or the environment, but road hauliers and road haulage profits.
    9.32 pm
    Mr. Paul Hawkins: I must declare a constituency interest because I have a large trailer-making firm in my constituency, Crane Fruehauf. That firm is working a three-day week, but its representatives believe that if the Armitage recommendations go through they can increase from three days to five and they can take on more men. It employs the largest number of men of any factory in my constituency. It is important that it should be able to export and compete with other trailer-making firms and give employment to my constituents. Due to the recession the number of people employed in that major factory has been cut.
    950
    I believe that the major advantage of the Armitage report is environmental. The report can be held as a pistol at the head of any Government who do not produce the bypasses to back up their programme of enabling heavier vehicles to be carried on the roads. I am convinced that it will give anyone who wishes a bypass for his home town an opportunity to press for it. I also believe that the bypasses must run in conjunction with the introduction of heavier weights.
    I have been fortunate in my constituency. We have had three bypasses to the three major towns. However, we still need a bypass in my home town of Downham Market. The main road runs through the centre of town for a mile. For four or five months in the winter we have the sugar beet traffic to the largest factory in Europe, which creates perhaps our greatests problems. An enormous amount of beet is dropped in the street, which is a great danger.
    We should support the Government. We should try to investigate the enormous problems caused to individuals by road traffic. Much can be done by the House and in the investigations and consultations that the Government have promised over the next two or three months. I hope that the House will support the amendment.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the Front Bench does not seek to start the wind-up until 9.40 pm.
    9.36 pm
    Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The Secretary of State must have noticed that the force of the argument from both sides of the House has not been with him. The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants consultations. This is the greatest consultative assembly in the United Kingdom. He is in a dilemma. He says that he has an open mind, but the White Paper does not say that. Paragraph 29 states:
    "The Government has re-examined very carefully the proposals and the safguards suggested by Armitage, and the questions that have been raised about them during the last year."
    The right hon. Gentleman has had plenty of time to think about the matter. The paragraph goes on:
    "The Government has decided"—
    That is a precise enough word; it is clear and there is no prevarication about it. It is understood by everyone that the Government have decided—
    "that it would not be right to go as far as the Report and has rejected"—
    that is a firm word—
    "the 44 tonne maximum it proposed. However the Government is satisfied that the maximum gross weight limit can safely be raised to 34 tonnes for four-axle vehicles and to 40 tonnes on five axles."
    Will the right hon. Gentleman be frank? Where does he stand on the consultative process? As I made clear earlier, real consultation should be underwritten in the notion of a Green Paper and not a White Paper, in which the Government's mind is made up.
    The matter is of great importance. Our road systems are not built to carry 40-tonne lorries. We already have great problems with our underground services, such as drainage and sewerage. That factor has not been evaluated in talking of a £150 million benefit to industry—and even that is a fictitious figure.
    The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said that the Secretary of State had been sold a pup. Not only that, he has become the parrot for his Department. The real

    951
    truth of Armitage is this. The preconceived notion of a 40-tonne lorry has been wrapped up in a package to make it suitable to the House, but we are not buying it.
    9.40 pm
    The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I am slightly confined by time, but I am glad to be so because I know that many other right hon. and hon. Members have been more confined than I am and many have been excluded from the debate. In the short time that we have had for the debate many questions have been asked, not only about the White Paper but about the evidence that lies behind it and its conclusions.
    The big question that hon. Members must ask themselves, having legitimately asked questions on behalf of their constituency interests, is whether they will wait for an answer. I admit that I cannot give an answer to all the questions that have been raised in the short time that is available to me. I shall give better answers when the debate has developed further and we are clearer about the factual basis upon which we are arguing the case for or against heavy lorries.
    The White Paper is white because it contains clear propositions, the bulk of which are not controversial. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) criticised the syntax very effectively and I concede to him on that as I concede to him on many transport matters. Many of the proposals about noise, safety, bypasses, and so on are not unpopular. They are merely criticised because of the pace of delivery. The one proposal on which the debate has concentrated is that of heavy lorry weights. Nothing in the White Paper decides that. Nothing that we say tonight will decide it. The Government have merely announced that they are consulting on a form of regulations. They are suggesting and putting out for consultation possible changes in lorry weights.
    There may come a time when firm regulations are laid before the House, either in the form upon which consultations are being held or in a different form. At some stage thereafter the House will be called upon to make a decision. An hon. Member asked how much time we would have for debate. He asked whether it would be one and a half hours. It is not for me to decide the timetable of the House, but it would be extraordinary if we were asked to consider the matter in one and a half hours. I do not think that any hon. Member would let the Government get away with a debate of that length.
    The Government say that the decision can be taken after a month or two of serious consideration and Parliament, in the end, will make a more sensible decision because we shall be arguing on the basis of principle, opinion and judgment about our constituents. At present we are arguing the toss about the factual evidence on the Armitage report, which itself is highly complex, and on a White Paper that we have had before us for less than a week. The answer is highly complex. However the House may feel, it does not owe the Government the time to consider the matter further, but there are interest groups to which time is owed.
    The House must consider the matter carefully before it plunges to a final decision on vehicle weights, which will obviously be decisive for many years ahead because the planning of roads, vehicle construction, and so on, must go ahead on the basis of the conclusions that we reach. The
    952
    environmental groups must be considered because there is a clear division of opinion on the evidence and on the facts about what benefits the environment in villages and towns. We must also consider the many people who believe that their businesses and jobs depend on the House getting the decision right.
    I do not wish to criticise my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who made a very reasonable speech. He reminded the House of the concern that he has expressed in recent debates in the House about the state of British Industry. I do not think that the Government should shrink from criticisms that are directed constructively towards doing something to help the state of British industry. However, many in British industry say that many factors depend upon the decision on the Armitage report. The Government's estimate is a saving of only £150 million each year. The CBI considers that to be an underestimate.
    There are vehicle manufacturers in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) and elsewhere who have serious doubts about how much longer we shall have a heavy vehicle manufacturing industry in this country if we continue to build vehicles designed for the home market that are not the same as those in our major markets overseas. The trailer manufacturers are at present in a major recession. They may be right or they may be wrong, but they will not be grateful to a House that throws the case out six days after the publication of the White Paper proposing it.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Clarke: I am sorry; I have no time.
    Mr. Hughes: It is a bit naughty of the Minister to wish to refuse to give way. He knows very well that I gave up my right to reply to the debate in order to enable Back Benchers to speak. He should not complain about a shortage of time. I could have taken time from his speech. The Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State says that we are trying to bounce the House into a decision. That is not so. The circular that the Government sent out plainly states that comments on lorry weights must be with the Department not later than 31 January 1982. That is next month. There is no such date for consultations on the White Paper. We fear that a decision will be taken on lorry weights without the knowledge of what the Government intend to do about other aspects of the White Paper.
    Mr. Clarke: There is a statutory requirement to consult, and we have given two months for responses. The Government will then have to decide their view in the light of outside representations. They will have to take serious notice of parliamentary opinion—[Interruption.] I deliberately understated that. After those two months the Government will have to decide whether they will, in the light of the consultation and debate, bring forward regulations. The regulations must be laid before the House, which will have an opportunity to debate them and reach decisions.
    Whatever conclusion the House reaches, it will at least have listened to the serious representations from outside. I refer hon. Members to letters in this morning's press from representatives of the Council of British Shipping. They may be right or wrong. It is obvious that in its present mood the House will not allow me to persuade it on the

    953
    factual evidence about the state of British shipping. The representatives are arguing that our international trade is at a serious disadvantage because our exports are going to sea in underloaded containers. We are burdening our trade with costs that are not shared by our international competitors.
    The House does not have to take that from me—indeed, it will not. It does not have to take it from the representatives of the Council of British Shipping. We have not yet reached that clear understanding of the issues and the evidence—because of opportunism by the Opposition in tabling the motion—to allow the House to throw out all the proposals the day that those letters first appeared, and less than a week after the White Paper was published.
    I shall not belabour the problems of the manufacturers such as Sainsburys, the milk manufacturers, the brewers, ICI and all the other lobbyists. They may be wrong. It may be right that the House should not, on this occasion, prefer the needs of industry. It may prefer arguments against that. But with respect, we have not yet reached the stage in debate where the House should say that firmly.
    Sir Russell Fairgrieve: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that, if the White Paper and the Armitage recommendations are not implemented, Scotland, and especially the far North, will be at a competitive disadvantage because of the cost of transport?
    Mr. Clarke: The economic case is stronger the further we go from the main centres. The case is stronger for industry in Scotland, Wales and the West Country. In those areas people are pressing for road building to reduce their industrial costs.
    Mr. Peyton: If my hon. and learned Friend is convinced about the strength of his case, will he rewrite the White Paper in a less sloppy and more convincing form? As I suggested earlier, will he take it away and pulp it?
    Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend did not resume his seat earlier until I conceded to him his fair criticism of the syntax. I am glad to take lessons from my right hon. Friend on the construction of White Papers, and indeed on transport policy. Half the trouble may be that the syntax is not quite as it might be. I ask my right hon. Friend, as he was inclined to concede in his speech, to allow the Government time to make their case more clearly and to retain an open mind that, in the end, the case may go the other way. Tonight we are talking about the quality of decision making. We owe it to those outside, as well as ourselves, to give time for serious consultation within which we can agree the factual evidence and reach a conclusion.
    Mr. Roger Moate: Is my hon. and learned Friend saying that all the outside organisations to which he has referred and all the representations were taken into account by the Armitage committee, or is he saying that it did not consider them? The Armitage conclusions have been considered by the House in a number of debates. If he is saying that there is a genuine process of consultation and that the Government have not really taken a decision, will he say, clearly and without qualification, that this is no longer a White Paper but a Green Paper?
    Mr. Clarke: All the representations were considered by the Armitage committee. The committee considered a great deal of evidence and it came to a conclusion with which my hon. Friend disagrees. In the White Paper the Government have come to a tentative conclusion with which he disagrees. The difference between the proposed weight changes and almost all the other proposals contained in the White Paper is that the weight changes require a specific legislative change that in due course will have to be submitted to the House. I have described the statutory process to which the Government are subject and I think that I have committed the Government to using the statutory time to consider their position before returning to the House with their proposals. My hon. Friend cannot object to the time that the Government are providing for debate. There will be yet another full opportunity to debate the alternatives.
    I do not think that I have overstated the industrial case. The Government are asking the House at least to listen to it. There are those outside who are trying to earn a living in business, and jobs are at stake. If I were involved in trying to make a living in vehicle manufacturing, retail distribution, brewing or farming, I should be pretty cheesed off with a House of Commons that rejected arguments out of hand because of plain misunderstandings in all directions on the evidence.
    Environmental issues are obviously at the root of the concern. There is not an hon. Member who is openly against British industry. There are a few who represent the Transport and General Workers Union and they are the only ones who are so far convinced that "heavier" means fewer lorries and therefore fewer lorry drivers.
    The environmental case concerns the Government as much as anyone else. I have heard critics who are plainly concerned about the environmental effects of these proposals, especially on those living in towns and villages. I and all my right hon. and hon. Friends are in favour of protecting the environment. We may be mistaken, but our intention is the same. We believe that these proposals could improve the environment in towns and villages.
    There are organisations that exist to protect rural England. I am in favour of protecting rural England and I represent rather a good chunk of it. Most of the opponents of this measure dislike heavy lorries. I can join them immediately. I detest heavy lorries. I have not met a civilised inhabitant of the British Isles who believes that they are objects that one can learn to love.
    We are discussing whether the Government are right. We are not querying their intentions. Are the Government right in their belief that the package that is proposed in the White Paper will improve the environment?
    Mr. Spriggs rose—
    Mr. Clarke: I hope that the House will accept that we are all for improving the environment, that we are all in favour of protecting rural England and that there are not many constituents who like heavy lorries and want more of them. If that is accepted, the question is a factual one. It is not good enough merely to say "I want to protect the environment". In a modern industrial society the protection of the environment involves a degree of mechanical and engineering knowledge as well as enthusiasm. It involves also a degree of application to transport economics, to engineering, to statistical evidence of the past and some knowledge of likely changes in

    955
    freight movements in future. That is the evidence that must be weighed by the House and by the country before deciding, if the Government propose changes of the sort that have been put forward so far, whether it is right to believe that the proposals will improve the environment.
    The case that carried the Armitage committee and the belief with which it was left after hearing all the evidence—it was the case that carried the Government into producing the White Paper and consulting on the draft regulations—was the one that accepted that the effect would be fewer, quieter and safer lorries. Scepticism about that is understandable. It may even be justified when the House has had a full opportunity to examine the evidence, but that is the purpose behind the proposals and there is an environmental benefit.
    If the House rushes to a decision and rejects this, those who have expressed real passion about how much they wish to protect their towns, which have no bypasses, or their particular piece of rural England, will have got it wrong. They will actually have done damage if, when they consider the evidence, they are persuaded that we should stay as we are—and who in the House would defend the present arrangement—with no change? I put it to hon. Members that it is at least possible that when they examine the evidence they will find that they have saddled their towns with more and noisier lorries in the present fleet until the bypass can be built.
    With regard to the bypass programme, I have not yet dealt with the selective use of statistics by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). The programme is being fully pursued and maintained. If one looks properly at the parliamentary question which he quoted, one sees that the miles to be opened go in the right direction in 1983. The programme is well within the Government's control. Not only is it being maintained; it has remained unscathed by the Chancellor's cuts, because the cuts that he has been able to make merely match the savings made on the tender prices in line with the original estimates.
    We are continually adding bypasses to the programme. Some people seized on the small number of additions that were announced and suggested that that meant only four bypasses. But they are in addition to the full programme that we are delivering. Four quite big bypasses were announced in July this year, to be built next year. They include a bypass for Chapel-en-le-Frith, where there is a heavy lorry problem. Four more have been announced in the White Paper and seven have been promoted to the main programme from the reserve programme.
    This is not our last word on the roads programme. We are committed to producing a White Paper on roads very shortly that will update and roll forward the programme from the last White Paper on roads. By rolling forward the programme, we shall be able to put new and specific dates on dozens of roads at present described in the programme as post-1984, giving fresh hope to those waiting for them.
    Given that I am today asking the House for time for a sensible debate, I should make it clear that the White Paper on roads will be published and available to the House well before there can be any question of our laying regulations or asking the House for a decision on any change in weights that the Government may be still minded to make after the end of the consultation period.
    956
    If I singled out one argument in conclusion, the one which dominated many speeches and is perhaps one of the most popular worries is how to enforce the weight limits. There was understandable concern about the damage at present being done by lorries. All this public outcry was really set up by a reaction to what is happening now. People ask what we are doing about enforcement, and there has been criticism.
    It has been pointed out that the number of vehicle examiners in post has not increased substantially. But that is because we are carrying out more roadside checks by providing the present manpower with better equipment. Dynamic axle weighers are being introduced, for example. In two months I might be able to explain the mechanics of that to my hon. Friends, but I know from its performance that this equipment enables us to check more lorries. We already have 31 dynamic axle weighers in operation and a further four will be operational by next spring. We spent £350,000 on this in 1979–80. A further £350,000 is being spent this year. The estimate for next year has been increased to £400,000. We shall continue the purges on foreign lorries coming in at the channel ports and Holyhead to try to reduce the present overloading. It is, of course, essential that we introduce a better fleet which does less damage and that we eliminate the overloading from which we at present suffer.
    That is the position so far as one can take the matter today. It has been a rushed debate and this has been a rushed speech—I have only three minutes left. This is a considered White Paper. There is no question of final conclusions being made about it at this stage. I ask my hon. Friends to reject what is in fact an exercise in political opportunism. They had only to listen to the contribution from the Social Democrats—slipping in the brief phrase that the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) was in favour of heavier lorries but then saying that he would vote against them today—to realise that there is a deal of political opportunism about. Let us have a sensible decision that considers all views on all sides.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 296.

    Division No. 21]

    [10 pm

    AYES

    Abse, Leo

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

    Adams, Allen

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Alexander, Richard

    Canavan, Dennis

    Allaun, Frank

    Carmichael, Neil

    Alton, David

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Anderson, Donald

    Cartwright, John

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Ashton, joe

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

    Atkinson, N. (H'gey)

    Coleman, Donald

    Bagier, GordonA.T.

    Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

    Barnett, Guy(Greenwich)

    Cook, Robin F.

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

    Cowans, Harry

    Beith, A.J.

    Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)

    Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Crouch, David

    Body, Richard

    Crowther, Stan

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Cryer, Bob

    Boothroyd, MissBetty

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

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

    Cunningham, G.(IslingtonS)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Cunningham, DrJ. (W'h'n,)

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)

    Davidson, Arthur

    Brown, Hon(E'burgh, Leith)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

    Buchan, Norman

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Callaghan, RtHonJ.

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    957

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

    Kilfedder, JamesA.

    Deakins, Eric

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Kinnock, Neil

    Dempsey, James

    Lambie, David

    Dewar, Donald

    Lamborn, Harry

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Dixon, Donald

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Dobson, Frank

    Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

    Dormand, Jack

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Douglas, Dick

    Litherland, Robert

    Dubs, Alfred

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Dunlop, John

    Lyon, Alexander(York)

    Dunn, James A.

    Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)

    Dunnett, Jack

    Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

    McCartney, Hugh

    Eadie, Alex

    McDonald, DrOonagh

    Eastham, Ken

    McElhone, Frank

    Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)

    McGuire, Michael(Ince)

    Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)

    McKelvey, William

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    English, Michael

    Maclennan, Robert

    Ennals, Rt Hon David

    McMahon, Andrew

    Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

    McNally, Thomas

    Evans, John (Newton)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Ewing, Harry

    McTaggart, Robert

    Faulds, Andrew

    McWilliam, John

    Flannery, Martin

    Magee, Bryan

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)

    Ford, Ben

    Marshall, DrEdmund (Goole)

    Forrester, John

    Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)

    Foster, Derek

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Foulkes, George

    Maxton, John

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

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Freud, Clement

    Meacher, Michael

    Garrett, John (NorwichS)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    George, Bruce

    Miller, Dr M.S. (EKilbride)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby)

    Ginsburg, David

    Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)

    Golding, John

    Moate, Roger

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Molyneaux, James

    Graham, Ted

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Grant, George(Morpeth)

    Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell,)

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

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

    Murphy, Christopher

    Hardy, Peter

    Newens, Stanley

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    O'Neill, Martin

    Haynes, Frank

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Palmer, Arthur

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Park, George

    Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)

    Parker, John

    Holland, S.(L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

    Parris, Matthew

    HomeRobertson, John

    Parry, Robert

    Homewood, William

    Patten, Christopher(Bath)

    Hooley, Frank

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Horam, John

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

    Howell, Rt Hon D.

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Howells, Geraint

    Prescott, John

    Hoyle, Douglas

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Huckfield, Les

    Race, Reg

    Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

    Radice, Giles

    Hughes, Mark(Durham)

    Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Richardson,Jo

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Roberts, Albert(Normanton,)

    Janner, HonGreville

    Roberts, Allan(Bootle)

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

    Jessel, Toby

    Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock)

    John, Brynmor

    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Rooker, J. W.

    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

    Roper, John

    Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

    Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Rowlands, Ted

    Kerr, Russell

    Ryman, John

    958

    Sever, John

    Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

    Sheerman, Barry

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

    Wainwright, E. (DearneV)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Wainwright, R(Colne V)

    Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

    Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    Watkins, David

    Silverman, Julius

    Weetch, Ken

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wellbeloved, James

    Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

    Welsh, Michael

    Snape, Peter

    White, Frank R.

    Soley, Clive

    White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Whitlock, William

    Stallard, A.W.

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

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

    Stoddart, David

    Williams, Rt Hon Mrs(Crosby)

    Stott, Roger

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    Strang, Gavin

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

    Straw, Jack

    Wilson, William (C'try SE)

    Summerskill, HonDrShirley

    Winnick, David

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Woodall, Alec

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Woolmer, Kenneth

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Wright, Sheila

    Thomas, Mike(Newcastle E,)

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Thomas, DrR. (Carmarthen)

    Tilley,John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Tinn, James

    Mr. George Morton and Mr. Allen McKay.

    Torney, Tom

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Clegg, Sir Walter

    Ancram, Michael

    Cockeram, Eric

    Arnold, Tom

    Colvin, Michael

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Cope, John

    Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Atkins, Robert(PrestonN)

    Corrie, John

    Atkinson, David(B'm'th, E)

    Costain, SirAlbert

    Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone,)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Baker, Nicholas(N Dorset)

    Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

    Banks, Robert

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

    Bell, Sir Ronald

    Dover, Denshore

    Bendall, Vivian

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    Benyon, Thomas(A'don)

    Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

    Benyon,W. (Buckingham)

    Durant, Tony

    Besi, Keith

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Elliott, Sir William

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Emery, Peter

    Blackburn, John

    Eyre, Reginald

    Blaker, Peter

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Faith, Mrs Sheila

    Bottomley, Peter(W'which W)

    Farr, John

    Bowden, Andrew

    Fell, Anthony

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Fenner, Mrs Peggy

    Bright, Graham

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Brinton Tim

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Brittan, Rt.Hon.Leon

    Fletche r, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

    Brown, Michael(Brigg& Sc'n,)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Browne,John(Winchester)

    Forman, Nigel

    Bruce-Gardyne, John

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Fox, Marcus

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt.Hon.A.

    Fraser, Peter(SouthAngus)

    Buck, Antony

    Fry, Peter

    Budgen, Nick

    Gardiner, George(Reigate)

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Burden, Sir Frederick

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Butcher, John

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Cadbury, Jocelyn

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Carlisle, John (LutonWest)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Chalker, Mrs.Lynda

    Gorst, John

    Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

    Gow, Ian

    Churchill, W.S.

    Gower, Sir Raymond

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

    Grant, Anthony (HarrowC)

    959

    Gray, Hamish

    Mills, Iain (Meriden)

    Greenway, Harry

    Mills, Peter (West Devon)

    Grieve, Percy

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)

    Monro, SirHector

    Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Grist, Ian

    Moore, John

    Grylls, Michael

    Morgan, Geraint

    Gummer, John Selwyn

    Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

    Hamilton, Hon A.

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Mudd, David

    Hannam, John

    Myles, David

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Neale, Gerrard

    Hastings, Stephen

    Needham, Richard

    Hawkins, Paul

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hawksley, Warren

    Neubert, Michael

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Newton, Tony

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Normanton, Tom

    Heddle, John

    Nott, Rt Hon John

    Henderson, Barry

    Onslow, Cranley

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Osborn, John

    Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Holland, Philip(Carlton,)

    Page, Richard (SW Herts)

    Hooson, Tom

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Hordern, Peter

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Pawsey, James

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

    Percival, Sir Ian

    Howell, Ralph(N Norfolk)

    Peyton, Rt Hon John

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Pink, R.Bonner

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Pollock, Alexander

    Hurd, Hon Douglas

    Porter, Barry

    Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

    Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

    Johnson, Smith, Geoffrey

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

    Raison, Timothy

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Rathbone, Tim

    Kellett-Bowman, MrsElaine

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Kershaw, Sir Anthony

    Renton, Tim

    Kimball, Sir Marcus

    Rhodes James, Robert

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    RhysWilliams, Sir Brandon

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Knox, David

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Lamont, Norman

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Lang, Ian

    Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Latham, Michael

    Rossi, Hugh

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Rost, Peter

    Lee, John

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    LeMarchant, Spencer

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Lems, Kenneth(Rutland)

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant &W'loo)

    Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Shelton, William(Streatham)

    Loveridge. John

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Luce, Richard

    Shepherd, Richard

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Shersby, Michael

    McCrindle, Robert

    Silvester, Fred

    MacGregor, John

    Sims, Roger

    MacKay, John (Argyll)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

    Smith, Dudley

    McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

    Speed, Keith

    McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)

    Spence, John

    McQuarrie, Albert

    Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

    Madel, David

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Major, John

    Sproat, Iain

    Marland, Paul

    Squire, Robin

    Marlow, Antony

    Stainton, Keith

    Marshall, Michael(Arundel)

    Stanley, John

    Marten, Rt Hon Neil

    Steen, Anthony

    Mates, Michael

    Stevens, Martin

    Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

    Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)

    Mawby, Ray

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Mawhinney, DrBrian

    Stokes, John

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Mellor, David

    Tapsell, Peter

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Miller, Hal(B'grove,)

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    960

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Walters, Dennis

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

    Ward, John

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Warren, Kenneth

    Thompson, Donald

    Watson, John

    Thorne, Neil (IlfordSouth)

    Wells, Bowen

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Wells, John(Maidstone)

    Townend, John(Bridlington)

    Wheeler, John

    Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    Trippier, David

    Whitney, Raymond

    Trotter, Neville

    Wickenden, Keith

    van Straubenzee, SirW.

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Vaughan, DrGerard

    Wilkinson, John

    Viggers, Peter

    Williams, D. (Montgomery)

    Waddington, David

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Wakeham, John

    Wolfson, Mark

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Young, SirGeorge(Acton)

    Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Walker, B. (Perth)

    Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Wall, Sir Patrick

    Mr. Anthony Berry and Mr. Carol Mather.

    Waller, Gary

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments):—
    The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 255.

    Division No. 22]

    [10.14 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

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

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Alexander, Richard

    Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Clegg, SirWalter

    Ancram, Michael

    Cockeram, Eric

    Arnold, Tom

    Colvin, Michael

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Cope, John

    Atkins, Rt HonH. (S'thorne)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

    Corrie, John

    Atkinson, David(B'm'th, E)

    Costain, SirAlbert

    Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

    Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

    Banks, Robert

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

    Bell, SirRonald

    Dover, Denshore

    Bendall, Vivian

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

    Dunn, Robe rt(Dartford)

    Best, Keith

    Durant, Tony

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Biggs-Davison, SirJohn

    Elliott, Sir William

    Blackburn, John

    Emery, Peter

    Blaker, Peter

    Eyre, Reginald

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

    Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

    Faith, Mrs Sheila

    Bowden, Andrew

    Farr, John

    Braine, SirBernard

    Fell, Anthony

    Bright, Graham

    Fenner, Mrs Peggy

    Brinton, Tim

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Brittan, Rt.Hon.Leon

    Fisher, SirNigel

    Brooke, HonPeter

    Fletcher, A(Ed'nb'gh N)

    Brotherton, Michael

    Fletcher-Cooke, SirCharles

    Brown,Michael(Brigg&Sc'n,)

    Fookes, MissJanet

    Browne, John(Winchester)

    Forman, Nigel

    Bruce-Gardyne, John

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Fox, Marcus

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

    Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

    Buck, Antony

    Fry, Peter

    Budgen, Nick

    Gardiner, George(Reigate)

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Burden, SirFrederick

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Butcher, John

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Cadbury, Jocelyn

    Glyn, DrAlan

    Carlisle, John (LutonWest)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Carliste, Kenneth(Lincoln)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Chalker, Mrs.Lynda

    Gorst, John

    Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

    Gow, Ian

    Churchill, W.S.

    Gower, SirRaymond

    961

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Millen, Hal(B'grove)

    Gray, Hamish

    Mills, Iain(Meriden)

    Greenway, Harry

    Mills, Peter (West Devon)

    Grieve, Percy

    Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)

    Griffiths, E. (B 'ySt. Edm 'ds)

    Monro, SirHector

    Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Grist, Ian

    Moore, John

    Grylls, Michael

    Morgan, Geraint

    Gummer, John Selwyn

    Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

    Hamilton, Hon A.

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Hampson, DrKeith

    Mudd, David

    Hannam, John

    Murphy, Christopher

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Myles, David

    Hastings, Stephen

    Neale, Gerrard

    Hawkins, Paul

    Needham, Richard

    Hawksley, Warren

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Neubert, Michael

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Newton, Tony

    Heddle, John

    Normanton, Tom

    Henderson, Barry

    Nott, Rt Hon, John

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Onslow, Cranley

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Oppenheim, Rt Hon MrsS.

    Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)

    Osborn, John

    Holland, Philip(Carlton)

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Hooson, Tom

    Page, Richard (SW Herts)

    Hordern, Peter

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Pattie, Geoffrey

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

    Pawsey, James

    Howell, Ralph(N Norfolk)

    Percival, SirIan

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Peyton, Rt Hon John

    Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)

    Pink, R.Bonner

    Hurd, HonDouglas

    Pollock, Alexander

    Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)

    Porter, Barry

    Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Johnson, Smith, Geoffrey

    Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Raison, Timothy

    Kellett-Bowman, MrsElaine

    Rathbone, Tim

    Kershaw, Sir Anthony

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Kimball, SirMarcus

    Renton, Tim

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    RhodesJames, Robert

    Knight, MrsJill

    RhysWilliams, SirBrandon

    Knox, David

    Ridley, HonNicholas

    Lamont, Norman

    Ridsdale, SirJulian

    Lang, Ian

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Langford-Holt, SirJohn

    Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

    Latham, Michael

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Rossi, Hugh

    Lee, John

    Rost, Peter

    LeMarchant, Spencer

    Royle, SirAnthony

    Lennox-Boyd, HonMark

    Sainsbury, HonTimothy

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

    Lewis, Kenneth(Rutland,)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant& W'loo)

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)

    Loveridge, John

    Shelton, William(Streatham)

    Luce, Richard

    Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Shepherd, Richard

    McCrindle, Robert

    Shersby, Michael

    MacGregor, John

    Silvester, Fred

    MacKay, John (Argyll)

    Sims, Roger

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

    Smith, Dudley

    McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)

    Speed, Keith

    McQuarrie, Albert

    Spence, John

    Madel, David

    Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

    Major, John

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Marland, Paul

    Sproat, Iain

    Marlow, Antony

    Squire, Robin

    Marshall, Michael(Arundel)

    Stainton, Keith

    Marten, Rt Hon Neil

    Stanley, John

    Mates, Michael

    Steen, Anthony

    Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

    Stevens, Martin

    Mawby, Ray

    Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)

    Mawhinney, DrBrian

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Stokes, John

    Mellor, David

    StradlingThomas,J.

    Meyer, SirAnthony

    Tapsell, Peter

    962

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Waller, Gary

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Walters, Dennis

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Ward, John

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

    Warren, Kenneth

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Watson, John

    Thompson, Donald

    Wells, Bowen

    Thorne, Neil (IlfordSouth)

    Wells, John(Maidstone)

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Wheeler, John

    Townend, John(Bridlingoton)

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

    Whitney, Raymond

    Trippier, David

    Wickenden, Keith

    Trotter, Neville

    Wiggin, Jerry

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Wilkinson, John

    Vaughan, DrGerard

    Williams, D. (Montgomery)

    Viggers, Peter

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Waddington, David

    Wolfson, Mark

    Wakeham, John

    Young, SirGeorge(Acton)

    Waldegrave, HonWilliam

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

    Walker, B. (Perth)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

    Mr. Anthony Berry and Mr. Carol Mather.

    Wall, SirPatrick

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Douglas, Dick

    Adams, Allen

    Dubs, Alfred

    Allaun, Frank

    Dunlop, John

    Alton, David

    Dunn, James A.

    Anderson, Donald

    Dunnett, Jack

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

    Ashton, Joe

    Eadie, Alex

    Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

    Eastham, Ken

    Bagier, GordonA.T.

    Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

    English, Michael

    Beith, A.J.

    Ennals, Rt Hon David

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Ewing, Harry

    Body, Richard

    Faulds, Andrew

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Flannery, Martin

    Boothroyd, MissBetty

    Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)

    Bottomley, RtHonA. (M'b'ro)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Ford, Ben

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Forrester, John

    Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)

    Foster, Derek

    Brown, Ron(E'burgh, Leith)

    Foulkes, George

    Buchan, Norman

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

    Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

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

    Freud, Clement

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    Carmichael, Neil

    George, Bruce

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Cartwright, John

    Ginsburg, David

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Golding, John

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

    Graham, Ted

    Coleman, Donald

    Grant, George(Morpeth)

    Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

    G rant, John (Islington C)

    Cook, Robin F.

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

    Cowans, Harry

    Hardy, Peter

    Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)

    Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Crowther, Stan

    Haynes, Frank

    Cryer, Bob

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Cunningham, DrJ. (W'h'n)

    Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Holland, S.(L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

    Davidson, Arthur

    HomeRobertson, John

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

    Homewood, William

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Hooley, Frank

    Davis, Clinton (HackneyC)

    Horam, John

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

    Howell, Rt Hon D.

    Deakins, Eric

    Howells, Geraint

    Dempsey, James

    Hoyle, Douglas

    Dewar, Donald

    Huckfield, Les

    Dixon, Donald

    Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

    Dobson, Frank

    Hughes, Mark(Durham)

    Dormand, Jack

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    963

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Maxton, John

    Janner, HonGreville

    Maynard, MissJoan

    Jay, RtHonDouglas

    Meacher, Michael

    John, Brynmor

    Mikardo, Ian

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Johnson, Walter (DerbyS)

    Miller, Dr M.S. (E Kilbride)

    Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

    Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby)

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Molyneaux, James

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Kerr, Russell

    Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

    Kilfedder, JamesA.

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Morton, George

    Kinnock, Neil

    Mulley, RtHon Frederick

    Lambie, David

    Newens, Stanley

    Lamborn, Harry

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Leadbitter, Ted

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Leighton, Ronald

    O'Neill, Martin

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Lewis, Arthu r (N'ham NW)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Park, George

    Litherland, Robert

    Parker, John

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Parry, Robert

    Lyon, Alexander (York)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)

    Penhaligon, David

    Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

    Pitt, WilliamHenry

    McCartney, Hugh

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

    McDonald, DrOonagh

    Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)

    McElhone, Frank

    Prescott, John

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Race, Reg

    McKelvey, William

    Radice, Giles

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Richardson, Jo

    McMahon, Andrew

    Roberts, Albert(Normanton)

    McNally, Thomas

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

    McTaggart, Robert

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    McWilliam, John

    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

    Magee, Bryan

    Rooker, J. W.

    Marks, Kenneth

    Roper, John

    Marshall, D (G'gowS'ton)

    Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

    Marshall, DrEdmund (Goole)

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)

    Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Rowlands, Ted

    964

    Ryman, John

    Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

    Sever, John

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

    Wainwright, R. (Colne V)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

    Silkin, RtHon J. (Deptford)

    Watkins, David

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    Weetch, Ken

    Silverman, Julius

    Wellbeloved, James

    Skinner, Dennis

    Welsh, Michael

    Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

    White, Frank R.

    Snape, Peter

    White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

    Soley, Clive

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Spearing, Nigel

    Whitlock, William

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Stallard, A.W.

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

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Williams, Rt Hon Mrs(Crosby)

    Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

    Wilson, Gordon(Dundee E)

    Stoddart, David

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

    Stott, Roger

    Wilson, William (C'trySE)

    Strang, Gavin

    Winnick, David

    Straw, jack

    Woodall, Alec

    Summerskill, HonDrShirley

    Woolmer, Kenneth

    Taylor, MrsAnn (Bolton W)

    Wright, Sheila

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Thomas, DrR. (Carmarthen)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Tilley, John

    Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Dean.

    Tinn, James

    Torney, Tom

    MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House, believing that environmental and social problems arising from heavy lorries must be tackled comprehensively and vigorously and that industry should be helped to keep down transport costs, welcomes the Government's commitment to a continuing and substantial programme of by-pass construction to which further additions are steadily being made, and considers that decisions should not be taken on the White Paper until there has been adequate time to consider fully all the measures proposed in the light of consultations on the draft amending Regulations published for that purpose.

    Clinical Mishap (Investigation)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thompson.]
    10.26 pm
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health for having come to the House to reply to this important and significant debate. His action reflects the importance that he attaches to the subject and it is always pleasing to know that a Minister properly appreciates public concern. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) for being present in the Chamber. I know how keenly he has followed this issue.
    The matter that I raise came to light as a result of events following the terrible mishap that befell my constituent, Mr. David Woodhouse. Briefly the position is that Mr. Woodhouse, a very fit man, aged 27—with a young wife and four small children—entered Hereford county hospital on 14 May with appendicitis. During the course of, I understand, a comparatively minor operation by today's standards, something went very wrong. As a result, he lapsed into a coma and I believe that he has suffered considerable brain damage. He is still in a coma seven months later.
    I am informed that immediately the mishap occurred the hospital set in action the machinery set out in the Department's guidelines, HM (55)66 "The Reporting of Accidents in Hospitals". As a result of a complaint, the area health authority moved to set up an inquiry under the guidelines set out in HM (66)15. The Medical Defence Union then intervened and advised the doctors concerned not to take part in any area health authority inquiry into the mishap. At first, I was puzzled about the reasons for that. As far as I can make out, that advice was given because participation might prejudice the doctors' rights in any civil law proceedings that might follow. The background to that lies in the decision made in the case of Waugh v. the British Railways Board in July 1979, which undermines the legal privilege of evidence given to an inquiry.
    The Medical Defence Union's concern is understandable, but in the absence of public understanding, much more base motives have been ascribed to its actions. Dark allegations have been made to me that the Medical Defence Union is merely seeking to minimise its financial exposure, and that it is seeking to delay because it is cheaper to settle on behalf of a dead man than a living man. They are not pleasant allegations.
    This situation has caused immense concern throughout the country, not least in Herefordshire. I emphasise that, although the worry has its epicentre in Herefordshire, it has spread from one end of the country to the other. Indeed, it is reasonable to say that there is now wide recognition in all parts of the Health Service that there is a yawning hole in the investigative procedures into clinical mishaps.
    The National Association of Community Health Councils supported wholeheartedly the call by the Herefordshire community health council for something to be done to remedy the situation. I am informed that the regional medical officers, as a body, are disturbed at the action by the MDU. It is feared that it represents an attitude that could lead to a block to all future health authority inquiries into medical mishaps.
    966
    Not all such inquiries lead to civil law proceedings. Often it is sufficient for the complainant or his relatives to be satisfied that such an occasion cannot happen again. Nobody wants recourse to the civil courts to be the only method of establishing fact. If that becomes the only way of getting at the facts, we can be certain that litigation will proliferate. That is just what the Medical Defence Union does not want to happen. It is a deplorable aspect of the American medical scene where litigation is every doctor's perpetual nightmare.
    As the area health authority is unable to initiate an inquiry that would have any value, recourse must be to a higher power. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows that the buck stops with him. It seems that there is no stopping short of an inquiry under section 84 of the National Health Service Act 1977.
    Referring to the tragic Woodhouse case, the Minister will recall that he has been asked to set up a section 84 inquiry by myself, the area health authority and the community health council. In each case he has seen fit to refuse. In his letter of 8 September to the area health authority he says that he considers it to be "a one off case" that does not suggest deep rooted failures in the service such as would be likely to give rise to national concern. The duties and powers entrusted to the Secretary of State in clauses 1 and 2 of the 1977 Act are wide and sweeping—one might say that they are onerous.
    The failure to be able to initiate an inquiry is a deep-rooted failure of the service. The failure to initiate an inquiry is far more likelly to give rise to national concern. I beg the Secretary of State to reconsider on the basis of his criteria set out in his letter of 8 September.
    The people of Hereford have a real interest. All parties want to know what is happening—and rightly. The Woodhouse parents have been to see me. The hospital sector administrator is reported by The Hereford Times as saying:
    "If there is not going to be an inquiry I am disgusted."
    In a letter to the Minister on 24 November, the area health authority states:
    "The position of the Authority is that the cause of the incident is obscure; that the best—and probably only—way of establishing the cause is to set up an inquiry attended by all the relevant staff and that a civil Lawsuit cannot be relied upon to achieve the objective."
    The medical staff also want an inquiry. Who can blame them? They feel that the hospital is under a cloud. The Observer quotes the anaesthetist as saying:
    "an inquiry would be best for all. … An inquiry would be a good thing."
    The community health council, in its letter to the Minister dated 16 September advised him of a resolution stating:
    "The problems raised by the inability of the AHA to promote a full inquiry into the case of an incident involving David Woodhouse cause grave concern and in our opinion such inability is against the best interest of the public, the health authority and the medical profession."
    Those are massive representations from Herefordshire and I know that they are very much reflected by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster.
    It is a reflection on the excellent standards and achievement of the Health Service that it has taken nearly two years for an incident such as this to show up the appalling gap in investigative ability in the event of clinical mishap. It is not reasonable to say, as the Minister said, that the proper procedure now is through the courts. What happens if the parties to litigation settle out of court? Then we shall never know and the public's genuine interest

    967
    will not be served. What happens if it takes two years to get the case heard in court? Should the public have to wait that long to find out whether negligence or incompetence was the cause? Will they be charged with confidence in their hospitals and in their surgeons if they believe that when anything goes wrong it could take up to two years after the accident to find out about it?
    The Minister's letter of 10 November 1981 implies human error and caused more than a little confusion. I cannot help but feel that the Minister was not correctly advised about that. I do not allege that any of those factors are behind the case. I do not deny that I am anxious to know, but the public would not be natural if they did not suspect some or other of those causes to be the case. If it was incompetence or carelessness, would the public interest be well served by having a two-year period without correction?
    Those are legitimate concerns to the public, who use the National Health Service and subscribe a not insubstantial part of their incomes to it. They must not be let down. There is a need for an urgent review of the current position. I am not putting forward solutions this evening, but I hope that they will emerge from discussions and consultations with all parties potentially involved. I hope also that the Minister will tell me this evening that he will consider the proposal seriously and put consultations in hand forthwith.
    With regard to the Woodhouse case, I still believe that a section 84 agreement is not inappropriate in the light of the current state of play. It seems to be the only way in which an answer can be obtained reasonably speedily within the present restraints. I hope that the Minister will think along those lines.
    10.38 pm
    The Minister for Health (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): I am glad that my hon. Friend has brought this matter before the House, because some important principles are involved.
    I wish to make it absolutely clear that I fully share my hon. Friend's concern about this tragic case, and I wish to express my deepest sympathy to Mrs. Woodhouse and her family. My hon. Friend has raised a number of serious points, especially about the steps available to health authorities to pursue inquiries into such situations.
    This may turn out to be a tragic but isolated local incident that could not have been foreseen, but, whatever the cause, I am in no doubt at all that health authorities should be able to know as far as possible exactly what happened and why. It is then a basic responsibility of the health authority to ensure, again as far as possible, that it does not happen again. We must be certain that whatever went wrong will not be repeated. In order to do that, we must know exactly what went wrong.
    In most cases it is enough for officers of the authority to inquire of the staff concerned and make a report. If that is not sufficient, the authority can appoint a panel of its members to consider the matter. Exceptionally, a formal inquiry by the health authority can be set up, with a chairman and members completely independent of the authority. Those are all essentially fact-finding procedures.
    968
    Fortunately, such serious mishaps occur rarely. When they do, the responsibility for taking the necessary action right away lies squarely with the health authority. In most cases I am glad to say that the procedures work very well.
    If necessary, but only in special circumstances, the Secretary of State can set up an inquiry under section 84 of the National Health Service Act 1977. The inquiry can summon witnesses and take evidence on oath. The powers for that are extensive, as my hon. Friend rightly said, but setting up such an inquiry is a major procedure. It takes a long time and it must call upon experienced and eminent people. It is also an expensive process. In practice, it has been used only rarely—usually where the matter causes national concern.
    We are discussing a situation which, to my regret, has not been resolved so far. Public anxiety has not been allayed, and it is important that it should be.
    Press reports and letters suggest that in this case the Hereford and Worcester health authority has been unable to establish the cause of the incident, so it has not been able to say—and that is extremely important—that it is reasonably sure that it has done all that it could to prevent a recurrence. That is a very serious situation.
    I understand that soon after the incident occurred, inquiries were made of the hospital staff. A report was made by the district administrator based on statements from the staff, including the medical staff involved in the operation. Soon after, a technical expert from my Department, at the authority's request, examined the anaesthetic equipment which had been used in the operation. He found no defects which could have been the cause of the patient being deprived of oxygen. The reports were considered by the authority, which proposed that there should be further inquiries by a formal independent inquiry set up by the authority.
    At that stage the Medical Defence Union made it clear that, because civil proceedings were then a very real possibility it would have to advise its members not to cooperate with the inquiry—that is the Waugh problem—so that their position in such proceedings would not be prejudiced. As a result, the authority decided not to set up an inquiry, because it would have no power to compel the attendance of witnesses. It decided instead to press me on behalf of the Secretary of State to set up a section 84 inquiry, under which witnesses could be required to attend, whatever advice they had received. That inquiry would be a statutory inquiry and take evidence on oath.
    I understand my hon. Friend's concern and that of the authority in wishing to have further inquiries made in a thorough and impartial manner, but knowing that in the absence of important witnesses it could turn out to be inconclusive. I gave the most careful consideration to the authority's request, but, in view of the major process of setting up a section 84 inquiry I did not feel that a full inquiry was the right answer unless it proved absolutely essential.
    As my hon. Friend knows, there has been further correspondence between the authority and my Department and between myself and the chairman. I have in the past few days received a further letter from the chairman, to which I replied as follows:
    "It seems to me to be absolutely fundamental that your authority should be able to know the facts of what occurred, in a hospital for which you have responsibility, and that you should be reasonably sure that an incident of this kind is not likely to happen again.

    969
    You appear in your letter to be saying that you cannot be reasonably sure. This puts a rather different aspect on the view I took earlier about civil proceedings. I had thought you had done what you could to ensure that this incident does not recur. But in view of your latest letter I am not now happy that you should rely on court action by relatives to find out what happened. There is also the possibility that the case would be settled out of court."
    My hon. Friend said how unsatisfactory it would be if there were a settlement and the real facts were never known.
    My letter continues:
    "I have only in the last few days received copies of papers which date back as far as May and include statements from the doctors concerned. Having seen these, I suggest that you now put this evidence right away to the scrutiny of outside experts. They can be asked to give a view on possible causes, and on what further evidence may be needed. In this way, it may very well be possible for you to have all the information you need"—
    to bring this to a satisfactory conclusion—
    "and I hope you will then be able to clear this up locally. I am reluctant to set up the panoply of a section 84 inquiry into what may turn out to be a tragic accident which could not have been foreseen, unless it is clear that all other means of investigating the issues have failed. Would you please give me a full report on the action you take and its results as soon as possible."
    That is the situation as it stands at the moment. I think that my hon. Friend was right to raise this subject tonight, and I hope that he will agree that there are now good prospects for sorting this out satisfactorily. As my hon. Friend said, wider issues are involved. For example, a problem faces the Medical Defence Union when it has to advise its members not to give statements because of the possibility of a civil action later. I suggest that we should examine that point carefully and take it up with the appropriate legal authorities.
    On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the answer that I have given. I am glad that he raised the matter.
    Mr. Shepherd: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to some of my hon. Friend's points.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The hon. Gentleman has the leave of the House.
    Mr. Shepherd: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the deep consideration that he has given to the matter, and I welcome his recognition of the wider issues involved. It is sad that we have had to have a case as tragic as the Woodhouse case to set in train the events that my hon. Friend is now to initiate in his consideration of the legal aspects of the position. That is to be welcomed widely not just by the medical profession, because it has wider ramifications than that.
    My hon. Friend was kind enough to let me have a copy of the letter from which he quoted, which I received during the last division and which I had a chance only to glimpse before the debate. I am still slightly perturbed that it may not be possible, under the proposals that he has made to the area health authority, for the people of Herefordshire to be openly satisfied that there can be no repetition. Nevertheless, I am happy to go along with my hon. Friend's proposals, secure in the knowledge that, if things do not go right, he still has the section 84 inquiry to fall back on if all else fails. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his consideration of the matter tonight.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eleven o' clock.

    MR. SPEAKER'S RULING (ADJOURNMENT DEBATES)
    The following Private Ruling given by Mr. Speaker is published in accordance with Mr. Speaker's statement of 5 November 1981—[Official Report, c. 113.]
    On 2 December 1981—[Official Report, c. 267]—I reiterated my view that it is unreasonable after 8 pm to call on Ministers to be ready to answer an Adjournment debate of which no previous notice has been given, and I stated that my predecessors and I have always deprecated attempts to raise matters on the Adjournment without the presence of a Minister.
    I have been asked to rule whether my statement of 2 December should be taken to mean that I take a different view from Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster who, on 14 February 1964, having drawn attention to the fact that due notice had not been given to a Minister, said in reference to the hon. Member seeking to speak:
    "I cannot prohibit him from doing so, but I deprecate the practice unless notice has been given to the Minister".—[Official Report, 14 February 1964; Vol. 689, c. 800.]
    I now rule that my statement of 2 December does not seek to take the matter further than Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster's ruling, save that it provides a definition of "due notice", to which I intend to adhere until the House decides otherwise.

PRIME MINISTER
  Greater Manchester (Industrial Decline)
  Greater Manchester (Industrial Decline)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Forensic Science Laboratories
  Forensic Science Laboratories
  Papal Visit
  Papal Visit
  Civil Disturbance
  Civil Disturbance
  Mr. Erroll Madden
  Mr. Erroll Madden
  Moss Side Hospital, Merseyside
  Moss Side Hospital, Merseyside
  Harmondsworth Detention Centre (Member's Correspondence)
  Harmondsworth Detention Centre (Member's Correspondence)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Staff Numbers
  Staff Numbers
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Breaches of the Peace
  Breaches of the Peace
  Court Cases (Backlog)
  Court Cases (Backlog)
  Small Claims Procedure
  Small Claims Procedure
SCOTLAND
  Industrial Field Executive (Lanarkshire)
  Industrial Field Executive (Lanarkshire)
  Railway Electrification (Ayrshire)
  Railway Electrification (Ayrshire)
  Quinquennial Revaluation
  Quinquennial Revaluation
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Rating System
  Rating System
  Timber-based Industry
  Timber-based Industry
  Scottish Islands (Road Equivalent Tariff)
  Scottish Islands (Road Equivalent Tariff)
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Ferry Services
  Ferry Services
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Secondary School Pupils
  Secondary School Pupils
  Caravan Sites
  Caravan Sites
  Investment
  Investment
  Royal Hospital for Sick Children
  Royal Hospital for Sick Children
  Regional Health Boards
  Regional Health Boards
  Unemployed Persons (Irvine-Ardrossan)
  Unemployed Persons (Irvine-Ardrossan)
  Police Interviews (Tape Recording)
  Police Interviews (Tape Recording)
  Trident Project
  Trident Project
  Agricultural Development
  Agricultural Development
  British Leyland (Bathgate)
  British Leyland (Bathgate)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Car Fuel Benefits
  Car Fuel Benefits
  Prices
  Prices
  Unemployment Levels
  Unemployment Levels
  Goods and Services (Productivity)
  Goods and Services (Productivity)
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
  Government Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
  Charities (Income Tax Relief)
  Charities (Income Tax Relief)
  European Investment Bank (Loans)
  European Investment Bank (Loans)
  Development Land Tax
  Development Land Tax
  Oil and Gas Platforms (Taxation)
  Oil and Gas Platforms (Taxation)
  Exchange Rate
  Exchange Rate
  Tax Allowances for Investment (Green Paper)
  Tax Allowances for Investment (Green Paper)
  Overseas Tax Evasion
  Overseas Tax Evasion
  Labour Costs
  Labour Costs
  Discretionary Trusts
  Discretionary Trusts
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Sub-Saharan Africa
EMPLOYMENT
  Wages Inspectorate
  Wages Inspectorate
  Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)Regulations 1981
  Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)Regulations 1981
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Industrial Training
  Industrial Training
  Sheltered Industrial Groups Scheme
  Sheltered Industrial Groups Scheme
  Ceredigion (Job Creation)
  Ceredigion (Job Creation)
  Clothing Industry (Wages)
  Clothing Industry (Wages)
  Redundancy Payments
  Redundancy Payments
TRADE
  Discounts to Retailers (Report)
  Discounts to Retailers (Report)
  Rolls-Royce Engines (Libya)
  Rolls-Royce Engines (Libya)
  Quangos
  Quangos
  Electronics Products
  Electronics Products
  South Africa (Air Services)
  South Africa (Air Services)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  European Act
  European Act
  Republic of Ireland (Oil Reserves)
  Republic of Ireland (Oil Reserves)
  Foreign Service (Libel Actions)
  Foreign Service (Libel Actions)
  Chad (Peacekeeping Force)
  Chad (Peacekeeping Force)
  British Embassy (Santiago)
  British Embassy (Santiago)
INDUSTRY
  Greater Manchester
  Greater Manchester
  Product and Process Development Scheme
  Product and Process Development Scheme
DEFENCE
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Woolwich Arsenal
  Woolwich Arsenal
  Royal Dockyard, Devonport
  Royal Dockyard, Devonport
  Royal Dockyard, Chatham
  Royal Dockyard, Chatham
  Meteorological Services
  Meteorological Services
  Sea Eagle
  Sea Eagle
  Trident
  Trident
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce
  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Land Drainage Act 1976
  Land Drainage Act 1976
  Tree Felling (Permits)
  Tree Felling (Permits)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Leaving Age
  School Leaving Age
  Burnham Further Education Committee
  Burnham Further Education Committee
  Selective Schools
  Selective Schools
  Microelectronics
  Microelectronics
  Examination Results
  Examination Results
  Science and Engineering Research Council
  Science and Engineering Research Council
  Adult and Further Education
  Adult and Further Education
  First Degree Courses (Student Grants)
  First Degree Courses (Student Grants)
  Free School Meals
  Free School Meals
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Education Costs
  Education Costs
  Home Students (Engineering and Technology)
  Home Students (Engineering and Technology)
  Universities (Course Costs)
  Universities (Course Costs)
WALES.
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
  Job Losses
  Job Losses
  Job Vacancies
  Job Vacancies
  Unemployed Young Persons
  Unemployed Young Persons
  European Community (Agriculture Commissioner)
  European Community (Agriculture Commissioner)
  School Meals
  School Meals
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Private Patients (Admissions)
  Private Patients (Admissions)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  School Milk
  School Milk
  Medical Schools (Staffing)
  Medical Schools (Staffing)
  Blind and Partially Sighted Persons (Registration)
  Blind and Partially Sighted Persons (Registration)
  Mentally Handicapped Adults (Residential Places)
  Mentally Handicapped Adults (Residential Places)
  Mentally Handicapped Young Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Young Persons
  Fraud Investigation
  Fraud Investigation
  Adoption
  Adoption
  Social Workers
  Social Workers
  Solvent Abuse
  Solvent Abuse
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Medical Waiting Lists
  Medical Waiting Lists
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
TRANSPORT.
  Anti-lock Braking Systems
  Anti-lock Braking Systems
  Speed Restrictions
  Speed Restrictions
  Replacement Vehicle Bulbs
  Replacement Vehicle Bulbs
  Heavy Vehicles (Taxation)
  Heavy Vehicles (Taxation)
ENVIRONMENT
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Council Houses (Improvements)
  Council Houses (Improvements)
  Greater Manchester (Industrial Decline)
  Greater Manchester (Industrial Decline)
  Caravan Site (Hackney)
  Caravan Site (Hackney)
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  St. Edmundsbury (Grant-related Expenditure)
  St. Edmundsbury (Grant-related Expenditure)
  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee
  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee
  Homes Insulation (Disabled Persons)
  Homes Insulation (Disabled Persons)
  Factories (Potential Danger)
  Factories (Potential Danger)
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
  House Improvements
  House Improvements
SCOTLAND.
  Hostel Places.
  Hostel Places.
  Carstairs State Hospital
  Carstairs State Hospital
  Electoral Register
  Electoral Register
  Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960
  Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960
  Ferries
  Ferries
  Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980
  Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Council House Waiting Lists
  Council House Waiting Lists
  Employment (Greenock-Port Glasgow-Largs)
  Employment (Greenock-Port Glasgow-Largs)
  Scottish Grand Committee (Edinburgh Sittings)
  Scottish Grand Committee (Edinburgh Sittings)
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Nursing Staff (Retirement)
  Nursing Staff (Retirement)
  Area Health Boards (Occupational Health Service)
  Area Health Boards (Occupational Health Service)
  Unemployed Females
  Unemployed Females
  Solvent Abuse
  Solvent Abuse

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

Peace Movements: Exploitation
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have documented evidence of the extent to which alien political influences are exploiting the peace movements in Western Europe and the USA and, if so, whether they will now publish this evidence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, it is clearly in the Soviet interest to exploit peace movements in Europe, thereby seeking to weaken Western resolve to counter the threat to our security. We are satisfied that there is evidence that organisations such as, for example, the World Peace Council who are active in this field do enjoy considerable support from Eastern sources.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that rather uninformative first reply. Would he not agree that the free world, and NATO in particular, needs, first, to win the argument for multinational disarmament and, secondly, to reveal the extent to which the Soviet Union are financing peace movements and other movements which are trying to undermine the unity of NATO? Would it not now be in the interest of the intelligence organisations in all NATO countries to cease holding their cards quite so close to their chest and to give us the opportunity of learning just where the money is coming from for free trains and free buses across frontiers in order to finance demonstrations against armament in Western Europe?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure whether the Western countries have kept their cards quite so close to their chest as my noble friend suggests. I wonder whether my noble friend has seen the report on the hearings of the Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives which was published last year. If he turns to page 79 of that report—I shall be happy to direct him later to the publication—he will see that considerable detail was produced by the CIA.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the peace movement in Britain, part of Europe, takes the utmost care that all its finances come from British sources? Is he also aware that I should be very well prepared to provide him with all the details of
1336
the income of the World Disarmament Campaign if he wishes to receive them? May I further ask him whether he saw the statement in the Guardian on Monday by a NATO ambassador:
"Our public relations job would be much easier if the unilateralists were simply puppets manipulated"—
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Brockway: I am quoting.
Several noble Lords: Order!
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Baroness Young): My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough, please, to ask his question and not to make long quotations in the middle of it?
Lord Brockway: I am asking the Minister whether he saw in the Guardian on Monday the statement by the NATO ambassador which indicated that the European peace movement is not receiving money from Moscow. And, so far as the United States is concerned, is the Minister aware that the peace movement is led by the Quaker Friends' Service Committee and Homer Jack, a Unitarian Minister, neither of whom would be likely to receive any funds from alien sources?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I would not wish to suggest that every branch of the European peace movement is funded by the Soviet Union or other Eastern bloc countries, but the World Peace Council to which I referred certainly enjoys considerable support. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, on the other hand, has, I think, strenuously denied any support from Eastern sources.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, would the Minister ask whether the British Embassy in Copenhagen could monitor the forthcoming trial of two Danish citizens on the charge of receiving money from a member of the Soviet Embassy in order to facilitate a peace march?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am aware of the case to which my noble friend refers and I can assure him that we shall keep ourselves properly informed.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the report to which he referred earlier the calculations are that the Soviet Union is spending something like £1,500 million a year on disinformation and destabilisation of NATO and that, of that, something like £100 million a year is being spent on financing peace movements in Western Europe? Is he further aware that the question is not whether money is coming into the coffers of this or that organisation but whether or not, if the Soviet Union are spending that kind of money on that kind of operation, it is reasonable to infer that all peace movements in Western Europe are benefiting from it?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords, I do not think that that is a proper inference. Certainly I am prepared to point to the support which the World Peace Council receives, but to go wider and to suggest that they all receive such support is going too far.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that at the Western European Assembly last week the Minister of State of the French Ministry of Defence made a proposal that the Assembly should study this problem of the possible financing by communist sources of the peace movements? Would that not be a good idea? Would not Her Majesty's Government give support to this study which a French Minister has suggested? And would Her Majesty's Government make available what information they have on this issue?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I would certainly want to study more carefully what the French Minister said before giving a categorical assurance of the kind for which the noble Lord has asked, but I do not think I would want to support a proposal which amounted to a witch hunt.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we find his answers very fair and reasoned? May I ask him whether he could perhaps convey to his noble friend whether he thinks that Soviet gold is going to the pastors of the Lutheran Church of East Germany, who are organising a peace movement, and to the Hungarian Roman Catholic priests, who are preaching for conscientious objection, and to the entire Romanian Government, which has just organised a peace rally of hundreds of thousands of people, and whether all that is part of Soviet propaganda?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I should not want to draw too close a comparison between the peace movements of Eastern Europe, which in my view are far from spontaneous, and others in Western Europe, which are more so.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, even if this could be proved, is it not a shade open to misunderstanding that we should appear to be objecting to the Soviet Union spending their money on peace instead of war?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that that is the intention of the Soviet Union.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, has my noble friend seen the statement made on BBC Radio by Dr Luns, when he said that the Soviet Union paid for the peace movement? As Dr. Joseph Luns has been Director General of NATO for some 10 years, surely statements of this kind are not made lightly or without reasonable proof? And would it not be reasonable, if the House of Representatives can publish detailed figures, for somebody in this Government to come forth with similar figures, before this movement becomes too proscribed and too dedicated to the destruction of NATO's security?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have not seen a trans-script of what Dr. Luns said in the broadcast to which my noble friend has referred, but I suggest it is unwise to take such a remark out of context, as my noble friend has done.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Dr. Luns's remark is equally without foundation? Is he further aware that there is as much substance in these charges as there is in one which I have unearthed myself? Is the noble Lord aware that I have in my pocket evidence of a dastardly red plot? This monstrosity, invented in Hungary, can in the hands of clever people be used to present an innocent blue facade to the public while concealing at the back a wholly red interior. I refer, of course, to the dastardly Rubik's cube, which has diverted the minds of the young people of this country away from constructive thoughts about nuclear war.
Several noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has already asked four questions in one. Will he please ask his question?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that this vicious thing is something which he ought to investigate with the same thoroughness that he would the other matters raised by his noble friends?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, is, of course, a well-known member of the unilateral disarmament movement in this country. I think he tends to attach too much levity to the matter raised by my noble friend. It is an important matter and, as I have said, there is certainly some evidence of Soviet support for some of the unilateral disarmament movements. I would not accept the levity which the noble Lord opposite attaches to the subject.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have now spent 10 minutes on this Question and I think it is time that we moved on to the next Question.

Competitiveness in Trade and Industry
2.48 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there has been any improvement in this country's international competitiveness since the beginning of this year.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, the Industry Act forecast estimates that competitiveness, measured by relative unit labour costs, has improved over 10 per cent. this year.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. Was not that improvement of 10 per cent. achieved after the Government took office? Was the rate not in fact declining by 7 per cent. at that particular period? In other words, the increase has been 10 per cent. since the Government

1339
assumed office? And are not our exports at the present moment increasing by over £1 billion a week, in spite of the recession?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, my noble friend suggests that the figure of 10 per cent. which I have given could be applied to the period when the present Administration came to office. I do not think he is correct in that, although I can tell him that the current figure for the third quarter of this year is an all time high in the economic history of this country. It is an undoubted improvement. As far as exports are concerned, I will check my noble friend's figure, but certainly they stood up remarkably well through the most difficult period, from the point of view of competitiveness, and they are improving now.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that international competitiveness is a function not only of unit labour costs but also of the exchange rate of the pound? Would not the noble Lord also agree that the enormously high exchange rate which has been maintained throughout this year—unrealistically in relation to the dollar and other currencies—is hindering our competitiveness abroad and preventing British manufacturers from raising their exports?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I would not accept the noble Lord's explanation of the improvements. The exchange rate has indeed fallen to a level which perhaps many people expected to be more compatible with our international competitiveness, and certainly this has helped British industry in some respects. There is no doubt that in addition to the exchange rate movement, which has been helpful, the much leaner, fitter industry which has resulted from the last two years' difficult period is also a major reason. The output-per-man figures are at a record level and I hope this will mean that we can recover some of our lost share of world markets, which fell from 20 per cent. in 1960 to 8·5 per cent. by 1975.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount: Would our industry be more competitive if it had to bear the whole cost of 3 million people unemployed?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, the reason why we have 3 million people unemployed is not due to the actions in the later years of the Labour Government, or indeed to the actions of this Government. It is for the reason that I have just mentioned; namely, that due to lack of competitiveness we lost over half of our share of world markets and a similar proportion of our own between 1960 and 1975. It has only shown up now because the unprecedented period of growth that took place in those years has come to an end.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the moment is right for serious consideration of joining the EMS?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are noting carefully the progress of the EMS arrangements and have had under consideration
1340
for some time the question of the right moment to join. No decision has yet been reached.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, would the noble Viscount agree if I suggested to him that, so far from our productivity in manufacturing industry being at record levels, it is still 4 per cent. lower than it was in the second quarter of 1979?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, not in output per man. If the noble Lord will read Hansard, he will see that is the factual situation.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would the noble Viscount not agree that perhaps a fall in interest rates might have as much beneficial effect as the fall in the value of the pound has had?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, interest rates are still relatively, but necessarily in world conditions, high. I believe that should they fall this will give a further impetus to the recovery of industry, where production, as opposed to productivity, has for the first time in the second and third quarters started to grow again.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, would the noble Viscount tell us what he means by the word "leanness" which he applies? Does it mean anything other than providing fewer jobs?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, yes, in relation to industry which is competing today we have quite clearly, according to the figures that I have given, a more competitive industry. That is what I meant by "leanness". Perhaps it is a colloquial expression. But we are undoubtedly more competitive.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, is it possible that the noble Viscount confuses output per man in manufacturing industry with output per man-hour? It is true to say that in output per man-hour productivity, according to the latest figures, is 1 per cent. higher than in 1979, but that is only because man-hours worked per week are more than 10 per cent. lower.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I do not accept the noble Lord's figures. By the various calculations, unit labour costs, output per man, productivity, we have shown improvements of the order that I have stated.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Viscount is aware of the part played by invisible exports in maintaining a balance of payments in favour of Britain, not just over years but over a century or more? Secondly, what are the present Government doing to encourage banking, shipping, insurance and other invisible exports which are of paramount importance to our international trade?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, invisibles are another question. They are doing well. The Government support them, and they are part of the general economic recovery. But the answers that I have given are in reply to a Question concerning our manufacturing industry.

The Civil Service Dispute and Public Funds
2.55 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the total cost to public funds as at the latest convenient date of the disruptive action undertaken by some civil servants in pursuance of a wage claim earlier this year.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, the cost to public funds resulting from the Civil Service dispute has been mainly in terms of interest on the additional borrowing resulting from delays to the collection of revenue. Up to the end of November the estimated extra interest amounted to £350 million to £400 million.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that very informative reply, may I ask whether he can add to his kindness by indicating how much revenue lost during the period of the dispute has not yet been recovered, and what that figure must mean in charges additional to those which he a moment ago reported to the House?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, at the time when the strike was settled the outstanding revenue not collected was approximately £6 billion. By the end of November it had fallen to £4 billion, and it is expected that by the end of the financial year the amount outstanding will be £1 billion.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would my noble friend answer the second part of my supplementary question? The recovery of £4 billion being delayed, does it not mean further interest charges additional to those which he has already indicated?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: Yes, my Lords, it certainly will mean additional expenditure. It would be purely a guess to say what that figure would be. It will depend on the level of interest rates and on the speed with which the remaining monies are collected.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that in addition to the serious loss of revenue there was also a serious loss of goodwill and good relationships, which are so important, and what steps are the Government taking to rectify that?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I agree that there certainly was a loss of goodwill, but I am glad to say that very good work is being done by the Civil Service in clearing up the outstanding problems, and we are encouraged by the co-operation that exists.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the really sad thing is that neither the disruption nor its cost need have occurred at all? Those of us who have been involved in industrial relations for many decades know that the great thing we have always treasured is independent arbitration, which has resolved so many problems and prevented strikes. Would it not be much better in future, when civil servants are in dispute and ask for arbitration, to accede to that request, rather than have the ridiculous
1342
strike, and all its aftermath, which resulted from the obstinacy of this Government?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Moiloy, will be glad to hear that the Government have said they will enter into negotiations for the 1982 settlement without a predetermined cash limit. We have also said that if an agreed settlement cannot be reached we will accept recourse to arbitration, but on the understanding that the Government reserve the right, if necessary, to ask the other place to approve setting aside the tribunal's award on grounds of overriding national policy.

Farm Capital Grants: Consultation Procedures
2.58 p.m.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have yet analysed the results of the new consultation procedures established in the autumn of 1980 for the administration of farm capital grants in designated areas; and, if so, whether they will publish the results in the Official Report.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, our records show that in the period of 12 months since we introduced the notification procedures under the Ministry's capital grant schemes the national park authorities have received 2,462 notifications. All except eight of these have been satisfactorily resolved. During the same period 173 notifications were sent to the Nature Conservancy Council and all of these have been resolved. As requested, I am arranging for the figures to be published in full in the Official Report.
Following are the figures referred to:

FARM CAPITAL GRANT SCHEMES

NOTIFICATIONS BY FARMERS IN NATIONAL PARKS AND SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST NATIONAL PARKS

Approved by NPA

National Park Authority

Notifications

as Received

as Modified

Formal Consultation with ADAS

Outstanding

Lake District

321

314

6

1

—

Northumberland

121

92

27

2

1

North Yorks Moors

114

105

7

2

1

Yorkshire Dales

162

110

50

2

2

Peak Park

342

239

101

2

—

Exmoor

432

394

33

5

2

Dartmoor

120

110

8

2

—

Snowdonia

435

375

60

—

—

Brecon Beacons

342

310

26

6

2

Pembroke Coast

73

65

5

3

—

TOTALS

2,462

2,114(86%)

323(13%)

25(1%)

8(0·3%)

1343

SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST

Approved by NCC

Notifications

as Received

as Modified

Withdrawn

Outstanding

Nature Conservancy Council

*173

142(82%)

26(15%)

5(3%)

Nil

*ADAS was consulted informally on about half of the notifications.

Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that Answer and for that undertaking to publish the results in full in the Official Report. Would he not agree that this augurs well for the operation of Part II of the Wildlife and Countryside Act? Can he say now, haying analysed the facts and figures, whether he will undertake any review of this system? Moreover, in the light of that review and the coming into operation of the Wildlife and Country-side Act, can my noble friend say at what stage he thinks he will bring before the House details of the revised system of administration?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his observations. I agree with him that it does augur well for Part II of the Wildlife and Country-side Act. I would only re-emphasise that, as regards matters of conservation, it is a question of understanding and co-operation between all those who are involved, and if the last 12 months' work has been indicative of that, then I think that we can look forward to success in the future. Of course, we shall keep the system under review, but I cannot tell my noble friend yet at what juncture the Government will state the results of any such review.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the figures do show that farmers can co-operate successfully with the national park authority, particularly when helped by the Ministry of Agriculture officials in ADAS? Secondly, due to the Wildlife and Countryside Act, at present, if one farms in a national park and on a site of special scientific interest, One has to apply to both the national park authority and the Nature. Conservancy Council to clear the operation. Would it be possible in future for that to be altered so as to apply to only one, preferably the national park authority?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it does demonstrate the co-operation which is shown by the farmers and by ADAS and also by the national parks authorities and the Nature Conservancy Council. I think that it is a cause of rejoicing that that has been achieved.
My noble friend asked about those who farm in the area of a national park authority. Of course the Wildlife and Countryside. Act requires a farmer undertaking work on a site of special scientific interest to notify the Nature Conservancy. Council. The Ministry of Agriculture requires the national park authority to be notified as a condition of the grant scheme. We would endorse any arrangements which might be made for the Nature Conservancy Council to pass on to the national park authority information about work to be done, provided that the Ministry
1344
of Agriculture is satisfied that the national park authority knows of the work to be done in advance of it being done.

Inner Cities
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Bellwin will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on inner cities.

Leasehold Reform Bill [H.L.]
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and make further provision for enabling the tenants of leasehold houses to enfranchise their leases and acquire the freehold; to provide that grants of long leases of houses shall take effect as grants of the freehold; to empower local authorities to assist tenants with the cost of enfranchisement; to permit housing associations and local authorities to enfranchise leases falling within the scope of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967; and for connected purposes. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Evans of Claughton.]
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

Defence
3.4 p.m.
Earl Cathcart Earl Cathcart rose to call attention to the problems involved in making provision for defence, including the important part to be played in this by nuclear weapons; 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. On the second day's debate in your Lordships' Chamber in reply to the gracious Speech, the topic for the day's debate was shared between foreign affairs and defence, and many noble Lords pointed out that it was not possible to do justice to both subjects in one debate. Since it is now seven months since Mr. Knott, the Minister of Defence, presented his revised defence programme entitled The Way Forward, we have all had more time to consider that and to review the major revisions he then proposed. It was good to learn from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's recently announced financial arrangements that sufficient additional funds will be made available to enable us to guarantee the 3 per cent. increase in defence spending which we have undertaken to NATO to maintain.
The Motion we are debating today specifically refers to the problems involved in making provision for defence. The problems are, of course, of providing sufficient money in the present financial climate set against the obvious need to achieve what the defence Statement of last June described in its opening sentence:
"The first duty of any British Government is to safeguard our people in peace and freedom".
The fundamental proposals announced last June came as a shock to most of us when we first read them. But now that we have had more time to consider them I feel that they are economically realistic and that they have not disrupted the satisfactory state of our defence posture as much as we first thought they would. However, there are still areas which cause some anxiety, the most obvious of which is our ability to protect our vital sea routes, weakened by the contraction of our surface fleet and our air defences. Whatever the outcome of the Geneva negotiations, the duty to defend the security of this country will remain and the purpose of this debate is to ensure that we are getting the best value for money to achieve that aim.
The cornerstone of our defence is NATO, which is a defensive alliance of collective security for the free Western nations. There is nothing wrong in like-minded nations grouping together in a pact of mutual protection. For that reason, there is nothing wrong when the Eastern nations of the Warsaw Pact do the same thing. With widely different codes of conduct and political theory, this division of the two sides does not surprise us. Provided the two adjacent alliances remain purely defensive, peace will not be in jeopardy. Therefore, the aim of the Geneva negotiations, and, in due course, the START discussions, must be to eliminate excessive weaponry which is clearly of an aggressive nature while tolerating defensive arrangements made by each side to safeguard its national or allied integrity.
The Motion that we are debating today emphasises the important part played by nuclear weapons in our defensive arrangements. With the existence of nuclear weapons, a policy of deterrence is inevitable. Deterrence is not a policy of aggression, and nuclear weapons forming part of the strategic deterrents is weaponry of defence. A potential aggressor has nothing to fear from them until he commits aggression.
In the Warsaw Pact alliance the Russians hold the monopoly of nuclear weapons. But that is not so in NATO, although the Americans have very much the largest share. While I agree that our strategic nuclear forces are fully committed to NATO and would never be used without the authority of NATO and the approval of the United States, nevertheless they play a most important part by deterrence in securing the integrity of NATO and therefore of the United Kingdom. I would not wish to delegate this vital part of our deterrence solely to the Americans. Although France is part in and part out of NATO, she also possesses a nuclear capability which would probably be available to the West in time of war. We would not wish France to be the only nation besides the United States to have this strategic capability. Indeed, besides adding a further dimension for the Soviets to have to consider before committing aggression—and for us to continue with our nuclear capability is highly desirable—I think it highly desirable that this awe-some weapon should not be held in the sole monopoly of one nation within the alliance. It is right that, within NATO, the responsibility of even threatening to use the weapon should be shared with more than one single nation and, since the United Kingdom has played such an important part in developing NATO's strategy of deterrence and has committed a nuclear
1346
capability to NATO, we must continue to do so and play our full part in this responsibility.
Doubt is often expressed on the wisdom of the Trident programme. Trident is certainly a most effective and modernised replacement for Polaris: perhaps I should say that Trident will be certainly a most effective and modernised replacement for Polaris. With its pinpoint accuracy and ranges of up to 6,000 miles, combined with invulnerability to any pre-emptive strike, it is a second strike weapon and will provide a most powerful strategic nuclear deterrent. The main criticism it faces is its cost, and cost-effectiveness of our defence expenditure is one of the main topics that we are debating today.
If peace is to be based on deterrence—I believe that in a nuclear age that must be a prime consideration—the high deterrent value provided by Trident is still worth going for at, as we are told, 3 per cent. of our defence budget spread over 15 years. A sound defence posture, whether nuclear or conventional, must be based on a balance of power. Indeed in 1979, Lord Mountbatten of Burma said:
"We are most likely to preserve the peace if there is a military balance of strength between East and West".
It is to restore the balance of long-range theatre nuclear weapons in Europe that the Americans wish to deploy cruise missiles in NATO territory. This is in order to restore the balance against the new Soviet SS20s, which the Russians have been deploying in the Warsaw Pact zone at the rate of one new one every three weeks. These nuclear weapons—SS20s—with a range of up to 3,000 miles, each with three nuclear warheads, can bombard anywhere in Europe.
It is essential that the cruise missiles are deployed in this country and in other countries of NATO in order to restore this military balance in Europe. To refuse deployment of these missiles on our soil would not only denigrate the West's negotiating position at Geneva and greatly reduce the Soviets' incentive to negotiate, but it would also have a serious destabilising effect on the NATO defence posture due to the imbalance of military power.
Those who propose a defence policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament are proposing disarmament by example. But who can think that the Soviets will in any way be impressed by such example? Could such a policy, in an age when nuclear weaspons exist, satisfy the first duty of any British Government, which I quoted at the beginning of this speech?—that is, to safeguard our people in peace and freedom.
It is morally wrong to propose a defence policy for this country by unilaterally opting out of all nuclear weapons and United States missiles based here, but at the same time to announce that we wish to remain part of NATO. As NATO is a defensive alliance and, therefore, in a nuclear area it needs a strategic nuclear deterrent in its armoury, this policy is simply passing the buck to the United States. To regard NATO as a group of free and like-minded nations sheltering solely under the American nuclear umbrella is morally indefensible. If we want the protection that America can provide, we must also fully involve ourselves in the awful responsibility that goes with it.
The proposal for a nuclear-free Europe is also an attractive idea, but as a practical proposition it does not stand up to consideration. If it means that neither NATO nor the Warsaw Pact alliance can, by agreement, deploy any missile, ship or aircraft carrying a nuclear warhead from a base in Europe, then it places a massive advantage in the hands of the Soviets who, by re-deploying their SS20s east of the Urals—that is, in the Soviet Union and outside Europe—could bombard the whole of Europe, whereas NATO's weapons in that case could only be based across the Atlantic in America.
However, if, on the other hand, a nuclear-free Europe means not only that no nuclear launcher can be located in Europe, but also that no nuclear strike can be detonated in Europe, that of course is a very attractive proposition. But it is also a very different matter and would call for massive disarmament negotiation, far beyond anything that has yet been proposed and with far more elaborate and detailed systems of inspection and verification than has yet been devised.
Finally, there is the suggestion that if we opted out of our Trident programme and simply relied on the United States nuclear system, we could spend the money thus saved on increasing our conventional forces. Although I agree that in defence you do not need parity with your potential aggressor, nevertheless very large conventional forces indeed would be needed to deter the Soviets. Of course, it would require a very large increase in NATO forces on land, sea and air. Even assuming we only provided our share of this NATO increase and, of course, assuming that all the NATO nations agreed to do the same, our share of that increase would need to be very considerable. My noble friend the Minister gave a figure of a 60 per cent. increase in expenditure in our debate on 10th November. That figure rather depends on how you calculate it, but even if it is half that amount, it would be unacceptable. There is another aspect. We could not increase our conventional forces in manpower without resorting to a degree of conscription, and in modern warfare conscription is neither cost effective nor an efficient solution.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has tabled a Motion for a short debate to discuss the problem of limiting or controlling nuclear war. That is a most important subject. Indeed, for nuclear nations it is of absolutely paramount importance. I can only wish that the noble Lord will be successful in the ballot, as it is a subject which needs to be debated. Nobody can possibly say with confidence that if one or other side ever launched a limited nuclear strike, escalation of that strike could be contained or limited. However, I noticed with interest that when the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, first tabled his Motion on 5th November he phrased it as:
"To call attention to the impossibility of limiting or controlling nuclear war".
Since then he has amended the word "impossibility" to read "problem". This indicates to me that he has had second thoughts and now feels that perhaps full-scale escalation or Armageddon might be avoided. I believe that he is right. There must be a chance that commonsense and survival would prevail under those awful conditions.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. On a point of clarification, may I point out that the alteration of that word was made at the suggestion of what is called, in the other place, The Table Office—I do not know what it is called in this House—because they felt that the word "impossibility" was too contentious for the particular form of debate which was desired on that occasion.
Earl Cathcart: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I am sure that, in either case, it will make for an extremely good debate if the noble Lord becomes successful in the ballot, which I hope he will. In this matter of controlling escalation we must try to ensure that the mechanism of communication exists at this awful moment—as indeed it would be—when a nuclear strike occurred in order to prevent the full-scale and unimaginable frightfulness that will then take place.
We all know that a hot-line procedure exists between the President of the United States and the Russian Leader; indeed, this hot-line has been used in peace-time, at the time of Cuba, and with success. It is absolutely paramount if both sides have this frightful weapon of destruction that we are satisfied that the procedures for attempting to control it are really satisfactory. I find that I have to place some doubt on that.
I ask whether the hot-line telephone—presumably a coloured telephone on the desks of each leader—would really work in war. To what extent does the successful outcome of a hot-line conversation depend on the personality and ability of the two individual leaders? Without casting aspersions on either side, or perhaps casting aspersions on both—I must say that I am certainly not referring to the present incumbents—it is easy to imagine a situation when this awful moment comes when one or other of the leaders in office at that time possessed flaws in his personality, and in his ability perhaps, which would make a satisfactory outcome of these vital battle conversations less likely.
Is it right that this vital and perhaps final hot-line conversation should be confined to those two super powers who are capable of firing a nuclear strike? Should not, as things stand at the moment, France and the United Kingdom be included? Perhaps here there is a further argument for the USA not to be the only nuclear power in NATO to possess nuclear weapons. Should not those European countries on whom the nuclear strikes may have fallen be represented in these hot-line discussions designed to prevent the final Armageddon from occurring?
I am not sure that I can solve these questions in this debate. Perhaps they should wait until Lord Jenkins' debate comes up, when those more experienced in what I choose to call the mechanism of diplomacy can discuss how best that procedure can be improved. My feeling at the moment is that the arrangements are not as adequate as one really would want. It is worth noticing that in President Reagan's great peace offer one of the proposals was to formulate arrangements to reduce the risk of surprise attack and therefore the chances of war arising out of uncertainty and miscalculation. I believe that these arrangements

1349
might well be extended to include a system to control a limited nuclear exchange once hostilities have begun. What a valuable by-product of the current disarmament negotiations it would be if enhanced and improved hot-line procedures can be developed for maintaining communications after hostilities have begun to limit, or control, nuclear strikes if ever such were used.
Finally, I want to mention civil defence. There are people, I am sorry to say—and that includes some noble Lords in your Lordships' House—who disparage the need for any form of civil defence because, so their argument goes, in the event of a nuclear attack against this country the whole country will be destroyed and all the population killed or severely maimed. Therefore, what is the point, they say, in wasting money in peacetime on what would be a futile effort.
But, of course, those who think this assume that there will be only one scenario in the event of a nuclear attack against this country, and that is an all-out bombardment of annihilation. But there are many other situations which might occur. If ever this awful situation arose the initial strikes would almost certainly be targeted against specific targets of a strategic nature, such as airfields and ports. Destruction in a wide radius around those targets would o course be total and complete, but the effects would be less in areas further out from the point of impact, finally diminishing to lethal fall-out over an even wider area.
Many lives could be saved by a proper civil defence plan, and I believe that money is well spent on doing this. Of course, if the first nuclear strike developed into total annihilation no civil defence plan would help much, but as we have already discussed previously it may be possible to limit and control nuclear warfare. Therefore, I believe that civil defence planning must be an integral part of our total defence posture, and I know that there are a number of my noble friends who will be expanding on this subject today. The theme of my speech has been that we must remain with a strong defence, and only disarm multilaterally through careful negotiation supported by safeguards and protected by sound means of verification. There can be no place in our defence policy to disarm unilaterally. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, I must apologise in advance to the House for not being able to remain for the debate. I have a long-standing local authority engagement in Cardiff this evening. I wish in particular to apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, to whom we are all grateful for introducing this debate. In the debate initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, on 25th November last a great many comments were made which, in my view, did not assist in the aims which are shared by every Member of your Lordships' House. We are all agreed that the arms race is becoming more and more dangerous. We all believe that nuclear stockpiles are capable of destroying the world many times over, and although there are differences over methods, there is a general
1350
wish that the present disarmament talks will result in reversing the arms race.
In that debate of 25th November the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley—and I am sorry he is not present today, for I have a great regard for the noble Earl—in opening that debate went on to devote almost the whole of his speech to attacking the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I am not a supporter of CND, and I am fully aware of the cynical interest of the Soviet Union in such campaigns. But I do not believe that the prospects for peace are enhanced by a wholesale condemnation of the many thousands of serious minded people who genuinely dread the future prospects for mankind.
A more balanced and objective view was recently taken by Mr. Eugene Rostow, the director of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, when he said that the anxiety about the possibility of war is "natural and reasonable". He went on to say that the protest movement did not mean that our,
"moral fibre has been ruined by the welfare state or that leaders of our churches and peace movements are all Communists or their dupes".
Rather, he said, public opinion has reluctantly begun to acknowledge the true condition of world politics.
In the Defence Estimates of 1980 we were told that the increase in defence expenditure would entail a switch of resources from civil programmes to defence. The then Secretary of State for Defence, Mr. Francis Pym, said in another place on 28th April 1980:
"Military force will not provide us with any short cuts or any easy way to a more stable world order. It should not be—and it certainly is not—our first recourse. Indeed, it is the very ast recourse—to be avoided at almost any cost".—[Col. 998.]
He went on to say:
"The effectiveness of military force depends profoundly on our appreciation of political and social forces, both in those countries whose security we are seeking to maintain and in the West as a whole, for it is those political and social forces that determine decisively the outcome of the use of military force or its threatened use".
I quoted that passage in our May 1980 debate on the Estimates, and I then went on to refer to Mr. Edward Du Cann's attack on the then Treasury forecasts for the economy, where it was said that the estimate for unemployment over the next four years was 1·8 million maximum. We all know what has happened to the economy since that forecast was made. We know that there has been a serious deterioration in public morale and that areas of our society are far from stable. The recent savage Treasury impositions on those least able to bear the burdens is not calculated to inspire public confidence in Government policies, and will certainly raise a great many questions regarding defence expenditure.
We do not know, for example, where the Government will decide to go for the new D5 version of the Trident system. If they should so decide, the 1980 estimate of £5,000 million will almost certainly be doubled. If the Government insist on the deterrent, there is sufficient support to show that Polaris provides a realistic deterrent into the next century. The current total defence budget following the recent Treasury announcement is £12,655 million and the projected budget for 1982–83 is £14,103 million. A recent Sunday Times report said that over £1,000 million extra may be needed simply to meet existing commit-

1351
ments. That report also said that Mr. Nott's long-term Defence Review in June does not appear to have gone far enough to create an equipment, personnel and deployment programme that can be sustained into the late 1980s. Indeed, Mr. Nott has recently said that the present one-to-two ratio of British military spending on research and development to production costs,
"if sustained, may drive us into bankruptcy".
A United States Senate committee has found that on average, major weapons in the end cost twice as much as the estimate submitted when the order is first approved. A Financial Times report said it would be foolish to criticise industry alone for this situation, and that understandably the military want the best possible equipment. But even marginal improvements to weapons systems often cause more than marginally increased costs. If the cost overruns were to be only marginal, then given annual expenditure on arms of £210,000 million around the world, the sums involved would be in danger of ballooning until the balloon burst. I am grateful to the same report in the Financial Times for reminding us that in the late Middle Ages, the cavalry turned up for battle in armour so heavy that the knight, if he came off his horse, was unable to remount and fight on. Unless military spending is brought under control, Western economies could find themselves in the same unhappy position.
Defence costs must be contained to the point that our strained economy can afford, there must be more effective cost control and the burdens of defence costs must not fall disproportionately on those sections of the community least able to afford them. There must be much closer scrutiny of defence expenditure to avoid duplication and in research, development and production costs. Above all, the nation must be assured that disarmament talks are genuine in attempting to reduce the hugely wasteful and dangerous arms race which is at least partly responsible for social instability in Eastern as well as Western Europe. The Labour Party document contains this passage:
"The threat of war and annihilation for the people of Europe and the world is greater than ever before. Fighting continues between countries outside NATO or the Warsaw Pact. Arms spending by Governments in the third world has increased substantially, and there is reason to believe that some are developing their own nuclear weapons. This danger can ultimately only be ended by multilateral international disarmament with agreements between different countries involving both nuclear and conventional weapons".
The whole Labour Movement can unite around those sentiments. Indeed, all political parties in this House can surely recognise that only by such an approach can peace be secured.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, in his extremely persuasive and informed speech dealt faithfully with the demand for unilateral disarmament, and of course it is true that the initiative of President Reagan, his offer of the zero option, has caused a good deal of division and confusion in the
1352
ranks of the peace movements in Europe. We have only to read the explanations of Mr. E. P. Thompson and Mgr. Bruce Kent to see the extraordinary contradictions into which their position has now developed. The Reagan initiative has compelled them at last to face up to the simple fact about disarmament that you cannot bargain about nuclear weapons and at the same time throw them away. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Brooks, say that he was going to bargain with nuclear weapons; of course, there can be no compromise between multilateralism and unilateralism, and we all understand that.
However, even when that happens—even when the unilateralist case is discredited—questions remain which we who are not unilateralists have to take seriously and try to answer. Could anything justify an all-out nuclear war? Could a nuclear exchange be limited? Could it ever be right to use nuclear weapons first? And if one decided never to use nuclear weapons first, it is sensible to say so in advance? Or, coming closer home—and here I would quarrel with the noble Lord—is it right to defer delivery of vital conventional weapons, such as the Tornado, in order to spend £9 billion on Trident? In the last debate I used the figure of £9 billion, having read the Financial Times on the subject, and I am hoping very much to have an estimate from the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, not of just 3 per cent. over 15 years—we are a little tired of that figure—because we want the figure; by now the Government should be able to give us, perhaps on one or two different assumptions, the cost of Trident.
I thought there was a weakness in the noble Earl's speech in that he began by saying that the economics set out in the White Paper were realistic, but he went on to say that the air defence effort needed more money, that the naval effort needed more money and that civil defence needed more money. We all waited to hear on what he was going to reduce expenditure. I have an answer, because I do not believe Trident is cost-effective. I believe the Government will come round to that view and that the reason we are not told the cost is because the Government have worked it out and have found it so appalling that they are not at all sure whether to go on with the project. We shall soon hear, no doubt, from the noble Viscount about that.
It would of course help immensely in all these problems if we could get some progress in the Geneva talks. My feeling is that they started in highly unpromising circumstances. Relations between the Soviet Union and the United States could hardly be worse. There could hardly be less trust and respect between them, and both have quite plausible reasons for spinning the talks out. The Russians can reasonably hope that if they drag on, unilateralism will flourish in the West and the West will disarm itself without the need for concessions from the Soviet Union. On the American side—we must be realistic—voices will be heard arguing that the new missiles are essential to the security of the West and there would be no great loss for Western security if the talks broke down.
We must not be naive about the United States' position. The fact is, after all, that the Americans had to be pushed into these talks, partly by Chancellor Schmidt, partly by the other West European leaders

1353
and partly by the European peace movements. If President Reagan and his advisers had had a proper understanding of the issues, that pressure would not have been necessary at all. It will be remembered that very soon after he took office President Reagan spoke about getting a nuclear lead over the Soviet Union. Only last September he was saying:
"The argument, if there is any, will be over what weapons to build, not whether we should forsake weaponry for treaties and agreements".
Well, we must hope that that was in order to establish a good negotiating position with the Soviet Union—we hope so—or we must hope that President Reagan has now firmly changed his mind and really is going to make a big effort in the talks.
I should like to raise another point with the noble Viscount. It seems to be taken for granted that the talks have to be bilateral; but it is not self-evident that an eyeball to eyeball confrontation between an American and a Russian is necessarily the best way of making progress in the talks. It is hard to see what would be lost by participation, perhaps simply as observers, by representatives of European countries. I already know the answer that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, will give. He will say that it is the Russians and the Americans who produce the nuclear weapons. He has made that statement before in the House, in the last defence debate. But this is not strictly true. We make nuclear warheads. The French have a major nuclear deterrent, which owes nothing at all to the United States. But even if it were true that the Russians and the Americans produced all the weapons, it is in Europe that the weapons are sited, or will be sited, and if the weapons are fired, it will be in Europe that they will land. I feel that the Europeans are entitled to raise the cry, "No annihilation without representation". I ask the Minister to take the matter seriously, because I believe that the Europeans have a serious contribution that they can make, and we want to try everything possible.
It would not be so disturbing had the American Administration shown a little wiser judgment in some other aspects of foreign and defence policy since they took over. Look, my Lords, at central America, or at the military manoeuvres in the Sudan, or at Turkey—the American relations with the new régime in Turkey—or at the provision of arms for fighting the Polisario. One might not object to the fact that these actions by the United States Administration anger and alarm the communists if they did not also upset the West Europeans, the Latin-Americans, the Greeks and Cypriots, the Arabs, the Africans and the rest. I am saying that the Geneva talks would be improved if some feed-in could come from the West Europeans, and indeed President Ceausescu is taking an extremely constructive view on these matters. I do not think that these voices should go unheard.
The talks were bound to be difficult, whatever happened. I hope that the Government will now start to give clear indicatio s to the country as to how they feel the talks should proceed. How can we distinguish between theatre nuclear weapons and
1354
strategic nuclear weapons, or between a conventional and a nuclear launcher? How can one categorise an aircraft which can use either conventional or nuclear bombs, whose range depends on its payload, and which in a few hours can be switched from one theatre to another? Under what category in the disarmament field can one classify that?
Will the Minister also say something about where battlefield nuclears come into the equation? It is a strange thing that for years there has been so little interest in the proliferation of battlefield nuclear weapons. I remember being shown a Lance missile in Germany 20 years ago, and it is interesting that at that time those weapons aroused no political interest whatsoever. So far as the unilateralists were concerned they might never have existed. I think it noteworthy that short-range nuclear weapons, or nuclear missiles, such as the SS20s which threatened London, aroused no interest among the members of CND, but the prospect of a missile that threatened Moscow was a different matter. Yes, then those tender consciences were aroused, then the sense of moral revulsion grew. I do not believe that it is a coincidence—not at all.
What I am saying is that it is time we paid attention to battlefield nuclears. There are too many of them. As the noble Earl said, the question of the use of them needs a very careful examination, and I should like the Minister to comment on that aspect as well.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for a moment? I am sure that among nuclear disarmers there are many who are more alarmed about the prospects of a bomb reaching London than Moscow.
Lord Mayhew: Well, my Lords, I am not sure; I think that we are all very worried about the prospect of having to use these bombs in any circumstances, against any target of any kind.
I should like to draw my speech to an end by asking the Minister to try to answer some of these questions. I feel that the Government should take some responsibility in these talks, not just leave it to the Americans. I have seen it suggested tht there might be a single ceiling for all warheads, strategic, theatre and tactical. Have the Government considered that suggestion, and is it a possible way ahead?
Perhaps Ministers would agree that the one possible justification for possessing nuclear weapons is if they provide a credible deterrent against aggression. That does not mean matching the other side weapon for weapon, or going for some statistical parity. It does not mean that at all. It might be much easier to get a credible nuclear deterrent than to get these other things with which we seem to be so obsessed at present. It is obviously going to be immensely difficult, but if the talks fail, it would be very hard to see what other talks in the future would succeed. This might be the last hope that the world has of disarming by agreement, and that is why I urge all Governments, including Her Majesty's Government, to do their utmost to ensure that the talks succeed.

Inner Cities
3.47 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Statement reads as follows:
"The Government recognise that no single announcement can be the measure of the inner city and urban problem, but it is important to take those decisions we can as soon as practical.
"Next week my right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services will chair a major conference for the European Campaign for Urban Renaissance, which will seek further ways of encouraging the voluntary sector in the inner cities.
"I have now to take important decisions about the allocation of my departmental resources to the urban areas and inner cities next year. Public expenditure is in many cases essential. But it is not, and of itself cannot be, the whole answer. As important is the need to open a range of opportunities for private involvement and investment. This will add significantly to the public resources in urban areas and will widen the choice in many fields for those living and investing there.
"The urban areas, and particularly the inner cities, have a concentration of unemployment and a deterioration of environment that argues for a particular stimulus for the construction industry and capital programmes.
"It is against this background that I have reached certain conclusions about the allocation of my departmental programmes for next year.
"First, the Government believe that the derelict land programme should play a bigger role in urban policy. Derelict land reclaimed at public expense can lead to development by the private sector that adds very substantial private expenditure to the basic public expenditure. At the moment very little reclaimed land is developed. Next year I intend to increase the derelict land programme from £40 million to £45 million.
"In allocating the uncommitted part of the programme I shall have particular regard to bids from local authorities, in conjunction with the construction industry, indicating the use to which the reclaimed land is to be put.
"I shall look especially favourably on those joint public/private sector schemes drawn from the land registers that offer the greatest private sector enhancement for every pound of public expenditure. I shall particularly look to schemes that lead to housing, industrial, commercial, sporting and recreational opportunities. I shall invite representatives of the local authorities and the construction industry to meet me next week to establish the procedures whereby I receive special bids for joint schemes by the end of January.
"Second, we will enable the two urban development corporations of London and Merseyside to undertake substantially more projects in 1982–83 than in the present year. I expect to authorise
1356
some £50 million worth of schemes compared with the £15 million they expect to spend on works this year. The House will realise that this, too, will attract much greater sums of private investment to enhance the effort that the public sector is making.
"Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have taken an important decision about resources for the urban programme in 1982–83.
"The local authorities in partnership and programme areas were asked to draw up programmes on a basis which would have implied a total of £215 million for the urban programme as a whole. I am glad to say that we have been able to improve substantially on this figure and will increase the total available by up to £55 million to some £270 million including a special provision of £5 million additional stimulus to low-cost home ownership.
"Mr. Speaker, my announcements today must be seen in the context of an urban problem that will demand our continuing attention. They do not represent a whole response, but they make an important contribution."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I first thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. My first impression is that it is rather more a short paper for a seminar than a statement of the Government's strong intentions; more a catalogue of good intentions than of any urgent action. In fact, it is rather a pity that, on the second page, the word "urgent" was changed to "basic". Obviously, the word "urgent" was meant to come in somewhere, but it seems to have got lost.
I am delighted that the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services will be chairing,
"a major conference for the European Campaign for Urban Renaissance which will seek further ways of encouraging the voluntary sector in the inner cities".
With the greatest respect, I do not think that, in view of the critical condition in which we are and in which the inner cities are, this is going to play more than a very subsidiary part. Last year, the Secretary of State announced an increased allocation for the urban programme, but on examination it transpired that after deducting the specific allocation for the two urban development corporations the partnership authorities were in fact faring worse than they had done in the previous year.
Since, as I think I have indicated, there seems to be a certain fogginess about this Statement, I hope the Minister will bear with me if I put to him a number of specific questions. While, obviously, we are pleased that the Government have now decided to increase the amount they were thinking—and I should like the noble Lord to explain that phrase—of allocating for 1982–83, can he enlighten us further as to what this means? Using the same price base, will the partnership in fact do better than it did in 1981–82? Is he in fact using the same price base? If not, will he let us know what price base is being used? Will the Minister confirm that the inner areas will no longer be penalised by hold-backs on spending?—because, as I am sure he is aware, they are still being strangled

1357
by something in the region of £44.7 million of holdback penalties for overspending in areas where spending is essential. In fact, I hope that this catch-22 situation will come to an end.
What is the relevance, further, of the £215 million for the UDCs this year? Is this because the London Dockland UDC has only just been authorised and has really not had time to spend very much money at all? Is the £15 million that proportion of the £66 million, authorised by the Secretary of State in his Statement on 9th February of this year, that it has been possible to spend'?
As to derelict land expenditure, there is not a very great increase from £40 million to £45 million, considering the enormous amount of derelict land that exists. Not only is it economically unviable while it is not being put into use, but it affects the whole ambiance and the whole look and the whole quality of life of these areas when you see these great stretches of derelict land. I think that local authorities are going to feel very disappointed about that. Also, grant-aided derelict land expenditure still counts against local authority expenditure under the financial constraints, and I wonder whether the Minister can say anything further on that. Local authorities may indeed have problems, and many do, which they would like to resolve, but derelict land has to take its place in the list of priorities.
In the Statement, the Secretary of State refers to the fact that he will,
"look especially favourably on those joint public/private sector schemes drawn from the land registers that offer the greatest private sector enhancement for every pound of public expenditure".
Local authorities are well aware of the land that they hold, in spite of the land registers, but there is little sign of private sector initiation in the current depression. I wonder whether the Minister can enlighten us as to what he expects to emerge between now and the end of January, which I think is the date mentioned in the Statement.
Finally, it seems to me—and I would hope that the Minister can prove to me that this is wrong—that the inner areas have in fact come off no better in real terms, and possibly even worse in real terms, than they did last year. With the experience of the riots, we know—we know even apart from that, but that, I think, has concentrated minds considerably on this problem—that a very large capital investment needs to be made, both in money and in a workforce, which really would give a lift to life in the inner areas and provide much-needed employment.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, from these Benches may I, too, thank the noble Lord the Minister for repeating this Statement. It is a Statement which one must obviously broadly welcome, in the same way as the people on Merseyside very much welcomed the presence of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State in Liverpool on an extended basis. I very much welcome the extension, small as it is, to the derelict land programme, and the involvement of the construction industry, which in many parts of the country is at present in desperate straits. Anything that can be done to create employment in that area must be welcomed.
1358
I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister will try to ensure that youth groups, community councils and ethnic minority groups are involved as far as possible in any extension of the work that is brought about as a result of these initiatives.
Will the noble Lord the Minister accept that, like the noble Baroness, while I feel it would be churlish not to welcome the Statement, one's welcome is tinged slightly by one's concern that the increased expenditure referred to is more apparent than real in view of the clawback provisions that local authorities have been suffering. For instance, in the City of Liverpool alone the noble Lord's department has clawed back £20 million in the last year for alleged over-expenditure. Will the noble Lord the Minister confirm that in fact, so far as the partnership budget increase is concerned, the hard-pressed ratepayers will still have to find a quarter of that payment; and would he be able, perhaps, to reassure your Lordships' House that in months to come there will not be further reductions in capital expenditure? In the last five years the reductions in capital expenditure in the City of Liverpool alone have meant a loss of 11,000 jobs. So, while welcoming the Statement repeated by the noble Lord the Minister, one hopes that he can reassure us about the reservations I have mentioned.
4 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I must say that I was more pleased to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Evans, said in response to the Statement than what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I do not know what one has to do to make a Statement which will please the noble Baroness. We cannot win them all. It is all right so long as we win some. She said it was more a catalogue of good intentions than of action. Those who will be receiving the extra £50 million I hope may feel that it was more action than a statement of intention. There is this additional money. I should have thought it would have been well received by everyone. I can tell the noble Baroness from my own experience—and I chair all the 15 programme authorities and four out of the six partnership authorities—that they will welcome the extra resources and will consider them more action than intention.
How the allocations will be made is yet to be decided. The noble Baroness referred to the inner areas being penalised by hold-back for overspending. I know that she will acknowledge that in the current year it was decided, in fact, that their contribution to the programme and the partnerships will not count in any calculation for hold-hack or clawback or any of the other names we use. She made a fair point when referring to the matter of the UDCs and some of the money underspent in the first year. I have not got the exact numbers. But clearly, it makes sense to move money around to where it can be used. There will be many programmes even at this time which will benefit from that switchround.
She said that the derelict land increase from £40 million to £45 million was not much and that some local authorities will be disappointed. In fact, the scheme as applied hitherto was such that the local authoritiy associations decided to include the derelict land within the total of the dispensation of the allocation under Block V. We are intending from now onwards to ex-

1359
clude it; so that the total money available for derelict land clearance will be able to be taken up in a way that was not always so in the past. The noble Baroness will welcome that. She said that in real terms the inner areas would be no better than they were last year. I cannot give the figures because the allocations have not been made, but it is not unreasonable to say that they will be better off than they were last year. I am satisfied they will be so.
On the final point, the land register, the noble Baroness probably does not know that the first 35 land registers showed over 22,000 acres of under-used land, half of that with development potential. About 400 acres of that has already been disposed of and some 4,000 acres are on the market currently and when we come to make all the authorities land register authorities, as it is now intended to do, it will throw up a great deal more land on to the market and will have the effects, hopefully, that we all want to see. Not least will be that of benefiting the authorities themselves, not only in their having work to carry out should it be their land—and it is not only local authority land that we are talking about but I am speaking of local authorities today—but they will also have capital which they can use to supplement capital receipts.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, asked if the intention was to involve the ethnic community and other groups. I gladly confirm that that is so. In the Statement, I referred to sporting and recreational matters because we believe that is very important; and it goes on to leisure and so on. My answer is, Yes, very much so.
The noble Lord then asked whether I would assure him that there would be no further reductions in capital expenditure. He quoted Liverpool. I would remind him that capital expenditure by local government over many years has reduced quite dramatically and that has been one of the reasons why local government has been able to contain its overall spending within the parameters set by central Government of any colour—but at what a price. At the end of the day that price has been the lack of investment it was required to have. That is why we hope that, if we can get a reduction in current spending, which is the cause of so much of the trouble, we can get some beneficial capital expenditure within the parameters we are now setting down plus the scope that local authorities have to use capital receipts. There are some fascinating figures beginning to come forward to show the extent of the capital receipts local authorities are accumulating and which can be applied henceforth by them to do many things they want to do.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, one of the questions that I asked dealt with the price basis. It is important for us to know on what price basis the increase referred to in paragraph 3F has been made.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, we are talking here of constant prices.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I welcome the apparent drift of this Statement. It does not consist of a U-turn but I suppose if you climb to a great height and look down upon it you would be able to see some change,
1360
as with the curvature of the earth. I have one question about it. I think the noble Lord said that it was at constant prices so that inflation is not to be knocked off the increase. We have therefore an increase of 35 per cent. in next year's promised expenditure over last year's. I note from the Secretary of State's remarks that twice he spoke of the allocation,
"of my departmental resources"
and again of allocation,
"of my departmental programmes".
This means that it is a departmental switch and not new money in the Treasury sense. Can the Government confirm or deny that? If it is a strictly intradepartmental switch, can the House be informed how much money has been cut off what other heads in order to make it possible?—because one should not praise increased expenditure without knowing what decreased expenditure has been incurred elsewhere.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, as far as a U-turn goes, I do not think that is relevant to what we are talking about. One always seeks to use resources as best one can and, because we have decided we should make allocations in this way, I do not in any way consider that a U-turn—not that a U-turn necessarily has to be of itself something one should never do despite whatever happens. That is a personal view.
The noble Lord is partly right about where the money comes from. There is an element of additional expenditure and there is an element of moving expenditure around. I have not got the details here today. There is some movement from the new towns. As I said, there is an element of under-spending on the UDCs. It is another application of resources in line with the priorities. No one in this House is saying that the inner city areas should not have a priority. We are trying to do that.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, while appreciating the extent to which by-passing of heavy traffic contributes to the improvement of city centres, can my noble friend say to what extent the Secretary of State for Scotland goes along with him in the proposals outlined in his Statement?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland is fully in the picture as to what we are doing as detailed in this Statement; but this Statement applies to England and not to Scotland.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if any consideration is being given to city centres that may, not in the normal sense of a city, have to deal with mine subsidence as well as dereliction? This is a problem in cities and towns in South Wales and in Stoke on Trent, where mining subsidence, on top of the ordinary problems of a city centre, affects the area. I consider that places like that should have special attention.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to refer to what is a very great problem for some areas. I have been round many of them, not just in Wales but places like Walsall, parts of Manchester and so on. It is a very real problem. But we have to

1361
deal with those on their own as they arise and try to look specifically at ways to be helpful where we can be in dealing with what really are very big problems.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, the noble Lord, in reply to my noble friend Lady Birk, referred to something called "constant prices". Can he explain to a simple housewife what is a constant price nowadays?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Baroness is slightly pulling my leg here in that she wants me to say that there is very little that is constant. If that is so, then I accept that leg pulling in very good grace.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister said in the course of an earlier reply that one of the problems is the large-scale cut-down in capital development by local authorities. He said that this could be dealt with if the authorities would deal with the decrease in their current expenditure. Can he tell me what the problem is likely to be if there are capital development schemes which leave the local authority—because it is cutting down current expenditure—in a position that it cannot run them or have the staff to look after them?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Lord is talking of two separate matters. In my response to the point that he made, I was trying to make a generalisation because I felt that was how the original question was put to me on the whole area of current spending and capital spending. The figure I gave—I said some 65 per cent. reduction for capital spending in recent years—is absolutely relevant, too. The point of current expenditure is that that is about how many people you employ and what programmes you put forward on a day-to-day basis, whereas the capital programme is something that need not necessarily involve that. It does to some extent, but not in maintenance. With respect, the two matters are separate although they come together at the end in total spending.
Baroness White: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned Scotland, but am I to take it that the Secretary of State for Wales will be making some different arrangements in the Principality?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am sorry that I am not able to answer the noble Baroness as to that. I will get the information for her.

Defence
Debate resumed.
4.12 p.m.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cathcart has introduced this important debate in his characteristic way: very constructively and in a way which can only help this House to make another important contribution to our national security. The Motion both separates and yet links what is called conventional defence on the one hand and nuclear weapons and deterrents on the other.
I agree with a great deal of what my noble friend
1362
has said in relation to deterrents and in relation to the vital importance of NATO. I will leave some of the points he particularly drew to the Government's attention in relation to the hot-line until later. I will, I hope, as I progress answer to a degree, directly or indirectly, the points that the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, has raised, and many of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, also raised.
Let me, at the start, make quite clear that the Government regard nuclear weapons as an absolutely integral part of our overall defence contribution to NATO. Furthermore, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has several times this year stressed the fact that as a contribution to our defence effort and to deterrence, the independent nuclear weapons represent possibly the best value within our defence budget. The consistently repeated idea that it is the British expenditure on nuclear weapons that has caused us to curtail some areas of our conventional defences, like surface ships, is persistent but wrong.
It does not seem to matter how often Government spokesmen for defence reiterate that no more than 3 per cent. of the defence budget over 15 years is likely to be spent on Trident. Cuts in the numbers of some of our conventional forces, viewed against budget increases of 3 per cent. per annum in real terms, seem to lead to the irresistible, but erroneous, conclusion that "Trident causes cuts". Perhaps it is because we have not sufficiently explained the real causes for some cuts in numbers that this myth—for myth it is—persists.
My Lords, I hope that as I continue I will answer to a degree the points that have already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. Our expenditure on Trident has barely started, so that it is fact that Trident has played no part in the constraints on conventional numbers within our current budgets. That the provision of Trident could play, over some 15 years, an approximate 3 per cent. part in any future constraint is undeniable, but that is the order of it. However, as we have said so often, the costs of Trident will be significantly less than, for instance, the Tornado programme, which at the present time is at its peak.
There has been much conjecture and there was more already today about whether our estimates are reliable, and there has particularly been conjecture in the media. I have seen huge estimates and the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, suggested that we might finally pay double. These estimates, so far as I am aware, are nearly all made after taking account of future inflation—that is, comparing prices in 1980 in which we made our estimate against our defence estimates as a whole in 1980 prices with prices at any year in the future that the particular commentator wishes to take. These estimates, by definition, are misleading. I would again point out in this respect that the Polaris programme was carried out virtually within the original estimate. The D5 option which is now available to us but upon which we have not yet taken a decision, will not alter the fact that Trident will take only a very small percentage of our total defence budget.
As I have said, the failure to accept the Government statement that Trident is not the cause of the strains on the conventional budget may be due to lack of full comprehension of what the real reason is. It is, of

1363
course, the escalation of costs of all modern sophisticated equipment and weaponry. This point was touched upon, together with the growing budget expenditure, by the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa. I hope that as I progress I will give some answers to the way the Government intend to control this upward cost escalation which is taking place.
When we say that the defence budget is, at the moment, increasing by 3 per cent. per annum in real terms, we mean real terms over and above inflation rates. These, in the main, measure the rise in prices of the same items from year to year. While for other programmes, including items like schools and office buildings, this approach measures the approximate rise in price per unit, it does not measure the cost of defence equipment such as warships or combat aircraft.
Defence equipments have consistently gone up by factors between 6 per cent. and 10 per cent. per annum above the national inflation level. I have expressed this price increase on a per annum basis, although of course the major jumps take place between generations such as between the Leander class frigate and the Type 22s; and, for aircraft, between the Hunter and the Harrier or the Lightning and the Tornado. For ships and aircraft, these step changes average out at 10 per cent. per annum above national inflation.
To really rub this situation home I have extended some of these examples on a straight-line basis, taking the actual lines of past years as the base. On that basis, and assuming that ships and aircraft were allotted the same share of an inflation-proof budget, then we should be able to purchase only one combat aircraft to replace our Tornado force in 62 years' time and only one frigate to replace our Type 22 force in 29 years' time.
This does not mean for one moment that the Government accept that this cost-escalation will continue or can continue on a straight-line basis, and my right honourable friend and his predecessor have been taking active steps to moderate the increasing costs. The cost of sophistication is the real problem; the strategic deterrent is not. That is why nations like the Federal Republic of Germany have exactly the same problems with their defence budget as does this country, even though they have never been in and are not in the business of producing nuclear weapons.
There are two main reasons why the cost of modern weapons has escalated much more rapidly than prices in the economy generally. The first is the technological revolution which has a greater impact on the scope for sophistication of defence equipment than for any other industry that I know; and the second is the fact that this huge scope for the production of devastatingly more powerful weapons and equipment is being used by the Soviet Union, spending 14 per cent. of its gross domestic product, to increase the sophistication of the threat. Indeed, one has to wonder whether those who sometimes give the impression of regarding conventional war as not too bad, in contrast with nuclear war, really understand the devastating power of today's conventional weapons.
My Lords, the Government are trying to bend this cost-escalation line in order to obtain what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State described as a balance between sophistication and numbers.
1364
We are taking action in the following ways. First of all, our Chiefs of Staff and their expert advisers are examining much more critically the operational requirements that they would ideally like to have in each generation of weapons. They realise that new technology can very often be 100 times more expensive than repeated technology, and they are trying to select a much smaller percentage of new technology, involving key areas only, in each system or equipment.
Secondly, the Ministry of Defence at every level is endeavouring to work much more closely with executives and experts in defence industries to try to arrive at the most economic way of meeting operational requirements or indeed of performing major roles. We are determined that there should be flexibility in the requirements, in order to use all the relevant brains to arrive at more economic ways of meeting the modern and more sophisticated threat.
Thirdly, and in the dialogue which I have described, all parties are trying to arrive at specifications for equipment which will meet a bigger segment of the world market than can possibly be represented by this country's requirement on its own. This involves a great deal of thought at an early stage on possible future security problems, on national policies in those countries where there may be scope for sales and of industry's assessment of market opportunities and the likely future strengths of competitive industries in other countries.
Fourthly, we must improve international collaboration. Although the history of collaboration is a chequered one, it must be sensible to continue to encourage international collaboration first and foremost at an industrial level and, on that base, to follow up with major international collaborations at Government level. Somehow we must cease to be so vulnerable to the determination of each national industry to do the same things in each country. I do not expect very fast progress but I believe that there are chances of selection of areas in which industries of different European countries will, in the future, place more emphasis.
Fifthly, there is the particular importance of the two-way street between the USA and Europe. This debate gives me the first parliamentary opportunity I have had to express my delight at the choice by the United States' Navy of the BAE Hawk trainer. This programme should be worth at least £500 million to British industry and is, therefore, a particularly welcome addition to the AV8B programme for our aerospace industry. The two projects total around £1½ billion and should sustain around 7.500 job opportunities. With the very helpful attitude of the American Administration, I am quite certain that we shall make the two-way street work better in the future than it has on every occasion in the past.
There are other ways in which the Government are trying to bend the upward line of cost-escalation of equipment and weapons. We must do so because we need a rising proportion of our budget to spend on new areas of weaponry. For instance, new technology will provide the opportunity for destroying airfields by stand-off weapons and the opportunity for destroying echelons of advancing armour by totally novel methods. We need to use our technological abilities in the Alliance to push forward these possibilities if

1365
the numbers preponderance of the Warsaw Pact is not to gain the upper hand. They, too, are now pushing forward research and development in many of these areas. We need the money for these.
My Lords, I hope I have given some idea of some of the main real problems affecting our vital defence effort at present, and perhaps put in perspective, from a cost point of view, the question of nuclear weapons. I will, if I may, leave for my reply on behalf of the Government the points which were made by my noble friend Lord Cathcart in relation to sea routes and air defence.
The vital contribution to deterrence of nuclear weapons is a separate subject from that of cost with which I have dealt. My noble friend has already mentioned my previous reference to a 60 per cent. increase in the conventional armaments of the NATO Alliance as being necessary not to achieve parity but to achieve a level at which we would feel, on a conventional basis, that we had near enough parity. Even if that was to be so spent, it does not remove the possibility of nuclear blackmail at more than one level.
I think some Members of this House, and probably large numbers of those who have been influenced by the campaigns of the CND in the past, have wondered whether the NATO Alliance were really giving sufficient urgency to the question of disarmament. There has undoubtedly been a period in the USA—and I do not think there is any need to push our principal ally—and also in this country perhaps, during which, as a result of our democratic processes, new Administrations have been taking stock of the Soviet response to the marked restraint that NATO has shown in recent years in the modernisation of its nuclear forces, especially in the field of intermediate range weapons. It has seemed that the Warsaw Pact and the Russians have not responded. Neither did they respond to the unilateral withdrawal by the USA of 1,000 nuclear warheads completed earlier this year. This hardly supports those who believe in unilateral disarmament and who believe—or, perhaps, one should say who ideally hope—that a unilateral gesture would produce a response. Only when the Alliance agreed to modernise its own forces and to propose limits at equal levels, did negotiations become a real prospect. President Reagan's zero option proposal, put forward at the start at the intermediate range nuclear weapon discussions, now offer the chance of making significant multilateral progress.
I take with a pinch of salt the media's report that Mr. Brezhnev is not convinced of the American or NATO desire for peace and disarmament. There can be many arguments about what is a fair balance of deployments of nuclear weapons, according to whether you add up systems, missiles, warheads, size of warheads, accuracy of missiles, vulnerability of launch bases and penetration ability of different generations of weapons. But zero is zero is zero. Of course, you can still argue about which weapon categories zero is to apply to. As proposed by President Reagan, it is to apply to land-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles; that is, those capable of hitting all Western European countries from bases in the USSR or vice versa.
1366
This is the area to which many of Mr. Brezhnev's proposals have themselves been addressed. If the USSR wish to bring other systems, including strategic ones into the comparison, or even the shorter-range missiles on both sides, then the observer should note that, while there is a near balance in the long-range strategic weapons as a whole, the Soviet Union has the greater total numbers of submarine-launched systems and modern aircraft. There are two areas to which the Russians have drawn attention in response to President Reagan's proposals. The Soviet Union also has a greater number of shorter-range missiles.
Furthermore, we must remember that, at the strategic level, President Reagan has put forward a second proposal that the SALT talks, which cover submarine-launched ballistic missiles, such as Poseidon, should become START talks to reduce strategic weapons rather than just to limit them. Nor must we forget the preponderance of conventional weapons held by the Warsaw Pact.
I hope that I have answered the request of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that we add up all warheads. It is not quite as straight forward as that. But I believe that, given time and by next year, as my noble friend the Foreign Secretary said in the debate on the gracious Speech, the American proposals will cover virtually the whole area. I do not believe that there has been a necessity to push the USA. I believe it is right that the talks should be mainly on a two-party basis. There are consultative machineries—and I shall go into them in detail—and there are hot lines and special lines for consultation between ourselves and other European countries and the Kremlin. In the wind-up, I should like to go more fully than time will allow me now into those points which both my noble friend Lord Cathcart and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, mentioned.
The Government recognise that the Soviet Union's belief in the inevitability of the continuing spread of Russian power is totally different from the aims of the West. But we still hope, and indeed believe, that the Soviet Union does share the burning self-interest to avoid a major catastrophe and, also, a desire to reduce the cost of nuclear weapons. We believe that these two points will ensure that the talks will slowly lead to practical disarmament steps.
I, too, was amazed at the initial reactions of the British CND to President Reagan's proposals. But I note, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has noted, that there are changes in emphasis. I should like to say that I welcome them and I shall not say what I had drafted in this speech, when I had not read the most recent replies. I hope that we are, perhaps, moving nearer to agreement on multilateral steps to maintain the peace and to reduce the armaments on both sides. I shall leave the rest of my comments to later. I again thank my noble friend for introducing this debate and, at a later stage, I shall round up a few more of the questions that I have already been asked.
4.35 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I, too, should like to start by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, for giving us another opportunity to debate this vital subject. Since we discussed it in the debate on the gracious Speech, I have had the unusual privilege

1367
of being chairman of an international hearing on nuclear weapons, sponsored by the World Council of Churches in Amsterdam—a very remarkable gathering, which brought together many responsible and well-informed people sharing many different opinions from most parts of the world, except China.
Some may have seen on the television programme "Everyman" that the hearing happened to coincide with a massive anti-nuclear demonstration in Amsterdam on the day on which we started. I should like to make it clear to your Lordships that, from the point of view of the WCC hearing, this was entirely coincidental. I think that the Amsterdam demonstrators chose a convenient date. We were, of course, very much aware of what had just taken place in the city, and of the presence of powerful members of anti-nuclear movements at the hearing. But the hearing itself was an open one, which genuinely tried to hear all points of view and listened to very hard evidence from very well-informed people.
Perhaps I may take a moment or two, in view of the Question at the beginning of this afternoon's Session, just to say one word about anti-nuclear movements. In the Netherlands, of course—and we were particularly conscious of the movement in the Netherlands—the leadership has for a long time been in the hands of the churches. The present mood in Holland, is I believe, really the result of about 18 years of very patient and thorough education by a large section of the churches in that country.
I picked up one interesting little piece of evidence relating to our own country, and, in particular, the CND, when one evening I happened to have supper beside a charming girl, who was a very keen member of the CND in this country and who, not very long ago, with two friends, had started a CND branch in one of the major cities of this country. Within a comparatively short time, these three had obtained 1,000 members—very ordinary citizens and students, for it is a university city.
Just before the annual meeting, the branch was suddenly joined by 350 members of radical left organisations, who took over the annual meeting, elected their own members and immediately passed restrictive rules, such as that nothing could emerge from the branch without the signature of the radical left chairman. This poor girl, who had started with the best of intentions, found herself bewildered and out of her political depth. I do not say that that happens everywhere, but it certainly does happen.
Let me pass on the fruits of one conversation about some of the movements in the East. I was able to talk with a Hungarian Ambassador from the Hungarian Foreign Ministry about the significance of those movements, the extent to which they were politically controlled and why they simply demonstrated against United States weaponry and not against weaponry of the Soviet Union. This delightful ambassador looked at me pityingly and then smiled and said, "Well, what do you really expect?" One can be naive in imagining that there could be popular protest movements on the other side of the Iron Curtain but this is not a reason for totally discounting them and imagining that the political apparatus there is so powerful that, simply by the wave of a wand, one can put half a million people
1368
on the streets. There is genuine feeling there, but it is feeling which inevitably, because of the situation, has to take a different form.
I say that by way of preface. If the Churches begin to move more firmly into this particular area of antinuclear protest, or whatever it is, it is not because they are unaware of the political dangers but because they see that there are genuine moral issues at stake which must not be left solely to political extremists. The hearing—which was of course a Christian hearing but which heard evidence from many who were not Christians—was in no doubt about the moral dimension of this problem. We said, and I am sure the Churches will go on saying (as will a great many other people) that all war is evil, that nuclear war would be an unmitigated evil, that the intention to use nuclear weapons, however nobly motivated, shares in that quality of evil and that therefore our ultimate goal must be nuclear disarmament, not just as a pious hope but as a moral imperative.
This is to say nothing in advance about political realities or about what can be achieved through negotiations. It is to specify a direction. I believe that we do need to specify a direction, loud and clear, and to convey a sense of urgency. I believe that this is politically helpful rather than politically threatening. It can help to strengthen political will on both sides of the Iron Curtain.
Much of the anger that we are witnessing stems from the belief, rightly or wrongly, that politicians believe in their heart of hearts that nuclear war really would be all right. I know that this is a travesty but that is how people see what those in the political sphere are doing and saying. if we wish to defend the retention of nuclear weapons as the lesser of two evils—all right, we may be able to do so; but we need to be clear that the lesser of two evils is still an evil and not a good. if we are not clear about this, then the moral sense becomes dulled and we begin to get that loose talk about nuclear war which causes such outrage. The hearing spoke about the delegitimisation of nuclear weapons, not as a realistic goal now but as an ultimate goal. I believe that this is something which we need to keep in front of us.
In the meantime, we have negotiations. We had a very careful look at negotiations which have taken place in the last 30 or so years. We recognised, and were grateful for, some of the good things which have come out of them, but we also recognised some of the ambiguities. It was interesting that there were some disturbing criticisms of the negotiating process, particularly from some of our United States witnesses who conceded that negotiations have never yet forced either side to give up anything that it really wanted to keep.
Of course, we all hope for the success of the Geneva talks. I fully endorse many of the things which have been said already about these. But again it was some of the Americans at the hearing who were inclined to put a slightly cynical interpretation on them and who said that by going for a zero option the United States can in fact get the best of many worlds: as a result of negotiation it will in the end probably get some Pershing Hs and cruise missiles but not as many as it first bid for; it will placate the anti-nuclear lobby; and it will gain a good deal of international credit in the process. This

1369
is, as I say, a cynical interpretation. It is not one which we need necessarily share. But looking back at the progress of some past negotiations one can see that similar sorts of things have happened.
We were made very conscious at the hearing of the extent to which the concept of parity not only makes negotiations unbelievably complicated and protracted but ultimately has a tendency to stultify them because it is an unattainable ideal. In all discussions of parity in nuclear weapons one is dealing with things which are not strictly comparable. Even if one could match weapon systems and conventional forces against one another in an agreed balance, one would still be faced with the differences in geography between East and West which are as important a factor in the overall strategic balance as the actual numbers of weapons. One is also—this was a new point to me—made very conscious in these East-West negotiations of the different philosophies of two very different cultures, one of which tends to go for a labour intensive solution to its problems and the other of which tends to go for a capital intensive solution to its problems. Perhaps one can see the massive Soviet build-up of conventional arms in those terms quite illuminatingly.
It is to this kind of stalemate, then, that proposals about limited unilateral initiatives are directed. I would stress and underline the phrase "limited unilateral initiatives". It is quite wrong to interpret this as if it implied a policy of surrender. It needs to be distinguished very carefully from a policy of unilateralism tout court. It is a policy of initiatives within a general policy of multilateral negotiations. These are seen as deliberate attempts to break the log jam. We had examples in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, which made the point that such initiatives have been taken before and that no response has been received. One could go into a Russian gathering, as I have been, and hear Russians making precisely the same point: that they, too, have taken initiatives which have received no response from the West. I think that the only thing to do is to say: Do not let us be discouraged but let us take the Russians at their face value in their insistence on parity and call their bluff.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, if the right reverend Prelate would be so kind as to give way for one moment, I should like to ask him which unilateral gestures of the Soviet Union in recent years he has in mind?
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I was afraid that question would come. It is not something which I have prepared for and I do not have documentation upon it. I should not have said what I did had the noble Viscount not made the point in his speech. I can go back to my documents and try to satisfy him, but I am afraid that I shall have to do so by writing to the noble Viscount.
As I was saying, I believe that there is a case for calling the Soviet bluff by taking seriously their demand for parity and leading them into step by step reductions. This is not to negotiate from weakness. One of our witnesses at the hearing was Mr. McGeorge Bundy, who is by no means an innocent in these matters. He startled the hearing by saying that the United States could reduce its nuclear arms by 50 per cent.
1370
without any significant loss of security. The point is to call the Russian bluff and to call it with maximum publicity on the international stage.
Another aspect of Russian policy which came over very strongly in our discussions was their total rejection of the concept of limited nuclear war. One can well understand their reasons for holding to this policy. But I am not sure that its implications seem to have been fully accepted by NATO, because if as we are constantly told deterrence is in the eye of the beholder, and if the Russians resolutely refuse to see a limited nuclear exchange as anything but an invitation to all-out nuclear war, then it seems to me that a new element of uncertainty is added to NATO policy. We might simply intend to warn; we do not know how fervently the USSR would adhere to its stated policy, if the worst were to happen. But surely the fact that we do not know this and that we would be going against what they themselves have repeatedly said tends to undermine the credibility which theatre nuclear forces are supposed to provide. I am bound to say that the hearing was very sceptical about NATO policy on this point.
Finally, let me say a word about our own nuclear deterrent. It was humbling to be in an international setting and to be made aware in that setting of the relative insignificance of our own nuclear forces. I believe that we delude ourselves if we imagine that we have any real influence on the strategic balance between East and West, as that balance is at present. One asks: What of the future? We are sometimes told that the real purpose behind renewing our nuclear capability is to provide us with some insurance against an unknown and possibly dangerous future, but my guess is that in 10 years' time our real security problem will not be East-West confrontation but the proliferation of nuclear weapon states, unless in the meantime we do something about it. This is where, I believe, our own nuclear capacity does have a real bargaining value—not in relation to the Russians, because if we abandoned Trident, the Russians would hardly notice, but we could take the lead among some of the smaller nuclear states in strengthening the non-proliferation treaty and giving it some real teeth by showing that we at least are prepared to take seriously its provisions about moving in the direction of nuclear disarmament. I believe this could be a very powerful card for Britain to play at the next United Nations' special session on disarmament and could perhaps lead to some real movement on the world scene in relation to proliferation.
Such a policy, and what I said earlier in my speech about moral imperatives, very frequently gets dubbed by politicians as hypocritical. They say, "You say all that and yet we continue to rely on the United States' nuclear protection". But this is to miss the point. I am not saying, let us take an attitude of moral superiority and wash our hands of these things. I am saying, let us as allies share the moral responsibility and see how best we can play our cards together. If Britain can give an impetus to non-proliferation, then this is to everybody's gain, including that of the United States.
To discuss these matters as we did, in the context of many third world representatives, who often feel frustrated by their exclusion from disarmament nego

1371
tiations, can be a painful experience. It is to be made aware of the longing for some real lead from the nuclear nations in the direction of a saner world. I believe that this serious step towards strengthening the nonproliferation treaty could be the kind of leadership which Britain really could give and would be our best way of contributing to world peace and to our ultimate security.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, perhaps I should apologise to the House for speaking three times running in the past month or six weeks on the same subject. I had intended not to do so, but I think that I should speak again after the extremely interesting and carefully thought-out remarks made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham.
On this question of proliferation and what causes it, and therefore by what means it may be stopped. I am among those who believe that it cannot be stopped by example or by strengthening any treaty; it can be stopped only by removing its cause, and its cause, let us not forget, is fear. The first nuclear weapons in the world were built in the United States in a joint allied effort because of the fear, which turned out to be unfounded, that Nazi Germany was building them. The second nuclear weapons programme in the world, that of the Soviet Union, was commenced in 1942 and 1943 for the same reason and was continued after the war for fear of the American nuclear forces, which were then in existence.
Our nuclear weapons—we were the first proliferator, if one defines a proliferator as a third power—were due to the fact that we were unceremoniously cut off from collaboration in the allied nuclear weapons programme, when President Truman, upon coming to office, found there had been a secret treaty which kept us in it but which had not been endorsed by the American Senate. Therefore, he held it to be non-binding, and so the doors were closed. We developed nuclear weapons under the Attlee Government because, in his words, we could not leave everything to the Americans and "they are not always very clear"—or words to that effect. He put an extremely short but very dubious formulation on it. It was done for fear of Russian nuclear weapons, and for fear that the Americans might not use their nuclear force in all circumstances to deter Russian nuclear threats on us. French nuclear weapons were developed for exactly the same reason, but de Gaulle gave the justification for it with considerably more clarity than Attlee. It will he remembered.
Chinese nuclear weapons were developed equally for fear of Russian and American weapons, because China had suffered explicit military nuclear threats from both American and Russia in the late 1950s, and it would have been extraordinary if they had not developed. If Israel has nuclear weapons, the reason for it is very clear to see—it is fear. If South Africa has nuclear weapons, the same applies.
I do not believe that the removal of nuclear power Nos. 3, 4 or 5 from the scene would have much effect down the line. No, the whole nuclear arms race has to be dismantled from the top down, and this is exactly what is beginning to happen, or will begin to
1372
happen in March, when the Americans and Russians meet in the START talks. Until those succeed, I believe we are condemned unfortunately to continue on our present courses.
Deterrence is something that can be adopted legitimately as a posture only in default of disarmament and while waiting for disarmament. Everything I would like to say is to be considered under that head. What must we do between now and the time when there is enough disarmament to make it possible for a country with a small, minimum nuclear deterrent force such as ours to join in the process? I should like to take up several remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, which I found more communicative than is often the case from the Government's Front Bench in these debates, and very helpful to our thoughts on these matters. He said that the cost of sophistication is the real problem. This is why defence procurement funding is in turmoil and will continue to be in turmoil—not because of the cost of nuclear weapons as such.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I certainly did not use the words "in turmoil". I gave a lot of reasons as to how we are keeping it under control.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, of course the noble Viscount did not say "turmoil". I ask his pardon for putting the word into his mouth. He did not, and he would not, and the House would not have expected him to. All right, it is not in turmoil, but let us say there is a lot going on. He gave the example of Germany, a nonnuclear power, as another country in whose defence procurement programme there is a lot going on. But, of course, this differential inflation on the defence front, six to 10 per cent. above the routine basic 10 per cent. a year, hits any country with sophisticated nuclear weapons. It hits the United States, and we can see it and study it in detail. We must assume that it hits the Soviet Union as well, because their weapons programmes are just as sophisticated. If that is so, and it is, this is another impulse towards meaningful disarmament between them. If they both find that they simply cannot afford it, they are going to sit down and agree how to stop the nonsense together.
I believe, therefore, this is a year of good hope for disarmament, the first in 20 years maybe. We in this country should maintain an independent nuclear deterrent of the minimum kind, a minimum deterrent which need not come into question in negotiation, much as we should like it to, until other countries have come down to something compatible with minimum deterrence, when we may be called upon to play our part in the process.
We on this Bench do not believe that the Trident purchase is necessarily the right buy. This does not mean that we are against some other purchase of nuclear weapons, probably not land-based, which would continue the British independent minimum nuclear deterrent beyond the expected demise of the Polaris force.
I agree with my alliance friend Lord Mayhew, in all that he said about battlefield nuclear weapons; these ought to be brought into the negotiations as soon as possible. I would not go as far as he did in berating the United States Administration for its past sins, perhaps because I am more impressed by its very recent

1373
virtues, among which I count as almost the largest the fact that President Reagan—I mentioned this the last time we debated this subject—has at last abandoned the designation which I have before called "shameful", and I repeat it now, the shameful designation of "theatre nuclear weapons" and "tactical nuclear weapons" for those weapons which are rightly known as "nuclear weapons of intermediate range". Those weapons are as strategic and as capable of destroying our lives and our civilisation as any weapons in the world.
The fact that they have been called "theatre weapons" for 10 years has for 10 years been an outrage in my eyes and I have for 10 years been boring the House with it. I am delighted that something has persuaded the United States Administration to make this good change. If it was connected with Mr. Weinberger's recent visit to this country, I am more than delighted. I am delighted that Lord Trenchard just now used the human designation, "intermediate range" and not the inhuman one, "tactical or theatre". I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Mayhew continued to call them "theatre" or "tactical", and I am sorry that the Prime Minister continued to call them "theatre" or "tactical" after President Reagan had given up this terrible habit. When was the change made between the Prime Minister's utterance and Lord Trenchard's, I would be interested to know? I hope it is permanent now.
The idea is abroad once again in NATO—it comes round about every 10 years—of specialisation; that is, specialisation by different countries in different military tasks in the deterrent effort. Of course, to be logical one should decide what are all the tasks the alliance has to fulfil, before starting to allot them to different countries. Obviously, the overall task is to deter any thinkable attack on the alliance, and I sometimes wonder whether we devote enough care to distinguishing between possible or even probable attacks and impossible or improbable attacks.
Consider the central front, the greatest concentration of destructive power in the history of mankind. Is that the most probable place for a Russian attack? If not, why do we concentrate everything there? Is there a danger of a Maginot Line mentality in this concentration? I know that we, Britain, have a treaty obligation to keep a certain level of soldiers in Germany, but is there any reason to suppose that this is the most likely place? if we act always as though we do suppose that, does it not in itself constitute an encouragement to the other side to think of other places and to devote their attention and resources to those? The other places are, of course, primarily the flanks; the northern flank where until recently salami tactics have been alive and well and advancing. The Russians have been advancing at sea and on the ice and in Svalbard. Things have been getting a little better there, better than when I was there in 1977 or 1978. This presumably is because of Soviet hopes of a nuclear-free zone up there, though, mark, that is a a nuclear-free zone which excludes the high seas and international straits and is not really of very much interest therefore to the alliance as a whole, though of the greatest possible interest to the countries concerned.
Consider the southern flank. The Montreux Convention,
1374
which bans the passing of aircraft carriers through the Dardanelles, has now been flouted repeatedly by the Soviet Union, who have built aircraft carriers in the Black Sea and brought them out without any objection being raised by the other signatories of that convention. The Soviet Union is a signatory and this country is a signatory. The Convention is, therefore, of no effect and we have been deprived of that very early arms control treaty by our own neglect, because a treaty the enforcement of which is neglected is as if it were not there.
Another less obvious place for attack which we seem to sometimes neglect is the Atlantic sea routes, the sea bridge. We do seem to conduct our war planning—and, of course, we must plan a war if we are to present a deterrent effect, because unless you look as though you mean it it has no effect; this is the central paradox in deterrence—or what little of it we can deduce in public, on the assumption of a short war. What if we fail to have contingency plans against a Russian attack which would develop and would be intended to develop into a long war. That is, no nuclear attack, no action on their side which could precipitate a nuclear attack on ours, a naval war. The weakest part of the Atlantic bridge is our ports in this country and in the Low Countries, undefended against many forms of attack, expected and unexpected. That is at our end. At the other end there is the great intrinsic weakness that geography dictates; the export of war material from the United States down the river valleys to the Gulf ports, and Cuba lies across those sea routes—very awkward. Do we think enough about that?
If one were to imagine war lasting even six months, which is not very long in historical terms, that would require one and a half million men to be shipped across the Atlantic, 28 million tons of equipment, and therefore 3,000 ship sailings. I would like to ask the Minister, if he can, to let us know something at the end of the debate about the figures for the ratio of escort vessels and submarines now, the ratio of NATO escort vessels against Soviet and Warsaw Pact submarines now, and to compare that with the corresponding ratio which obtained during the Second World War, when submarines gave us some trouble, as will be remembered. How does it look? Because if it does not look sane, then that is bad deterrence in the meantime, before we get disarmament.
The penultimate point that I should like to make is that last week the House of Commons debated the proposed new round of adjustments in Government expenditure—or, as the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has forced me to say, a new round of a lot of things happening in the Government expenditure field; no chaos, nothing like that—in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that £500 million more next year was going to defence. I must confess that I do not have a clear picture of where it is going or why such a large sum has become necessary within only one year, or why that is the choice for increased expenditure considering the reductions which litter the ground all around it.
I am asking the Minister a lot of questions and cannot help doing so because there are rather a lot of problems. However, would he care to speculate—if he says "no" I shall understand—about the future

1375
role of the European alliance partners, as such, in military planning both inside and outside the NATO area? There has been consultation among the Foreign Ministers of the Community, under the political co-operation machinery, about the proposed Sinai Force. Attempts have been made to reach a common line on that. That is military—it is a peacekeeping force, but it is a force of soldiers who presumably will be transported by warships.
There has been a Motion passed in the European Parliament—totally unreported in the British press—in which for the first time, unless I am mistaken, that body has endorsed the idea of political, financial and economic co-operation in the Council of Ministers specifically taking account of and being directed towards military security co-ordination. One has to ask oneself: Is the Community the right place for that? It contains Ireland. Might it not jeopardise Irish membership if it were carried too far? If it is not the right place, then what is?
The over-development of the West European end of NATO, to the exclusion of the United States and Canada, is in itself a politically undersirable possibility. It de-Atlanticises the alliance and strengthens one abutment of the bridge as opposed to the other. Western European Union will not do, because although it contains the original six of the Common Market plus this country, it does not contain Norway, Denmark, Ireland, Greece or Spain, and is therefore a very partial fixture on the scene, and it arose for quite different purposes anyhow.
I am suggesting that we should begin to talk more seriously than we have in the past, and with less party passion, about whether we want to develop security co-ordination alongside or as part of the political co-operation which goes on alongside or as part of the European Community itself. I choose my words with some care, and I am sorry if they are complicated.
In conclusion, I should like to join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Earl, Lora Cathcart, for bringing this matter up a third time in six weeks. I do not think that that is wrong; I think that is right. I am glad that we are to have the disarmament debate again next week—that will be four debates, or four possibilities of discussing the matter, in only two or two and a half months. That is realistic. Our former silence and negligence have been unrealistic, and damaging to the interests of this country.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I had originally intended to follow the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, and other noble Lords in concentrating on the questions of nuclear deterrence and Trident and allied problems. I decided not to do so for two reasons. The first is that, like the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, I do not believe that this country will ever have Trident. I believe that the only question is whether the decision not to have it will be made before or after the next general election.
However, a more important reason for changing the nature of my speech is the exchange which took place as a result of a Question earlier today by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. Certain things were said then and have been said again in this debate which lead me to
1376
believe that it might be more useful to your Lordships if instead I were to mention for the few minutes at my disposal what I believe to be a very important aspect of what the noble Earl has called, "making provision for defence" and that is, making provision for our defence against psychological warfare.
The Soviet Union would like, if it could, to achieve its political aims without the use of armed force. That goes without saying. No one would use armed force with all that it entails if he could achieve the ends that he wanted to achieve without it. So all our nuclear weapons, our tanks and our ships will be of no use if we lose the psychological, the propaganda war. I believe that we are losing it, and some of the things that have been said in your Lordships' House today have underlined my belief that we are on the losing end of the propaganda war.
We must understand that the Soviet Union is engaged, and has been so for some years now, on a massive programme of disinformation and destabilisation designed to undermine the spirit and the morale of the West. It has a number of major instruments for that purpose. One is the International Information Department (IID) of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which, incidentally, is an organisation headed by a man called Leonid Zamyatin, who was, until he took that job in 1978, the Director of TASS, the Soviet official news agency. It is under the general guidance of two extremely important people in the Soviet hierarchy whose names will be familiar to those of your Lordships who follow these things—Mikhail Suslov and Boris Ponomarev. Indeed, Boris Ponomarev is a name that I want your Lordships to remember because it will come up later on in my remarks.
That international department, founded, as I say, in 1978, has a number of different sections each one of which is charged with operations in different areas of the media of the West. There is a section which deals with the BBC; there is a section which deals with the quality press and there is a section which deals with the popular press. It is a highly organised system of propaganda and disinformation. As I have said, it was founded in 1978 and I think it is perhaps worth bearing in mind that in the same year Radio Moscow founded its world service—a world service which now broadcasts at all hours of the day and night, in a very similar way to our own World Service, to all the countries of the world.
In addition to the IID, there are, of course, the KGB and the GRU—the KGB being the security police and the GRU, Soviet Military Intelligence. They have, again, special departments for covert, clandestine disinformation and destabilisation in the West. They carry out what are called "black" operations. They operate agents of influence in this country and in Western countries. A very fair estimate is that the KGB and the GRU between them have operating in Western Europe something like 1,200 officers under diplomatic cover. If your Lordships will take the trouble to look up your diplomatic list and do a simple sum, you will find that that represents something like 60 per cent. of the political departments of all Soviet embassies in the West.
In addition there are, of course, the front organisa

1377
tions—organisations which, under perfectly respectable guise, very often with the word "democratic" carefully inserted into their title, are, in fact, no more nor less than conscious agents of the Soviet disinformation programme. The most important of those are the World Peace Council, whose activities are beginning to make themselves shown in such a dramatic way now in Western Europe, the World Federation of Trade Unions; the World Federation of Democratic Youth; and the International Union of Students. All those are front organisations consciously carrying out the disinformation operations of the Soviet Union. There was, for example, organised by one of these front organisations in Havana recently a congress of youth and students—it was called a "festival". It brought together 25,000 students from 145 countries, including, I need hardly say, our own.
As I have said, and as I said earlier in an exchange in your Lordships' House this afternoon, the Soviet Union is now spending the equivalent of £1,500 million a year on this kind of activity alone. Of that, something like £100 million to £200 million a year is spent on special projects; such as, in 1979, the campaign against theatre force modernisation, the campaign against the neutron bomb and now, of course, the unilateralist and European disarmament programmes. Its targets are the television, the press, the polytechnics, the schools, the universities, the political parties—they are all legitimate targets of this systematic operation.
The result has been—and I do not think that this is putting the matter too strongly—a progressive demoralisation in the West. In my view there is evidence everywhere. Much of the output of our media—and in this I include a substantial proportion of the programmes of the BBC, whether in the current affairs department or in the drama department (and I am choosing my words with very great care now)—I regard as morally subversive and there is no doubt whatever that, whether or not it is consciously done, it is doing the work of the Soviet Union for them.
In my view the second evidence, and perhaps the most important because it is the most subtle, is the evidence that exists in this country of what I should like to call a false moral symmetry; that is to say, a suggestion that there is for us, in Western Europe and in this country, some middle position as between the Soviet Union and the United States. This seems to me to be a total fallacy and yet, if I may say so without being unduly disobliging, it is one from which the Opposition Front Bench itself has not remained entirely immune. There seems to be a suggestion of "a plague on both your houses". We hear the word "McCarthyism" thrown about the House whenever anyone dares to attack the operations of the Soviet Union or its allies and its agents.
I come, finally, to the evidence of the peace movements and their activities. I think that I need say very little more about these than that which has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. He pointed out that there is a very obvious tendency for the peace movements to complain about the cruise missiles and the Pershing Hs but to say very little about the SS.20s. It is also interesting to note, whenever a CND march or a unilateralist demonstration takes to the street, how many anti-NATO and anti-American slogans and banners there are and how few anti-Soviet.
1378
This seems to me to indicate something wrong in the way in which people, and perhaps especially young people, are looking at this problem.
In passing—and I hope that the right reverend Prelate will forgive me for saying this—may I say that in the course of his very reasoned and to me very interesting endorsement of the unilateralist position, one somewhat surprising comment was made, which was his surprise at the coincidence of the massive demonstration in Amsterdam with the meeting of the World Council of Churches. If the right reverend Prelate really believes that that was a coincidence, then I cannot go too far along that line with him, and I think that on reflection he may find that it was perhaps not entirely as coincidental as he may have thought.
I do not want to detain the House much longer. I believe that we must win this propaganda war. I shall not press the Government or the Minister on this point for one very simple reason; namely, that if the Government are doing anything or will do anything about this, the more discreet they are about it the better. However, in the course of these few remarks should, if I may, like to send a message elsewhere; perhaps to our organs of opinion, to the BBC and to the press. If we find ourselves at the losing end eventually, if we definitively lose this war against the forces from outside, one of the very first casualties will be the liberty of the press and the media of communication. I should also like to appeal most sincerely to those well-meaning people who are being exploited by this disinformation campaign. I have mentioned the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; we have had this argument before. I have not suggested, nor do I suggest, that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is a Soviet-organised campaign. What I say is that it is systematically exploited by the Soviet Union, and I believe that those sincere people who belong to it should realise that.
Also on the question of well-meaning people, perhaps I could give one small example to your Lordships of the way in which people can be either misled or ill-intended, and I am not quite sure which this example was. In February this year a meeting was held in Madrid on détente; that was the rubric under which the conference was held. It was organised by the Spanish Socialist Party and the Spanish Communist Party, with considerable assistance from the Italian Communist Party. It was supposed to be bringing together the Euro-Communists and the Euro-Socialists, and a number of well-meaning people attended, including two British Members of Parliament. But I wonder whether they knew that the guiding spirit behind the organisation of that conference was the same Boris Ponomarev who heads the operations of the Soviet Information Department in the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. If they did not know that, it seems to me that they were very ill-informed; and if they did know it, it seems to me that they were very foolish.
I believe that there is now a need—and, as I say, I am not pressing the Government for any comment at all on this, for obvious reasons—for a co-ordinated NATO effort, a co-ordinated Western effort, against this insidious, expensive and insistent propaganda campaign. When General Haig was there (and, in parenthesis, it is a very interesting state of affairs) Berlin, which

1379
used to be called the democratic island in a communist sea, the place where John Kennedy once said with great pride and to enormous acclaim from the people of Berlin, "I am a Berliner", only a few months ago, demonstrated violently against and, indeed, offered physical violence to the Secretary of State of the United States of America. What has happened in that city in the meantime? I do not think it is too difficult to imagine what has happened. The people of that city, like many others in the West, have been suborned, demoralised and carried away by this flood of Soviet disinformation and propaganda. But Haig said in a speech, of which no one took any notice because naturally all the publicity went to the demonstrators:
"The democracies of the West have a unique privilege and a compelling obligation to promulgate their own revolutionary doctrine throughout the world".
I think that we ought to take that comment, and much of the speech that went around it, very much more seriously. I believe that the West must take its defence against psychological warfare at least as seriously as, and perhaps a little more seriously than, it takes its defence against military aggression, because if we lose the psychological war our military defences may become a matter of purely academic interest. We must not be misled, confused or intimidated by the parrot-like use of words like "McCarthyism" and constant repetition of meaningless conundrums like, "Would you rather be red than dead?"
To those who seem to think that there is some halfway house between one side or another, that there is some kind of symmetrical position into which you can insert yourself as some kind of moral eunuch or neutral, I would say this. I remember, when I was on the staff of The Times in the early 1960s, Sir William Haley, who was then the editor of The Times, saying in the course of a discussion in an editorial conference something that have always remembered:
"Some things are evil and cruel and ugly, and no amount of fine writing will make them good, or kind, or beautiful"
I think it cannot be said too often, and that is why I am saying it again in your Lordships' House, that totalitarian communism is evil, cruel and ugly, and we must preserve our defences against its psychological assault as carefully as we guard against its missiles and its armoured divisions.
5.31 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I hope you will not mind if I leave this debate before it is concluded, because I have a commitment to which I simply must go. I have been impressed recently by the sincerity of the interventions made by people like the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins of Putney, Lord Brockway and Lord Soper. I have been alarmed by the size of the demonstrations that have taken place in Hyde Park, Amsterdam and Bonn, and all the other peace movements. I am really following the theme in many ways of what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has just been saying.
I thought that the best thing I could do would be to go and see the nuclear disarmament people, the CND, at their headquarters in Finsbury Park. I went there the other day. I got their literature. I had tea with Monsignor Bruce Kent. I think I have learnt a great
1380
deal of what this group of people—and I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is here—sincerely believe, and I shall talk about this subject briefly. I am not talking about anything else tonight.
To my mind, there are two flaws in the whole CND position. The first is that they say that they do not fear the dangers of unilateral nuclear disarmament by us. Well, I would not mind unilateral nuclear disarmament if it starts in Moscow, but I would not like to see it here because I do not trust the Russians. We trusted Hitler for a long time, and look how unwise we were. We all know how sincere we were in not going to war against Hitler until we really had to. We all know how we then discovered how utterly evil was much of the Nazi philosophy. We all know about things like Belsen and Buchenwald.
Well, now I do not believe that we can trust the Russians. I believe that the Russian position is full of some very evil things. The whole of the Politburo position is held in power by the might of the Red Army. They have created the Warsaw Pact, which, as we all know, holds down all the satellites. The Warsaw Pact has in its command I do not know how many divisions, but I know it is well over 100. I served for two years in East Germany, with the 20 divisions of the group of Soviet forces in Germany when I commanded BRIXMIS, the military mission of our country with the Russian Army in East Germany. I saw how those 20 divisions held down East Germany.
You know what is happening in Poland. You know what is happening in all the other satellites: Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and so on. I know, and you know too, my Lords, that if the Red Army did not exist there would be grave trouble in Russia itself. How can people like the CND groups and the peacemakers, as they call themselves, trust a Government of that sort? The arms of the Soviet Union so cripple it that it cannot even feed itself. They have to put in that amount of effort—they have to; otherwise they would not be in power—so as to keep their tyranny in power. To my mind, that is the first flaw in CND: you cannot trust an opposition such as the Warsaw Pact because they are unreal and they are not sincere. They know that they are there by force and not by the will of the people. I think for us unilaterally to disarm against them would be madness.
I believe that our graduated response of conventional arms and the nuclear shield that we have is the right answer, and it is essential that we have that nuclear shield as well as our modest conventional arms. I think NATO has about 15 or 20 divisions in West Germany, of which we have three. I commanded one, and I know the position very well. If we tried to match conventionally the 100 or so divisions of the Russians we should be nearly bankrupt ourselves. Think of having that number of men of NATO under arms conventionally. It would be madness.
We are right in having that graduated deterrent, and that response of having—whatever you like to call it; it used to be called a tripwire—people on the ground, and then gradually we can escalate if ever we have to, which we hope we never shall. But we could not conceivably agree to nuclear disarmament and be told by the CND, "Oh, well, you can go for conventional arms". We could not afford it. It would be madness to do so.

1381
I also believe that we need nuclear arms ourselves for the simple reason that the Russians are not the only enemy. It is conceivable that a madman like Colonel Gaddafi might get hold of a nuclear weapon at some time in the future and threaten, shall we say, Egypt or Kenya—he has already been doing things with Chad—with a nuclear weapon. If we cannot respond to such blackmail the people with whom we are allied would be in a very weak position. That is another reason why we must retain a nuclear capability.
The second flaw in the CND lobby is when they suggest that it is unchristian, it is immoral, or it is against all religions—I do not necessarily include just the Christian religion—to have a nuclear deterrent. I thought that the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham was delicate and restrained, and I much admired it. I also saw him on the television the other day. I should just like to say that I think that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was slightly unfair if he inferred that the Council of Churches was willing to have the peacemakers there. The Council of Churches came first and the peacemakers locked themselves into it afterwards, much against the wishes of the right reverend Prelate.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, since this has been mentioned twice, may I put the record straight? The World Council of Churches' hearing was planned first, but the Dutch Churches had for a long time been contemplating a large demonstration at some time in the autumn. The initiative to link the demonstration in Amsterdam with the hearing was taken consciously by the Dutch Churches.
Lord Chalfont: I am obliged to the right reverend Prelate, my Lords, and that was entirely my point. I wish to exonerate myself from the accusation of the noble Duke because that is what I meant; as soon as the demonstrators knew the date of the meeting of the World Council of Churches, they arranged their demonstration. It was no coincidence.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I am sorry that I caused that intervention and I apologise for wasting the time of the House. Perhaps I misinterpreted what was said. However, there is (particularly with people like Bruce Kent, some of the bishops of the Church of England and the theologians of the Roman Catholic Church, to which I belong) a lobby that is saying that the nuclear deterrent is so awful—the use of a nuclear weapon is so terrible—that it is immoral to contemplate using it and therefore we should subscribe to nuclear disarmament. I have been to some theologians and discussed this with them and I believe this is a complete flaw in the CND argument.
We know that it says in the Bible, as they quote in their pamphlets, "Blessed are the peacemakers", but the Christian Church evolved, out of this obviously good intention of Christianity, the need for Governments, who are charged with looking after the people for whom they are responsible, to interpret this situation to allow for a just war in self-defence, and a just war, it has always been agreed, in self-defence is totally compatible with the Bible, as indeed with the other religions of the world. I am convinced, and I
1382
understand it to be so, that it is perfectly reasonable to believe that a theology can be worked out to allow the nuclear deterrent to be something that is not in any way immoral.
I say that to the CND people. I see that I have the right reverend Prelate frowning. I repeat, to have a nuclear deterrent policy is not immoral. It means that you must be prepared to use it; to use it might be immoral, and to deter by threatening to use it is not immoral. There are those two flaws in the whole of the CND set-up which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, will answer. I see it as a very dangerous thing that is taking place. It is all linked, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was saying, with the psychological warfare that seems to be carried on now from the Soviet Union.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Duke able to answer one question to which I do not know the answer? Can he say whether His Holiness the Pope agrees that to threaten to use nuclear arms is not immoral?
The Duke of Norfolk: I can tell the noble Lord at once that I do not know what His Holiness the Pope says on the subject. Perhaps the noble Lord knows.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I do not know either.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, do not for a moment think that I am bound as a Roman Catholic by everything His Holiness the Pope says. Good heavens above! how could the noble Lord think such things of my family or me? Having made those comments, I am itching to hear the replies of the CND philosophy, and I will say no more; that is all I wanted to say. I end by saying that I am totally behind the present Government's defence policy and, indeed, the Opposition defence policy because there is nothing much between them. Oddly enough, this is a debate of both sides of the House against the CND and the Soviets. It is not a debate between the Labour Party and the Conservative Government, and therefore my last words are that I totally support the present Government's defence policy.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it is indeed a privilege to speak following the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who made what I thought was a remarkable speech, and I was delighted that he found it necessary to change his speech to the one which he in fact made. While I appreciate entirely that he cannot expect an answer from the Government, for the good reason he gave, it is a shame that he cannot have an answer. I wish also to congratulate my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk for a very remarkable speech and for taking the splendid initiative of bearding the misguided people of the CND in their own den. That was absolutely first-class of him.
I cannot go with my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk on one point; I cannot entirely be in agreement with what the Government seem to be evolving as their policy. I must say at the outset that I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Trenchard that what he is doing in investing in Trident is but a small element

1383
of extra expenditure and is not the main cause of the general policies which he is adopting. While I agree with the Government in their Trident policy, I do not propose to say more about that.
I wish to look rather more to the future. The frightening thing about modern times is that it takes about 15 years to develop a major weapons system, and in those years it is possible that the policies adopted now may not show up the errors of those policies for as long as perhaps 15 years, and I suggest to the Government that they need to look very carefully at what the situation might be in the late 'nineties as well as trying to deal with the present situation. I do not blame them for having to cope with the present situation—because it is there and must be dealt with—but at least we must try to make sure that the overall pattern is compatible with the future as much as with the present. Unlike, say, 200 years ago, we have the appalling difficulty of not being able suddenly to deploy armies, navies and air forces at the drop of a hat if we happen to go to war tomorrow.
Having said that, I suggest to the Government that there are four particular points which they should remember. The first is that they seem to have lost sight of the fact—perhaps I am being unfair to them and I hope that my noble friend, to whom I have written on the subject, will be able to give me an answer—that we are dependent ultimately on supply by sea, and we are dependent on two main fronts. One is essential raw materials which we do not have and the other is food. Within the European Community and NATO we are somewhat unique on the food front. We are paralleled, I believe, only by Portugal, and in the case of NATO by Iceland, which does not have any armed forces at all, and perhaps Greenland as a dependent of Denmark. Thus, we have this essential Achilles' heel where we are permanently vulnerable.
The other area in which I suggest we have a particular problem is in both our practical and moral need to provided for the support and defence of the British dependent territories: that is, those territories listed in Schedule 6 to the British Nationality Act 1981. They include all kinds of small groups of islands all over the world, and they are otherwise totally defenceless against all manner of threats from outside.
The other factor that I suspect the Government in their thinking have had to put to one side is the quite remarkable fact that the Soviets, quite apart from the threat that they present in Europe and the threat that they present with their nuclear capability, have built up their sea-going forces to a level far in excess of what they could ever claim was necessary for their own self-defence. This is most remarkable, on this particular front. Practically everything else that they have—their huge arms, their huge land-based airforces, and their huge nuclear capability—could perhaps be said to have grown up in direct defence of the homeland. But the Soviet Navy does not come into that category, because the Soviets are not dependent on imports in the way that we are—or at least they should not be, if they are efficient. Admittedly, they have to import grain from North America, but that is their own fault, because they are so inefficient. But, basically, they do not need to have to import that. Nor do they need to import very nearly all the essential
1384
raw materials that we have to import. So, there is presented to us an absolute conundrum with this vast naval force. What is it for?
I go along with the Government, and indeed with most previous speakers, in saying that we must be able to deter an aggressor from actually attacking us, whether by nuclear means or otherwise. We need all the weaponry that is necessary to do that. Broadly speaking, what the Government have, and what successive Governments have provided us with, is aimed towards that end.
However, looking to the future, which, as I said earlier, is the most important thing to do, I suggest that we also have to deter our potential aggressors from depriving us of our vital needs by bullying gestures short of war. I suggest to your Lordships that the vast Soviet Navy and its increasing world deployment is intended for that bullying purpose. Having heard the most enlightening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I suggest further that the ability to spread influence physically with armed force, in support of the propaganda campaign, which shows as the Soviet Navy goes into ports and around places, works so neatly gradually to demoralise not only their main opponents—as we in NATO might be thought to be—but the rest of the world as well. The Government need to make quite certain that they have the capability, in conditions short of war, to provide the necessary cover and protection for the supplies of our own raw materials and food, as well as to provide the dependent territories to which I have referred with protection from any bullying gestures that might be made against them.
The problem here is how is that to be paid for. I mentioned this point earlier. Now I repeat it, and I suspect that I shall receive the same answer as previously. It seems to me that, in view of the nature of the threat, gradually over the next 20 years or so our best contribution to NATO, and our best means of securing an overall position of being able to prevent bullying gestures short of war, will be achieved by shifting the balance of our contribution from land force to maritime.
I have a feeling—and I hope that my noble friend Lord Avon will forgive me for saying this—that it is the Eden commitment of about 30 years ago, to 50,000 people for 50 years, which is at the root of the Government's attitude that they are continuing to pursue their land force superiority as opposed to the maritime strategy. I suspect that now one might begin to say that 30 years have passed, we are looking ahead 15 to 20 years, and perhaps we can see the end of the Eden commitment. Perhaps we can start to plan on the assumption that that is becoming less and less of a binding commitment on us, and perhaps we can start to say to NATO, "Look, we are good at this sea business. You know very well that it is in our best interests to be good at the sea. Why don't you allow us to concentrate on that contribution, rather than giving you the soldiers that we told you 30 years ago we would continue to provide?" That cannot be done overnight, but it is the direction in which the Government might logically, sensibly, and most honestly move. I say "honestly" because I believe that there is a real moral commitment to the few

1385
dependent territories which it seems are rather brushed aside whenever the opportunity presents itself.
We are to have a debate in about a week's time on the South-West Atlantic, and so I shall not now pursue the particular point of the dependent territories, because there will be a good opportunity to do so then. I shall miss out the next point that I was going to mention, because there are many other speakers to take part in the debate.
I should like to turn to one other aspect of deterrence. My noble friend Lord Cathcart mentioned this is his splendid opening speech—I must take this opportunity of thanking him for initiating the debate—and I am sure that other noble Lords will mention it, too, but I wish to put in my pennyworth to support them. I believe that so far the Government have given a most inadequate lead to an essential element of deterrence against potential nuclear attack and any other kind of war; namely, civil defence. Much can still be done in encouraging local authorities to develop plans and train volunteers at very little, if any, cost to the ratepayer, and the Government should do much more in providing just that encouragement. As I said earlier, it is probably very unfortunate that the Home Office, which has an attitude to life quite different from that of what one might call the more forthright ministries, such as the Ministry of Defence, should have responsibility for civil defence. I think that we might have a better, more robust statement i it were the responsibility of another department. Even the Department of the Environment might make a more robust attack on this subject.
The Government must give serious thought to this point. I say that because the important point about civil defence is to show the potential enemy that we really mean business in deterrence, ranging from the means of attack to the ultimate needs for the defence of the citizen, and to show the citizen that the Government really care that some of us should survive whatever kind of war takes place. One gets a slight feeling that the Government do not really care about the fact that some citizens, if they were practised in the art, might be able to survive, but otherwise would not. I believe that the Government are doing themselves a grave disservice by not giving greater attention to this particular point.
I believe that in order to deter we must be ready, and we must be ready in all arms, in all ways that are most suitable for us. We are now in this position, and for the immediate future, let us go on doing more or less what we are doing. But we must remember that our Achilles' heel is our dependence on supply by sea of our essential raw materials and food if we are to stay alive; and we must be ready to face any threat as much in 1999 as in 1982.
6 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, like the previous speaker, I think we owe a debt of gratitude to Lord Cathcart for having initiated this debate. It is very timely, and I think it has been very worthwhile. I think we also owe a debt of gratitude to Lord Chalfont for drawing attention to, and concentrating our minds on, the wider picture of psychological warfare, which so many of us have noticed in different aspects of our lives but which we have not been able to elucidate with the clarity, the well-chosen phrases and the accurate
1386
information which was included in Lord Chalfont's speech. I think we owe him a special debt. This is one of the great advantages of membership of your Lordships' House. One is proud to be a Member of this House when one gets good speeches, from whatever Bench they come, on matters of this sort. His was not the sort of speech, I think, which would ever have been made in the House of Commons; and I only hope that the media, to which he referred, will report it as it deserves to be reported, by both the BBC and the press.
I am going to talk on different matters. I am going to talk on air matters, partly because I have noticed that the Soviets are spending as much as 40 per cent. of their defence budget on air power. That is as much on air power as the combined expenditure on their armies and their navy; and they cannot be doing this without some intentions to use that airpower. I also noticed that there was no one else on the speakers' list who was going to speak on air matters, so I thought that if I did not address myself to this matter it might go unmentioned and unsung. I therefore hope I may be excused for dealing with the air defence of the British region.
In the early part of this year I opened a debate on this same subject, but several things have happened since then. It is not generally realised by our nation, I think, that we are responsible for the air defence of a region which stretches for a thousand miles, starting in the north with the Faroes and Iceland Gap and going a thousand miles south, and stretching from the British Channel in the east to west of Ireland. That is an immense area, covering half a million square miles, and we are responsible for the air defence of that area.
What is the threat today? In the last year the Soviets have gone on building up their air power and their bomber force. I dealt in some detail with their modern aircraft a year ago. But since then the Soviets (making much use of air transportation, by the way) have invaded and subjugated, or have nearly subjugated, Afghanistan; and they have, with military and political threats, regrettably almost quenched the fires of freedom that were burning in Poland. While NATO has been riven by economic problems and recessions, the Soviets have continued expanding their military capability, and especially their attack capability. As my noble friend has just said in his speech, it is not the defensive capability which has been expanded, it is the attack capability. The switch from defence to attack in the last three years has been most noticeable.
Everywhere in Europe well-meaning idealists are demonstrating, but not, unfortunately, in the Soviet police state. I thought, in endorsement of what Lord Chalfont has said, that Dr. Joseph Luns was so wise when he said on the BBC on 12th November that the Soviet Union is paying for the peace movements in the West. After all, he, with 10 years as Director-General of NATO, must have more access to the intelligence sources of all those nations than any of us in this House.
The next point is: when are Western Europe and Britain at their most vulnerable? All the political commentators and assessors believe that the years are 1981 through to 1985. So we need to address ourselves, not to the long-term plans but to what we can do during what is called this window of vulnerability.

1387
At this moment we could deploy a maximum of 100 air defence aircraft to defend this whole area. These include Lightnings, which are now getting rather long in the tooth. They are doing extremely well in Saudi Arabia, but in the more testing environment and weather of Western Europe they will be less successful. We have two squadrons of Lightnings and five squadrons of Phantoms. The maximum number it is believed would be likely to be operational at any one time is 70 aircraft, and that is all we have to defend half a million square miles.
My noble friends and others here will remember that in the last year over 200 Soviet aircraft have probed our airspace to see whether we are alert, and that does not show a lack of interest in the British base. They know full well how essential this base is to the reinforcement and the deployment of NATO troops and the reception of supplies, ammunition, equipment and men from the United States.
In addition to these good supersonic Lightnings and Phantoms (both of which were first operational in 1960, so they are already 21 years old) we have the Hawk. Of course, that is a good aircraft, and we are all delighted with the sale to the United States of this training aircraft. But it is no answer really. It is nice to have 90 Hawks in the air to help—and if they were in the right place they certainly could help—but they are not much of an answer to the Backfire Soviet bomber, with its speed capability of mach 2 and its ability to fire stand-off weapons with ranges of 250 miles.
Of course, I shall be told by my noble friend that the Tornado, air defence version, is coming along. Yes, it is coming along—I believe there are two at the moment doing test flying—but it is not coming along within the window of vulnerability. I read in my papers this morning that already there is pressure—in this case because of the recession which is also affecting our partners, Germany and Italy, who are combining with us in building the Tornado—to push delivery further to the right, to slow down the provision of Tornados for the air defence of our region. So we find Germany and Italy and ourselves all being forced to slow it down.
With such a shortage in the short-term of aircraft to defend this area, it is of imperative importance that we do something to increase the numbers of supersonic aircraft available to us to meet any attack.
My Lords, when I spoke previously I made the suggestion to my noble friend that we ask some of the US National Air Guard, who are a voluntary force and who, incidentally, on a part-time basis, fly F 15s and are now re-equiping with F 16s, which are supersonic aircraft, to come and exercise in our country. I repeat this. I was told that it would not fit in with their schedules. They already exercise in West Germany: why do we not ask them to exercise in Scotland and other places which are vulnerable and very thinly covered by our own forces?
Perhaps we could also consider leasing or buying some F 18s, because something of this sort will have to be done in the short-term. The Australians have already decided to buy 75. The Norwegians, the Danes, the Dutch and the Belgians are also buying F 18s, so it will be an aircraft common to our NATO
1388
allies as well. Of course, it would be nicer to say that we ought to get on with our own aircraft. Noble Lords will know that British Aerospace are proposing the P 110 and are anxious to go ahead with developing it. Even if they do get the money, even if they do go ahead and find someone to sponsor it and share the cost, it cannot possibly be operational for another 10 years. The dangers are in the next five years.
We heard in the admirable opening speech of my noble friend Lord Trenchard that we were earning £1½ billion from the sale of AV8Bs and Hawks to the United States. If that is so, perhaps a small part of that money could go, as I have said, to leasing a suitable aircraft, which they have in production, to fill the gap until such time as our Tornados come along.
I note—and it has not been said recently—that we are gravely short of operational pilots for our air defence force. According to the Select Committee, it now costs £1·3 million to train an RAF pilot. The strange thing is that at the end of that training period —normally an eight-years commission—when he is aged about 28 the pilot has no reserve obligations at all. I think my noble friend should look at this. If the state has invested so much money in young people and given them so much aptitude, that should not be thrown away. There should be some commitment, of perhaps three or four years, and at the end of that period if the commitment has been honoured the pilots could then be given their gratuity or perhaps an enhanced gratuity. It will be said that even the regulars cannot fly the aircraft as much as they should because it is too costly and the flying hours are down to about 15 hours a month; therefore, one cannot waste flying hours on part-timers. But why not keep them up to date on simulators? This does not cost much. If simulators are better for transport aircraft than for fighters, then why not buy or hire simulators from the United States and adapt them? Investment in simulators could be a relatively cheap way of achieving the object.
I want to say something about the air defence network of this country. These relatively sophisticated aircraft cannot find targets or operate efficiently without a sophisticated ground environment. I am delighted that we are going ahead with the improved UK air defence ground environment—called the UK/ADGE. Tenders were put out in March 1979, were accepted on 3rd September 1980, and contracts signed on 5th March 1981, and provision for integrated communications of a military network is going ahead.
We need new radars which they have to have a modern digital output to match this particular network. I am told that British Telecom will have the radio and land line communications in time; but all world-wide experience is that there are two bottlenecks when deploying a radar network. One is communications (in this case, by British Telecom) and the other the work services. I urge my noble friend to do all he can to push ahead with both of these potential bottlenecks and not to let them be delayed as was the case with the aircraft. There is vital equipment, software and co-ordination, which ought to be speeded up and I hope attention will be paid particularly to the integration of Nimrods. We have been waiting for the Airborne Early Warning Nimrod for a number of

1389
years. It is probably the most sophisticated such airborne system in the world today. It is admirable in its class. It is important that integration of its communications and information should be made. I hope that we shall press on with that.
The NATO defence budget and the infrastructure budget is also under great stress as well as our own defence budget. I would remind noble Lords that of the whole of our radar network to be deployed, 83 per cent. of the cost is met from NATO infrastructure funds; so that the House will be disturbed if they are under pressure. How are we to go ahead if we are not to get our full share and support from that infrastructure? I say to my noble friend, "Do not be pushed to the right". Every Treasury Minister always says, "Can you not slow down this or that work service and the rate of production of this or that?" In the long run, the units which are slowed down always cost more and become obsolescent quicker at the end of the period. With Government cuts, with NATO cuts, I know there must be great pressure to push and delay some of these things. I hope that my noble friend with his right honourable friend the Minister of Defence will stand up and that they will not let themselves make cuts in the vital defence of the United Kingdom and the ports which will receive our reinforcements and which are so essential to the wellbeing and confidence of our NATO allies.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Glasgow: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Cathcart for initiating this debate, and to say what a pleasure it is to follow my noble kinsman Lord Orr-Ewing. In the past, it has been the custom to plan to win wars. Now, all efforts seem to be concentrated, quite rightly, on preventing a major war from ever taking place, a war which it is accepted generally that no one can win; hence the policy of deterrence.
The allies, confronted with the vast arms build-up in the Warsaw Pact countries, must be seen to be determined to resist aggression and to have sufficient trained and effective forces and equipment to make such an adventure exceedingly unprofitable. Here, I think the Government's intention to proceed with the Trident missile system is very important on both counts. I thoroughly support this project for all the reasons which have been deployed so often and which I will not weary your Lordships by repeating today. The only point that I would wish to make here is that I think it is wrong that the cost of our independent strategic nuclear deterrent should be borne by the service, whether the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force, which builds and mans the launcher. It should be an entirely separate item in our defence budget. The Polaris and Trident submarines are no part of the Fleet. They have an entirely different and independent role.
My Lords, how to spend our limited amount of money to support deterrence is the problem which faces the Government; and that is what all these White Papers are about. I do not know how many of your Lordships read an article by General Sir John Hackett in the Daily Telegraph of 24th May this year on the subject of the proposed cuts which were published in the White Paper a month later. The general first commends the Government for not cutting the Royal
1390
Air Force which has already been reduced below the safety limit for its major role in the defence of these islands. He then goes on to say, in effect—and, he also adds, at the risk of losing friends—that the army probably has more fat to shed than the Royal Navy without reducing the size or efficiency of the British Army of the Rhine. He follows up that assertion with the argument that it is easier and quicker to rebuild an army than a navy. I found myself very much in agreement with the general.
My Lords, I should like now to turn to the Royal Navy. I was not able to take part in the debate in July and I think that there is a bit to be said about it. It has taken a pretty hard knock in the latest Review and the major blow has fallen on the surface fleet. Your Lordships would not expect a retired admiral to welcome the early disposal of about 10 ships of our escort forces and almost an equal number put into reserve; nor the early disposal or sale of one of our three through-deck cruisers. We have not enough of these types of ship, anyway.
The argument as to whether our trade routes are better protected by submarines and aircraft or by surface ships or even by surface ships and aircraft, is evenly balanced. That must be left to the experts. Nevertheless, a show of force in peacetime in some sensitive corners of the world to deter the outbreak of hostilities requires surface ships. Noel Coward had a delightful little song called "Lorelei" in which he sympathises with the lady having to conduct her business under modern conditions. One couplet always stick in my mind in which he says:
"What could be more obscene Than vamping a submarine".
I think I see what he meant.
Showing the flag is still an important part of the Royal Navy's duties in peacetime. This cannot adequately be done by submarines; it needs surface ships. Like the noble Lord, Lord Murton of Lindisfarne, who, I am glad to see, is speaking later today, I am also concerned about the withdrawal of HMS "Endeavour" from the South Atlantic without replacement. I consider the naval presence of a specialised ship in the Falkland Islands and the Antarctic area to be a high priority. Again, while welcoming the retention of the Royal Marine Commandos, they are to be deprived of their two assaults ships, "Fearless" and "Intrepid". Our amphibious capability—a form of warfare in which we are particularly skilled—is of vital importance to NATO, particularly on the northern flank. This capability should not be weakened. The assault ships should be retained or replaced. It is my hope that the money may be found in later years to do the latter.
I am inclined to agree with the Government in their intention to do away with the half-life refits and modernisation of ships. These are very expensive and put a ship out of service for anything up to two and a half years. When the ship emerges, she is often quite unrecognisable with a mass of modern weaponry for which the hull was never designed and with possible adverse effects on her sea-keeping qualities. Ships, like humans—and remember that ships are female—should be allowed to live out their lives without unnecessary transplants.

1391
Of the dockyards I am less qualified to speak, but it does seem logical that some reduction should be made here. But would it not be better to retain all five dockyards (and here I include Gibraltar) with reduced facilities and manpower, rather than close Chatham altogether? Dispersion of repair facilities in war is of some importance, and here a dockyard outside these islands must have an important part to play. I sincerely hope that there may be second thoughts before the dockyard at Gibraltar is finally and completely closed.
I am also slightly unhappy about the shape of the present surface fleet. In paragraph 5 of the Way Forward occurs this sentence:
"The fast growing power of modern weapons to find targets accurately and to hit them hard at long ranges is increasing the vulnerability of major platforms such as aircraft and surface ships".
In the case of surface ships, the answer seems to me to be that the platforms should be smaller, cheaper and much more numerous. With the increased range and accuracy of modern weapons, numbers become important. I therefore strongly support the entry into service of the Type 23 frigate. I would go even further and consider building something smaller on the lines of the Hunt class destroyers or corvettes of the last war.
When I was a very young naval officer, the most powerful and expensive surface ships were battleships and aircraft carriers. After them came the cruisers, light and heavy. They were not so powerful and not so expensive. Below them were destroyers and sloops, of which we had a great number. I am thinking particularly of the V and W class destroyers built at the end of the First World War in four of which I served. I think we had about 40 of them in the Mediterranean Fleet alone in 1930. They were splendid little ships—maids of all work. They screened the Fleet; they were trained to launch massed torpedo attacks on enemy heavy ships. They were on the spot whenever there was an earthquake or other similar disaster in many countries. They helped to put down revolts in such places as Cyprus and combat piracy in the China Seas. The survivors of them did noble work in escorting our convoys in the last war.
Nowadays, our most powerful and expensive ships are the Fleet submarines and the through-deck cruisers. After them come destroyers and frigates, far more sophisticated and expensive than the cruisers of old; and after that there is a hideous gap until you get to the minesweepers which are not strictly part of the Fleet, though in their own way very important. It is this gap that I hope the Type 23 frigate will fill.
There are five paragraphs in the Way Ahead under the heading of "Beyond the NATO area". I have always thought that the greatest mistake that the British Government made in foreign and defence policy in the past decade was to withdraw all our maritime forces back into the NATO area. I have said this many times in your Lordships' House. We gave up important bases in Singapore, South Africa and the Persian Gulf, where the local inhabitants were still pleased to have us. Our influence in the Gulf area and the Indian Ocean was still considerable and our help and advice eagerly sought.
Once out, there is no possibility of return. Apart
1392
from the strategic value of these bases, our influence is lost. I only hope that the Government are sincere in their intention—and here I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Mottistone—to expand our maritime activities in the oceans of the world, and to support our allies and protect our friends and dependencies in all corners of the globe. We seem to have cut down the numbers of ships most appropriate to this task. Our maritime responsibilities do not stop at the Tropic of Cancer.
I am sorry, my Lords, if I have painted a rather sombre picture. I have tried to express some of my anxieties about our ability to exercise our NATO and national responsibilities at sea with the "new look" fleet. I hope that the noble Viscount, when he comes to reply, will allay some of my fears. But let me end on a more cheerful note. In my own part of Scotland, it is my hope that a number of the diesel submarines may he built at Scott-Lithgow, and that Yarrows will get a substantial order for Type 23s after they have completed the last Type 22 frigate. I welcome the entry into service of the Sting Ray torpedo and the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile and, subject to agreement, the new British-built heavy torpedo. But finally, my Lords, I put my faith in the Type 23 frigates. They must be small enough and cheap enough for us to have a great many of them, and we must have them soon.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, and I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him very far in the naval waters in which he is so much at home because, were I to do so, I should speedily find myself completely out of my depth. Perhaps I may also echo what has been said and thank the noble Earl who initiated the debate. We cannot talk too often about these matters, even if from my point of view they sometimes seem to develop on lines which have a certain repetition to them. I have found a tendency for these debates to centre to some extent on an attack on the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, of which I am the vice-president. Had I responded to the various things which were said about the CND with which I did not agree during the course of this debate, I would have been jumping up and down like a jack-in-the-box or a yo-yo. So, I have allowed many things to pass with which I profoundly disagree, and I do not intend to try to pick up these points now. If I were to try to do so, my own remarks would lack any coherence.
I will say one or two things which I said on a less public occasion to the all-party Defence Committee last week. If noble Lords who were present on that occasion wish to depart and refresh themselves in case they should hear the same remarks over again, I shall readily understand that and will take no offence.
The defence study group were kind enough to accept my offer to talk to them about these matters, and particularly about the attitude of the CND. They turned out last week in numbers which I felt indicated an appreciation of the supreme importance of the subject of nuclear weapons. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was in the chair, and he was an eminently courteous and impartial chairman. The same—unhappily—could not be said of what he had to say this afternoon; but this is

1393
not a place for impartiality. For myself, I should have liked to hear the speech which the noble Lord did not make. I hope that on some other occasion we may perhaps be able to hear him on a subject other than the one which is so close to his heart.
I have left out of consideration in these matters the position of the complete pacifists, who are none the less represented on the CND National Council. It is not the position of most of us who are members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. We are opposed in particular to the nuclear weapon. I shall not weary the House by going over the exceptional awfulness of that weapon—its capacity to kill not merely individuals but possibly to exterminate humanity and civilisation itself. It is that which makes the nuclear weapon to us such an exceptional thing, which we feel has to be taken out of the context of weaponry. I agree with George Kennan, surely one of the most distinguished of all living Americans, who takes the view, which was shared too by Lord Mountbatten—may I say once again, not a unilateralist—that the nuclear bomb is unfit to be used or thought of as an ordinary weapon of war.
In other words, fresh considerations, fresh attitudes and fresh approaches have to be taken up when considering the possible extinction of mankind and all that mankind has built up over the centuries. Attitudes which would have been perfectly appropriate—one has heard them put forward this afternoon—on any other occasion and in reference to other kinds of weapon are inappropriate when we are in circumstances which mankind has never had to face before. If humanity is, as I believe, facing a position which is unique in the history of the world, then we have to bring to that situation fresh attitudes and fresh minds and to put out of our consideration the kinds of attitude which are traditional and which come naturally to noble Lords who took part, as I did myself in some small way, in the unpleasantness of World War Two, because then they and others took part in a war which it was possible to think of winning. It is no longer possible to think of winning wars; and that is the new situation to which we have to bring a fresh mind if we can.
Something has been said about communists this afternoon. They too, like the absolute pacifists, are represented on the CND National Council. Some of these communists are quite alarmingly anti-Soviet these days, and here again I think we have to recognise that the situation has changed fundamentally in the last few years. We used to think of communism as a monolithic Stalinism speaking with a single voice—which was true. The name of Senator Joseph McCarthy has been mentioned here this afternoon. We have to remember that there was at that time a single communist voice and it was possible to say that when that voice was heard one heard variations on the same theme all over the world. But of course that is no longer true. The Chinese communists profoundly disagree with the Soviet communists and the Romanian communists equally profoundly disagree with the Soviet communists. The Yugoslav communists have never been very close to the Soviet communists; and now we have the phenomenon of the Euro-communists, who are almost beginning to sound like members of the Labour Party when they quarrel so bitterly among themselves. It is really quite alarming.
1394
This is new and to react to that situation as though communists themselves were a monolithic group, when they consist of Maoists, Trotskyists and so on, and to assume that the Soviet Union is, as it were, the world voice of communism is really completely old-hat. That is to assume something which no longer exists. This is not a very powerful organisation, a sinister, growing and commanding world conspiracy: it is a country which in many respects is in a very weak position, as the noble Duke mentioned. It is having great difficulty in retaining control of that part of the world which it regards as being its own.
So far as CND is concerned, I think we are a reasonable cross-section of the people of this country, except that we are very short of conservatives. I gather from what I have heard this afternoon that we are not likely to fill that lacuna from this House. However, last week I expressed the hope that we might perhaps clear up some of the misunderstandings. Whether or not I have succeeded in doing that I am not entirely sure, but we must try.
Even the hawks among us are committed to the 1978 United Nations document on disarmament, which provides for general and complete disarmament under international control. This Government has not repudiated that and indeed this year the United Kingdom, with Australia, Belgium, Federal Germany and Japan, has put forward proposals to provide for a comprehensive disarmament programme to be considered by the second United Nations Session on disarmament next year. Ultimately, therefore, we are all peacemongers and the differences between us are perhaps not quite so great as those of us who are engaged in the dialogue sometimes believe.
While all these discussions are taking place in Geneva, Madrid and so on, the arms themselves continue to pile up. We are now in the position of being able to destroy our civilisation and its people several times over. As George Kennan (to whom I have just referred) said, we are in a position of total absurdity when we can destroy each other eight times over and are speaking as though it was absolutely essential to have Trident, and so forth, so that we can destroy ourselves 30 times over. We have all kinds of sophisticated nuclear weapons, tactical weapons, theatre weapons—I still use these terms because they are descriptive, we have got used to them and we know what they are about. They remind us that here in Europe we are in the theatre. It is possible to be a little removed if one is outside the theatre and to imagine, I think quite wrongly, that it might be possible to conduct a restricted nuclear war in Europe, reserving the strategic weapon from outside. But, if you are in Europe, whether it is a limited or a total nuclear war is not going to make that much difference.
It is not true of course that the CND never mentions the SS 20s. We say that the response to the SS 20, with the Pershing 2 and the cruise missile, has set the alarm bells ringing all over Europe. That is what we have done. That is the cause, and not Soviet money, of the gatherings which have taken place all over Europe. As noble Lords have said, people are alarmed. They believe that unless some action is taken to reverse the present course of events we shall find ourselves approaching the holocaust. It is this that is stirring people,

1395
and it does not need any troubles to bring about a rethinking of one's position. As Dr. Johnson said—he was a terrible Tory, but I often quote him because he said some very wise things—nothing clarifies a man's mind so much as the knowledge that he is going to be hanged. That is the gist of what he said. I may have not got the quotation quite right, and noble Lords may correct me.
When we approach the situation that mankind is in danger of being hanged, that begins to clarify humanity's mind. That is what is happening, and it is motivated not by Soviet pressures or by Communism but by a determination that the species to which we belong shall continue to exist on earth. That is what it is about.
It is impossible—I have said this once before—not to have some sympathy with the American Administration. There they were, invited into Europe to assist us in a nuclear defence project. Now when they have got here, and have established their nukes all over Europe, they find that they are being regarded not as firemen but as arsonists. No wonder that they are beginning to be rather confused. But this very confusion, which obviously exists inside the American Administration, is, in itself, extremely dangerous.
For example, it now transpires that the notion of a demonstration nuclear shot is not, as it seemed, the brainchild of Al Haig, who merely blurted it out, but is a notion which was originally discussed by none other than our own Denis Healey. The unfortunate Caspar Weinberger has been led to deny what is now generally thought to be true; that is, that among the nuclear options which NATO forces are being trained to deploy is the demonstration shot. This is dangerous and I do not think that any noble Lord, whatever attitude he brings to these problems, will disagree with that view. We are not disagreeing that it is a dangerous situation. What we are disagreeing about is how one approaches that dangerous situation.
I think that the position of the Government is clear and understandable. They envisage a longer, distant prospect of disarmament at some stage, but an immediate nuclear rearmament which includes Trident, cruise, Pershings, Tornados and the rest. When one adds up the lot, the cost is absolutely phenomenal. One can spread it over years, but the Tornados, for example, will cost almost as much as Trident. The initial cost at the moment, which was revealed the other day, is of the order of £2,500 million; that is, 220 Tornado aircraft at over £11 million each. It is a staggering commitment. That is what disturbed the Select Committee, which stated that the Government contribute to NATO to an extent which they consider excessive as compared with other NATO nations. The Government support the retention and enlargement of the British nuclear capability, and their enemies might say that they talk peace but prepare for war.
The position of the last Labour Government was, in some ways, not dissimilar to that which is adopted by the present Government, except that the last Labour Government acted secretly, and the upgrading or modernisation of Polaris was undertaken by four members of the Government and was even kept from the Cabinet. So Polaris was modernised and £1,000
1396
million was spent. I am not sure how it was got through the accounts; I am trying to find out. But, although the present Labour Opposition does not agree with Trident, there is some relationship between the position of the last Labour Government and that of the present Conservative Government.
How is that to be compared with the position which I support, and which is supported by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver? I very much regret that the noble and gallant Lord is not here to make, once again, the very valid points which he has made before. But there is a distinction to be made, which is that he is not a unilateralist—I told the noble and gallant Lord that I was going to mention his name this evening—but he shares with the late, sadly lamented Lord Mountbatten a horror of nuclear war, and a recognition that a nuclear weapon is not an instrument which is fit to be deployed by an officer and a gentleman. It is something which is outwith the consideration of normal warfare. This is why we should bring to it a separate attitude, as I have already said. This third position is growing. It is one which is occupied by a number of respected noble Lords in this House and by many people outside. The view which they take is that the nuclear weapon is something which we must do without, because, if we do not do without it, it will finish by doing without us.
Before I sit down, I should like to say one or two words about the CND. I apologise to noble Lords if I am taking up too much time, but I am rather in the position in which I am one of the few batsmen on my side. So if I take up a little more time than I should, I hope your Lordships will bear with me for another few minutes. I think that our position is rightly described as unilateralist, in the sense that it envisages the running-down of British nuclear forces and simply telling our allies what we are doing, instead of asking their opinion about it. I am not sure that they would disagree if we did do that, but they would certainly disagree with the second unilateral action envisaged by the CND, which would be to tell the American Government to take its nuclear forces away from this country and out of British waters.
It is important to note that the TUC and the Labour Party envisage Britain remaining in membership of NATO, as does the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and other people who occupy what I have called the third position. It is also my own position. But I want to tell noble Lords that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has carried a motion including withdrawal from NATO among its proposals. I personally think this to be unnecessary and undesirable. There are a number of non-nuclear members of NATO already, and I believe that Britain should seek to remain a member of that organisation and should work for the denuclearisation of both NATO and the Warsaw Pact, culminating in a non-nuclear Europe.
Like Aneurin Bevan, I am opposed to regional pacts in principle, in the same way, perhaps. that the present Government are devoted to general and complete disarmament—a long-term aim rather than an immediate possibility. But I do not regard their disappearance as something which can he expected in any short term. I am quite sure that NATO and the Warsaw Pact are linked and that, while one remains,

1397
so must the other. That is not merely my position; it is that of the Labour Party and the TUC.
Finally, the CND is glad that the Geneva talks are taking place, but would ask the parties to negotiate a real zero option; that is, the establishment of a nuclear-free zone and the gradual extension of that zone until it embraces all Europe, as was envisaged so many years ago in the Gaitskell and Rapacki plans. The Duncan-Sandys doctrine of total nuclear response to a conventional attack has been replaced by the idea of a limited or flexible response. This is now seen to be equally impracticable, even by our own International Institute for Strategic Studies, and it will have to be replaced by a new doctrine of non-nuclear response if mankind is to survive.
6.49 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, like many others I have enjoyed a rather neat concatenation this afternoon of three circumstances. The first was the admirable speech with which my noble friend Lord Cathcart introduced this important debate. Second, the happy conjunction with that of the question put down by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing concerning intelligence relating to Russian activities; third, arising directly, he told us, out of that question and the question and answer that it gave rise to, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. In my opinion, that speech alone would have justified this debate. If it could be printed as leaflets and dropped by the Royal Air Force all over Europe it would be a far more useful endeavour than any of those pamphlet raids we went in for in 1939 and 1940.
I have also enjoyed listening once again to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. I heard it last week with pleasure, and I have heard it again today. He will not be surprised if I say things now with which he disagrees; but he will not, I hope, think that I am intending in any way to be offensive. I assure him that I am not. If he will forgive me saying so, he has left out of his considerations something which is of the utmost importance to this debate and to the whole of the defence situation. I think I can say with some certainty that he made no reference whatever to the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons, no reference at all to the independent British nuclear deterrent, no reference to any nuclear deterrent. He has simply referred to nuclear weapons as bigger, worse, more dangerous, more horrible weapons of war. He has referred, as is often done, to nuclear war as though it were as likely to occur as non-nuclear war.
It is probably the result of so much talk about these matters that many of us have come to think of nuclear explosions, weapons, bombs, missiles, as something quite weird and quite different from what they really are. The situation has become so complicated in our minds that we have forgotten what it is, and it might be helpful if we could think about it in a slightly unusual way. The way I propose is this: it may sound rather frivolous but I do not intend it in that way.
Let us imagine that we are engaged in a game of poker. This is a comparison which is not seldom made. In case some noble Lords do not know exactly how poker is played, it is a question of one or two, or more, players betting on hands of cards, which they hold, neither of whom knows what cards the other holds. There are three possible ends to such a game. The first is
1398
that one player loses his nerve as the betting goes up and throws down his hand, in which case he loses all his stake to his opponent. The other is that the opponent loses his nerve because he thinks he cannot afford to win, so he throws in his hand and the first player wins. Another possibility is that one player will say to the other, "I will see you", and puts down a sum of money equal to that put down by the other player. Then you get the showdown. The cards are put on the table. The bluff is then called. The hand is decided according to which player has the higher cards.
With the nuclear game of poker that last alternative is not possible. It is possible to throw in the hand and admit defeat. There are those among us who advocate this course. But there is one course which neither side can in any circumstances take. It is the third one which I described: seeing the other fellow. You cannot call his bluff. Neither side can call the other's bluff because the risk of being wrong is so terrifying, so totally destructive, so fatal to everything that we believe in and so fatal to our own existence that it cannot be done. The nuclear weapon is not a weapon that can be used. It deters and it cannot fail to deter. This is the principle of deterrence. It is the principle which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has not mentioned. He takes it for granted, as do so many other people, that this is a weapon. He talks about nuclear war. As I have said, there can be no nuclear war. There can be no war so long as both sides have this weapon, because it is quite impossible that either side can take any step so dangerous that the other side would fire a nuclear rocket back at it. It simply cannot be done. So long as the deterrent exists I do not believe that we can have war of any kind, nuclear or otherwise.
At this point I hope I may put in a plea for the abolition of the words "conventional warfare" as distinct from nuclear warfare. Conventional warfare embraces, among other things, fragmentation bombs, napalm, which means spraying women and children with jellied petrol and then frying them to death in their villages and homes. It means also the firestorm: starting so many fires in a city that they generate great gales of wind, turning whole cities into a furnace, with the result that the next morning all the inhabitants of that city have been reduced to small, charred sticks three or four feet long. This is what people now refer to as "conventional warfare". To the Russians, conventional warfare includes also chemical warfare and biological warfare. There are two kinds of warfare: nuclear and non-nuclear. I see very little to choose between them. The point is that the nuclear deterrent will prevent both.
What happens if we do away with it? This brings me to what I think of as our possible undoing. That is an acronym—UNDOING—which stands for Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, Or Is NATO a Goner? What happens if we do what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has suggested? We do away with our own nuclear deterrent, whether our NATO allies (which means basically our United States allies) like it or not. The noble Lord has not, quite properly, raised the moral argument, which would get us into very great difficulties, of proposing the possibility of sheltering behind the American deterrent while doing away with our own. But what, in effect, would happen? The

1399
noble Lord wishes us not only to do away with our deterrent, but to ask the Americans to remove theirs from here. Other countries presumably would do the same. Why not? What is to prevent them? And what happens when the Americans have removed their nuclear missiles from Europe? What happens is that they have removed themselves and NATO is finished. The policy which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, proposes is no less than the destruction of NATO. If carried to its logical conclusion it cannot end in any other way. I hope he will think very seriously before embarking upon so hazardous an adventure if he does think that it can end otherwise. This is the most appalling peril which we could possibly face.
We have heard with great force from the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and we have also heard factually from my noble friend Lord Trefgarne that the Russians are subsidising peace movements in Europe. I submit that this is not arguable. Nor, I submit, does it reflect adversely or discreditably upon the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I do not wish the noble Lord to think that I have been suggesting anything of that kind. But any advocacy of reducing our nuclear deterrent is offering aid and comfort to the enemy. I do not think that in this context we need split hairs about the meaning of the word "enemy". This is a perfectly proper proceeding in certain circumstances. For example, it is perfectly proper when the United States Government does it. It is offering aid and comfort to the Soviet Union when it proposes to withdraw or to cancel the deployment of cruise missiles and Pershings in Europe. But there is a quid pro quo. The quid pro quo is the abandonment of the SS22s, the SS4s and the SS5s. When you say that you will disarm unilaterally, in the full knowledge that this is what the enemy wants you to do, that is not offering aid and comfort to the enemy—it is giving aid and comfort to the enemy as a gratutious gift. This, my Lords, I do not believe we can contemplate with equanimity.
Lord Grey of Falloden said in 1914:
"The lights are going out all over Europe. They will not be lit again in our time".
They were lit again in our time. They were lit again twice in our time. They were relit by the courage and steadfastness of ourselves and our allies. To follow the policy advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, albeit with every sincerity and goodness of heart, would be to run the very grave and serious risk that those lights would go out again. This time they may never be reilluminated. Those who ask us to do that ask us too much.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, I did not interrupt the noble Earl earlier because he made an excellent speech and I followed it carefully—and I beg his pardon for not being here at the beginning of his speech. When the noble Earl talks about our allies being able to relight the lights, 20 million of our allies who died were Russians, who also helped. Secondly, the unthinkable is now becoming the thinkable in parts of the world. President Reagan's speech worried us, when he looked upon Europe as a theatre. Did he, or did he not, think that there could be a local war with nuclear weapons in Europe? The British people and the world should know.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, is asking me a question or not. But if he is, I do not think it has anything to do with my speech.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I agree so much with the speech made by the noble Earl that I find it hard to follow him. I think the House might find it more interesting if I were to be deal with one or two people with whom I disagreed. I disagree in the first place—and I am sorry he is no longer here—with the Duke of Norfolk when he says that this is a debate between the House as a whole and CND and is not a debate, as is more customary, between the Government of the day and Her Majesty's Opposition. It is a fact that the Opposition have a defence policy which has been outlined recently, although not in this House, by the official spokesman for the party, Mr. Silkin, in more than one speech. I think it would be appropriate in a debate of this kind if this Chamber, which is part of the legislature, were to discuss and compare these two policies. The policy as I understand it, and we have to rely on newspaper reports, is fairly close to the policy which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, is putting forward; namely, that we should both remove our own independent nuclear weapons and get our American allies not to station a portion of the NATO deterrent force in this country and, as I believe Mr. Silkin said with total and admirable candour, spend a good deal of money necessarily on conventional arms.
I hope perhaps that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, who will be winding up this debate for the Opposition, will tell me if I have in any way misrepresented what I understand to be the policy of the Opposition on this matter. I must apologise if an unavoidable engagement at eight o'clock makes me unable to hear him or the noble Viscount the Minister. I assure the noble Lord that any remarks he makes I shall read in Hansard with due attention. After all, these are political discussions. These are political debates and they will be decided, as things are decided in this country, by the weight of opinion acting through our parliamentary institution. It is not a debate with CND.
As far as CND, as represented by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, is concerned—and having advised other people to take refreshment he has found need to partake of it himself—I can only say that I wish to make one point, and I want to put it on record. At the private meeting of the interparty defence group to which the noble Lord referred, I challenged his use of the International Institute of Strategic Studies in support of his argument, by pointing out that this body, which Lord Chalfont and I helped to found, is precluded from having collective policies. Indeed, it would be difficult for the institute to have them with a wide international membership. In the all-party defence group on that occasion, this point was admitted by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, but today once again, he quoted the International Institute for Strategic Studies. I very much hope—I am sure with my noble friend Lord Chalfont and others associated with that body—that to do this is really quite improper. It is as though someone were to support or criticise a matter of foreign policy

1401
by saying that Chatham House was in favour of or opposed it.
I should like to take up something that has been referred to by more than one speaker, including the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery; to contemplate again the difference that has been made (and it is a difference) concerning the problems we face through the introduction of nuclear weapons. It is idle to pretend that a situation in which a small number of people commanding the levers of power could destroy the human race, is familiar to us from history or, indeed, that history is very helpful to us when trying to find out what we should do about it. It cannot be said that humanity has never been conscious of this risk. The dangers of applying or misapplying knowledge go back to the root of our religious beliefs; it is at the root of the story of Adam and Eve. It is at the root in Greek mythology of the story of Prometheus. People have always realised that knowledge unaccompanied by wisdom is dangerous.
What difference, then, does it make? It makes a difference in that when we have a debate of this kind or any other discussion under the broad heading of defence or disarmament (for they are two ways of looking at the same theme) we are dealing with two quite different things. One of them, as the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery pointed out, is the question of deterrence. In the end, either we deter or we fail. At the same time, because we live in a troublesome world—a world in which not everything is part and parcel of the East-West rivalry, and where not every move in that rivalry is necessarily likely to involve nuclear weapons—we also have to consider some very familiar questions as to the balance between land forces and sea forces and, more recently, between land, sea and air forces, which would have been familiar to earlier generations.
It is not surprising that trying to hold these two things in the mind at once is a very complicated and difficult affair. I do not find it at all surprising that the propaganda to which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred has been so successful among the unthinking because this propaganda does suggest a way out of facing this kind of intellectual problem; one clutches at the straw of "count me out" or unilateral disarmament and tries to avoid being caught up in this kind of dilemma. What I find worrying, and perhaps it is the result of a lifetime in the academic world, is that the people who are supposed to be trained to think, and who are supposed to apply trained minds to problems of various kinds, seem equally capable of taking refuge in avoidance of these issues rather than facing them. It is the depredations among the intellectuals of the West, not the depredations to be met among the unthinking and perhaps fearful youth, which I think explain the worries the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, feels, that as a university teacher I feel, and others feel.
I think that the real difficulty which they find—and I think this was illustrated by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham when he told us about this meeting of the World Council of Churches—is that they believe that the impact of the novelty of our situation is bound in the end to be symmetrical throughout the world; that because we can see so
1402
clearly—and I think all of us agree—that nuclear weapons have introduced a new dimension into our thinking, this view must be equally shared, and the ethical basis for the revulsion we feel must be equally shared by other people. And, indeed, the right reverend Prelate said that he thought the impact which would be made by the statement or statements of the meeting of the World Council of Churches would make an impression not merely in the countries there represented but even wider, and even in the Soviet Union itself.
I hope, because it is indeed our only chance of survival, that this moral imperative will come to be felt in the Soviet Union itself. But it is difficult to see any evidence in what the Soviet Union does, or indeed in what it says, that this symmetry of reaction exists. After all, why should we expect it to exist? The Soviet Union has, or at any rate its rulers have, an ideology, a faith, which is not the faith professed by the right reverend Prelate, but there is no reason to believe that they do not hold it, that they do not believe that the triumph of their system is as much the object of human life on earth as the right reverend Prelate believes that the saving of human souls is the right object of human life on earth. I do not think we should morally devalue their differences. We find it abhorrent that they keep a distinguished elderly scientist and his wife incarcerated in circumstances of which we are ignorant; that they should deny, because she admittedly fails to fulfil the normal procedures for emigration from the Soviet Union, a peaceful passage from their country for someone who can have no conceivable use to them either militarily or industrially or in any other way.
They have a different view about human rights; they have a different view about the rights of families. Why should we not assume that so far at least, alas, they have a different view about the iniquity of the nuclear weapon. And this, alas, means that we have no alternative but deterrence, no alternative but to retain our own nuclear weapons and to do this this ghastly, beastly job of deterrence—in the most efficient, the most practical way, and the one which most closely associates us with the countries whose friendship we enjoy. It is thoughts of this kind, I think, rather than the details of defence which must always occupy our minds when we come to consider this situation.
7 15 p.m.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: My Lords, we are all indebted to my noble friend Major-General Earl Cathcart for his initiative in introducing this important debate today and for the most excellent speech which he made. I hope that as a mere soldier of lower rank I may be forgiven the temerity of following two noble Lords, one a Rear-Admiral, the other a Captain RN, in discussing naval matters.
A major problem involved in making provision for defence is how to match the rapidly growing strength of the Soviet navy. It may have come as an unpleasant surprise to many that a nation which can be described as land-bound geographically and land-based economically should be throwing such a great effort into a maritime role. On the other hand, it should not be too much of a surprise and it should not be forgotten that at the beginning of this century the Russian fleet

1403
was indeed fourth in world strength, although it would be true to say that its size and power was not matched by its morale and efficiency, as the Japanese were to prove in the battle of Tsushima in 1904. During the war of 1914 to 1917 and in the last war the Russian fleet achieved nothing of much consequence, but between 1951 and 1957 a large number of submarines began to appear, noticeably 240 of the Whiskey class, one of which, complete with nuclear armament, so recently and inconveniently, but certainly dramatically stranded herself in Swedish waters.
The real creator of the modern Soviet navy is Admiral Gorshkov who became Commander-in-Chief in 1956 at the early age of 45. Under his leadership a modern fleet with an all purpose capability has been developed, and no longer can it be considered to be for defensive purposes only. It is possible, in my view, that the Russians learned the lesson of Cuba and understood for the first time that it was possible to put a ring of ships round a place in the form of a cordon in order to prevent them from reaching their destination.
A graph showing the number of ship-days-out-of-area of the Russian fleet is illuminating. In 1965 there were about 8,000 days and they were concerned principally with steaming in the Mediterranean. By 1979 there were 50,000 days, some 15,000 each in the Mediterranean steaming and in the Atlantic steaming, and 10,000 each under steam in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. The plain fact is that Russia now has a blue water navy which can be used as a political instrument in the furtherance of Soviet world policy. And that ability to provide a Russian presence at a pressure point could prove to be a cheap and easy form of political intimidation, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone pointed out in his speech.
Britain at its height as a maritime power and before the dissolution of the Empire and the rise of nationalism had territory astride every focal point on the major shipping routes of the world: Gibraltar, Malta, Suez, Cape of Good Hope, Falkland Islands, Aden, Ceylon, Singapore, Hong Kong—and one could go on to the Pacific and the Caribbean islands. In a number of those areas Britain's influence has diminished, and in her place the influence of Russia is now apparent and her warships can be sure of some bases and many anchorages. One can think of Cuba, Conakry, Luanda, Mozambique, Mauritius, Umm Qasr, Aden, Hoddeida, Libya, to mention but a few. This poses a severe problem to the Western allies. Of the NATO countries only the United States and Britain have the will and the ability to operate their navies worldwide, with the co-operation to some extent, of course, of France, which is outside NATO. But it is not only a problem of warships. Britain's merchant marine comprises some 33 million deadweight tonnes, and sorrowfully this takes into account a decline of 3 million tonnes comprising some 70 ships which has taken place in the last seven months.
The United States' merchant fleet is a small peacetime industry. Only 6 per cent. of United States' overseas trade is carried in United States ships. She has some 500 of these, comprising 13 million deadweight tonnes and she ranks tenth among maritime nations. By comparison, the Russian Morflot is a
1404
modern merchant fleet under the total control of the state. Ships can be diverted at any time and to any place to further Soviet interests, and can just as easily become part of a naval fleet train as they can, in their normal role, serve trading interests. Russia ranks third with 1,700 ships comprising 16 million deadweight tonnes.
Modern British ships are fast and therefore able to sail independently of convoy. Unfortunately I have read recently that, in the interests of fuel economy, some modern ships are now being fitted with less powerful engines, and thus will proceed at slower speeds and therefore, I fear, will become a greater risk.
I welcome the report in the Financial Times of 6th October, which I am sure some of your Lordships will have seen, that British Aerospace are at the present time in communication with the Ministry of Defence over a scheme which envisages that merchant ships should be able to carry containers housing complete missile systems in order to be able to defend themselves independently of supporting warships. Whether that is practicable only time will tell. But I think it would be an extremely good thing if merchant ships, as indeed they did in the last two wars, were able to look after themselves.
I do not wish on this occasion to embark upon a detailed comparison of the respective sizes and weapon strengths of the navies of Russia and of the United States and our NATO allies. It is only too well known that the balance is critical. All I will say is that the allied navies are going to have an immense task in the event of war, or the threat of war, to fulfil the roles allotted to them. The NATO policy of having some land forces dual-based makes the task of the allied navies in the North Atlantic particularly difficult. In an emergency and in order to bring the United States and Canadian land forces in Europe up to strength, transport will have to be found for up to one million men, 10 million tons of equipment and 100 million tons of stores, and 95 per cent. will have to be carried by sea. Only 5 per cent. could possibly be managed by airlift.
Naturally I cannot vouch for the above figures, but I should be surprised if I have overstated the position. Moreover, the above does not take account of the movement of reserves of men and material which would be flowing from the United Kingdom to the mainland of Europe at the same time. I have mentioned this problem before because the strategic implications cause me great concern.
Quite apart from the NATO reinforcement, which obviously takes priority over all else, there will be the vital necessity to defend the sea-lanes, worldwide, for the import to North America and to the United Kingdom of oil and of strategic materials and of foodstuffs. That has been mentioned by two of my noble friends already this evening. The task of preventing the interdiction of sea-routes by Russian attack submarines and surface ships would be of mammoth proportions. Time is not on our side, and events during the next eight to 10 years could be decisive. The United States is now building up her navy, which has remained static in numbers for some considerable time. Britain is embarked upon a changed role in which existing surface ships in commission are reduced in numbers and new construction is painfully slow.

1405
This I am afraid is the inevitable result of cost escalation.
Much of the successful expansion of the Russian fleet has been achieved not only by massive spending, which I fear we cannot match, but also by a ruthless cutting in the time spent on research and development and evaluation and project definition. This is something which I think we could match. The ships produced may not in consequence be perfection, but at least they are in being in the case of the Russians and not still on the drawing board.
British Shipbuilders meanwhile are crying out for orders for warship construction. There is calculated to be a worldwide replacement demand for about 450 warships over the next few years. If the Ministry of Defence could be persuaded to build ships for the Royal Navy which had a sales potential for other friendly navies, it would provide a great encouragement to the corporation's workforce and would protect their jobs. Twenty thousand are employed on warship construction, and ironically this was the only division of British Shipbuilders to make a trading profit last year.
The trouble is that for some years now other navies have not bought ships of British design. I wonder why. I wonder, indeed, if the British preoccupation with a long load waterline and a comparatively narrow beam is really the answer for modern weapon platforms. It would be interesting to hear the argument for the modern conception of a hull shorter in length and wider in beam, which I believe to be just as efficient. The new Type 23 frigate, of simpler design than the Type 22, may be more popular; but I wonder whether an even more radical change of hull design should not be tried, together with a reduction in the sophistication of its basic equipment.
Rather than reach the point where British Shipbuilders become overmanned through lack of sufficient orders and begin to pay off skilled men, could not the Ministry of Defence place orders for a number of basic hulls now, which could later become the floating platforms ready for "project definition" when funds allow? The navy could well do with increased numbers of surface ships when this is possible.
Nothing which I have said in any way alters my belief that the Government are absolutely right to maintain our independent nuclear shield. No amount of conventional arms equipment or forces would have the same potency to deter an aggressor. Nevertheless, we have to look to our interests worldwide as regards our Royal Navy.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if and when multilateral nuclear disarmament is achieved Russian superiority in conventional weapons is as great as my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk told us, then Europe would be at the mercy of Russia. Mr. Brezhnev has said recently that Russia will never surrender her superority of arms strength, and presumably he meant her superiority in both nuclear and conventional weapons. Therefore, if and when we get negotiations covering multilateral nuclear disarmament, we shall have to embark upon negotiations for conventional disarmament after that. I think that the obvious conclusion from those simple facts is surely that the
1406
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament should aim its propaganda at Russia, and so should the World Council of Churches, and so should the peace movement in the various countries of Europe and America. However, the peace movement appears to be, to some extent, in Russian hands, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said in his brilliant speech.
As my noble friend Lord Cathcart said in opening the debate, no defence policy could be complete without arrangements to protect our people by means of civil defence—protect them not only from attack, whether conventional or nuclear, but also from the effect of fallout drifting over here if nuclear bombs were to be dropped elsewhere. It is, indeed, surely a prime duty of every Government to help the people to survive, if possible, in all kinds of disasters in peace and war. It should also be the compassionate, humanitarian desire of every Government to do so, and I am glad to say that this Government have shown an increasing desire to do that. Although there is this dispute as to whether disarmament should be multilateral or unilateral, surely we ought all to be united in wanting an effective civil defence organisation as a compassionate duty of Government and, indeed, of Parliament.
I therefore find it surprising that the CND should assert that we should not have civil defence. Even if they misguidedly want our country to become neutral, they should remember that the present neutral countries have civil defence arrangements fully developed, and one thinks particularly of Sweden and of Switzerland. So I invite your Lordships, briefly, to consider the present state of civil defence and what needs to be done to make it effective.
The Government are making some progress, but, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, they and local authorities should be making their preparations much faster—much faster than they have so far done since the Home Secretary, in August 1980, made his Statement in Parliament, which was, in effect, a Statement which promised the revival of effective civil defence. Since then, the Government have had the benefit of the advice of Air Marshal Sir Leslie Mayor on the co-ordination of voluntary effort, upon which necessarily so much depends in civil defence, because the regular civilian forces that we have would not be sufficient in the kind of emergencies that have to be contemplated. Indeed, they are not always found to be sufficient for some of the peacetime disasters that occur. The Home Office circular ES 2/81, which was published in, I think, October, says in paragraph 13:
"The Government consider it essential that local authorities should make the maximum use of voluntary effort in support of their plans".
Many people would like to volunteer, including, I am sure, many of the unemployed, for it would give them something helpful to do. Then it was suggested in a short debate in another place on 27th November that former members of the Reserve and Territorial services, whose reserve commitment has expired but who have great experience, which would be useful, should be encouraged to volunteer their services to local authorities.
Last month the Government issued a pamphlet, Civil Defence: Why we need it, in which we read:
"If you would like to help, ask your local volunteer organisa-

1407
tions in your neighbourhood: the Citizens' Advice Bureau or your local authority will have a list".
However, it is quite clear from that pamphlet that the only bodies which volunteers were expected to join would be the Red Cross, the St. John and the St. Andrew Ambulance Brigades, the WRVS or the special constabulary. No mention was made of such bodies as the National Voluntary Civil Aid Society or the Devon Emergency Volunteers, who, in a public spirited way, have for many years now filled the vacuum. However, I am glad to say that Mr. Mayhew in that debate on 27th November amplified the Government's policy—and I only hope that note will be taken of what he said—because, in effect, he said that local authorities should be doing more to enrol volunteers and use their services.
Of course, the part to be played by local authorities in civil defence is vital. They have a statutory duty to set up an emergency planning organisation. Some authorities—not surprisingly Left-wing authorities or Left-wing-controlled authorities—are quibbling about what is expected of them under the statutes. But if clarification is needed it should surely be given; if amendment is needed, I am sure that both Houses of Parliament would gladly pass a short amending Bill. But I do not think it is needed. What is needed is guidance from the centre.
Some local authorities have the strange idea that they could declare their area to be a nuclear free zone. The ostrich burying its head in the sand did, at least, protect its head a little, but a nuclear free zone without civil defence would give no protection of any kind to anybody—no protection even from fallout drifting over here from far away. As I say, at present the performance of local authorities varies considerably. I understand that Mr. Mayhew and his much too small a band of officials in the Home Office are trying to co-ordinate the efforts of local authorities; but there is a long way to go.
Finance, of course, is relevant. Superficially, it does not look too bad because 75 per cent. of the cost incurred by local authorities is supposed to be the subject of the emergency planning grant aid. But, unfortunately, the actual amount available is obscured within the rate support grant and it might, therefore, make more sense if that grant aid came from the defence budget through the Home Office and thus was disentangled from the rate support grant.
In any civil defence plans, industry—whether public or private—has a vital part to play, for it has the manpower, the expertise and the equipment which often far exceed the resources available to local authorities. But as yet there is no serious attempt being made to make use of those resources which industry can, as I say, provide and would, in most cases, gladly provide if consulted.
As the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, we must win the propaganda war, and this applies no less to civil defence than to other things. It means that there must be a strong answer from the Government to those who, either intentionally or thoughtlessly, say that civil defence is nonsense. It is not true to say that; it is inhuman to say that; it is dangerous talk. The Government should intensify their humanitarian task of preparing protection for our people.
Lord Noel-Baker: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he is aware that it is grotesquely false to say that the disarmament movement in this country, in Europe and in the West is inspired or controlled by the Russians? Will he accept my assurance as co-chairman of the World Disarmament Campaign, that our movement is an entirely spontaneous British and international democratic demand for the fulfilment of the policy of the final document of the special session of the United Nations in 1978; namely, multilateral world disarmament coupled with the reallocation of resources to world development to end world hunger? Will he also accept my assurance—
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, should follow the conventions of the House. He can certainly ask a question in an intervention, but not make a long statement.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly comment on what the noble Lord has said. I did not make any accusation that the Russians were supporting the CND. What I said was that the CND should aim its propaganda against the Russians rather than letting the Russians exploit the existence of the CND. At least, that is what I intended to say and to convey. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, say that he favours multilateral nuclear disarmament, because the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament seems to favour unilateral nuclear disarmament.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, after that slight interruption I should like to say a few words in regard to civil defence. I have been through it with my noble friend, and I do not think we are going to overlap. I was very pleased to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, had to say. There is great anxiety among people of all ages in regard to civil defence and the different things they have heard. I have in my hand a document called Civil Defence: The Cruellest Confidence Trick. It says on the first page:
"We must tell the Americans we are not stupid enough to remain their advanced nuclear base; that we will not allow them to make our country a target by basing H-bombers, Cruise missiles and nuclear-armed submarines here. Who are they to sentence us to death? What are we to allow it?"
Many people must have forgotten that if it had not been for the Americans in the last two world wars we should not be in the happy state we are in now. We should probably be part of a Europe that we would not be pleased to be in. Also there is a most cruel picture in this document and it says:
"Minutes after a one megaton hydrogen bomb has exploded, 2½ miles away the survivors are being sucked into the centre of fire storm by winds of up to 150 mph".
I think that this kind of propaganda is very unfortunate indeed.
As my noble friend has just mentioned, we have this new leaflet which states: "Civil Defence is Common Sense". It has been issued on behalf of the Home Office. I now know, and I hope it is correct, that every county will have a county planning officer and that his, or her, job will be to prepare defence of their areas and to co-ordinate the local effort. I hope that

1409
the people who my noble friend mentioned will come into this co-ordination. It says also in this document that money is being spent at the rate of £45 million a year up to 1983–84. I should like to know when the noble Lord replies, or perhaps he will write to me, how this money is being spent and what it is being spent on. It is called an "insurance premium", and I should like to know how it works. I gather there is also to be more information about self-help shelters, which w ill be published from time to time. The local authorities also have been asked—I think this is something new—to make a survey of suitable communal wartime shelters.
Now I should like to mention these statutory obligations. I have had correspondence with the County Planning Officers' Society, and they would like to know something about the following. First, statutory obligations. Some local authorities are questioning the legal requirement to make civil defence preparations. That may take in some of the ones that my noble friend has just mentioned. As a result much time has been spent in attempting to define exactly what these legal requirements are, and to what degree district councils are involved and what, apart from paper plans, is implied and required. It has become apparent that the statutory instruments are open to different interpretations, and this complicates further the job of professional advisers.
Then they go on to speak about the anti-civil defence lobby. They say that there is an urgent need for central Government to mount a co-ordinated and sustained publicity campaign to counter the anti-civil defence lobby. The issues of nuclear disarmament and civil defence preparedness must be separated in the public mind. I think this is important. They are not incompatible but, if civil defence preparations are to continue, the public must be persuaded that they are worthwhile. They must be persuaded that ignorance could prove a greater danger than the bomb itself. It is possible that central Government have misread the public reaction to some of their previous documents and civil defence measures, and have overestimated the public support for the anti-civil defence campaign.
Also, on the Government's civil defence policy they say there is still no obvious commitment clearly defined and fully documented on the civil defence policy. They say that a policy which relies on individual local authorities to carry out "guidance" as they see fit is doomed to failure. Civil defence policy must be convincing, and supported by political will and unequivocal determination to achieve a defined standard, and that is what they are asking for.
Millions of words have been spoken about the inevitability of having another world war, and what weapons are likely to be used. Yet as one or two noble Lords have mentioned, for the last 35 years, with varying degrees of severity, different wars have been waged in fairly confined areas of the world, mostly using conventional weapons. Bigger nations, the major nations, have remained at peace with each other.
More recently magazines describing means of protection have been poured out. It is mostly the Soviet Union which seems to be the ultimate enemy. But what is rather interesting is that smaller countries,
1410
developing countries, now say they are capable of producing some atomic weapons. It would be quite possible for a small nation to blackmail a more powerful one into providing food or finance by the threat of a minimal nuclear attack. In considering the subject as a whole, and attempting some solution, it seemed better to do so from the point of view of: from whence, and with what weapons, the worst effects would come; and, obviously, apart from the Western nations, the Soviet Union has the most sophisticated weapons and is probably the most knowledgeable in their development.
The Soviet Union can launch attacks by any of four means. A quotation from an article in the Journal of the Royal United Services Institution for Defence Studies, of March 1981, on Chemical and Biological Warfare, reads:
"It has been suggested that fear of nuclear retaliation would impose restraint on Soviet chemical release. This may well be a risk the Soviets are prepared to run, if only because it is a small one.
"SALT has produced parity or, according to the gloomier analysts, Soviet superiority in strategic nuclear weapons. In the event of a theatre conflict in Europe the U.S. President will be worried by the fear that to authorise even selective tactical nuclear strikes will start an escalation leading inevitably to the destruction of U.S. cities".
It is clear that there is no authority capable of providing a categorical view as to which order of attack might take place, including that of high explosive bombs. Also there are those—particularly of the Left-wing persuasion—who believe that unilateral disarmament will bring about world peace. I do not consider that this is a sensible suggestion. There are also others who fear that it would be so unpleasant if an attack were made that survival would be pointless. There is a third group who say that it will never happen anyway.
I hope that, whatever happens, we shall give some help to those civilians who are anxious now, and we should have better or more propaganda to stop their fears. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford, asked me to raise some points as he is unable to be here, but at this late hour may I just hand them to the Minister and perhaps he would be kind enough to answer in that way, because I do not want to detain the House any more.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Dormer: My Lords, I wish at the outset to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, on initiating this debate. Defence is this country's greatest need, as well as its most fundamental one, and the ordinary people of this country expect it. In its new guise of world destruction, it is now taking on a fresh dimension, that of prolonged and persistent public debate. This can be a very healthy sign, in that it focuses public attention not only on nuclear weapons, with their vast destructive power, but also on conventional weapons which, if present in sufficient numbers and of the best quality, can provide a deterrent to starting a war.
The sure shield of NATO is this country's greatest asset, yet in recent years we have seen a slight diminution in our overall contribution to it. This paradox, now evident, of great public interest in defence, while

1411
at the same time seeing a diminution, however slight, of this country's contribution to it, has become a curious sidelight on the history of this period and renders all the more valuable the many varied and interesting views which have been advanced in the debate today.
NATO is the fundamental shield of our defence policy. To be able to provide a massive retaliation to anything that the Warsaw Pact can hurl at us must remain, in my view, the greatest contribution to world peace, due to the stupendous destructive power of modern nuclear weapons. I am, nevertheless, slightly concerned at a recent suggestion—perhaps no more than that—that the West might, in the event of war, fire a warning shot of strategic nuclear weapons across the bows, as it were, as a deterrent against further action. Any action of that kind should be made the subject of the most careful discussion between ourselves and the United States Government before any decision is taken, as the possibility exists of such limited intervention developing into a full-scale nuclear war.
At this late hour I shall be brief. The progressive reduction of nuclear weapons on a multilateral scale must remain a great contribution to world peace in the long term, but a reduction is slow in coming and its potential and tactical application must be viewed with some scepticism. To remain strong and retain the superiority which now exists in nuclear weapons over the Soviet allies must, and I believe will, contribute the greatest and most effective deterrent to war which can be devised. That is the justification for buying Trident, in spite of its great cost, together with a large and continuously refreshed fleet of submarines and a Royal Air Force of great striking power and reconnaissance capability.
I turn briefly to our submarine programme, which I believe to be a slight weakness in our overall naval contribution. The great increase in the Russian naval submarine fleet must remain a most serious menace to this country, and I would ask the Minister whether our programme of building could be speeded up. Indeed, it was suggested during the debate in another place, after the Secretary of State had made his Statement, that this could well be done; that is, that a nuclear-powered submarine could be built by a certain firm far quicker than at present. On a visit which I paid to a submarine of this kind, I was tremendously impressed by her manoeuvrability, striking power and other qualities, and an increased rate of production could well constitute a significant increase of enormous importance in our contribution to NATO. In the detection role, I was very much impressed by the Sea-King Harriers of HMS "Invincible", as well as by the great carrying capacity of these aircraft, during a visit of great interest which I paid to that ship last year.
I wish to make a few brief remarks about the composition of BAOR and the imbalance of tanks of the British First Corps in relation to the Russians. No one doubts that the First Corps would give a magnificent account of itself, but one must ask for how long in the event of hostilities breaking out. In view of the fact that hostilities might well start in that vital sector, if they start at all, I have formed
1412
the opinion that what are really needed in this corps are two more armoured divisions, in fact one more corps. High quality is no substitute for lack of numbers, and an increase in this very vital sector might, in fact could, provide that vital extra time for diplomacy to take over and avert the ultimate tragedy. We have heard recently of an increase of £450 million in defence expenditure, and I would ask the Minister if consideration could be given to an increase in the number of tanks in BAOR, even to the extent of one further armoured division.
Defence can never be cheap. It is a fascinating mental exercise to decide where, if anywhere, cuts could be made and where increases in our capability should be made. I am comforted by the hope that this is not the last Defence Review on which I shall be able to speak and that any serious imbalance can be made good in the future. That defence generally, not only against nuclear attack but in conventional warfare, is becoming a major public issue is beyond all doubt, and I hope the Minister will be able to give the House reassuring news of the Government's intention to provide this country not only with a full contribution to NATO in terms of the nuclear deterrent but with a realistic increase in conventional weapons for all the three services. In this way alone, I believe, will peace permanently be maintained, and peace—for this country, for our allies and for the world—can never be expensive.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Noel-Baker: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long. I rise only because as lately as 9 o'clock last night I arrived back from the Soviet Union where for eight days I had discussions on matters of war and peace, defence and armament, with leaders of the Soviet Government, with leaders of Soviet nongovernmental organisations and with ordinary Russian citizens, the men and women in the street, and I can summarise my conclusions in three points which I shall state quite shortly.
The first is that I thought the Soviet Government and people had a much better understanding, much more vivid and realistic, than we have, of the horror and terror of nuclear war. When I listen to noble Lords today discussing civil defence, I am the more convinced that that is true. I wish those noble Lords could pay a visit to Hiroshima, where I have been six times, and could talk with survivors of the bomb about what the events of 6th August 1945 were really like.
Secondly, I came to the conclusion that the Soviet Government and people were obsessed by the fear and hatred of war. They talk constantly of what they suffered, of their appalling losses, during the Nazi occupation of 1941–45. I was in the Republic of Byelorussia, which has a population of 8½ million, and 260 towns. The Nazi gauleiter had established 230 concentration camps, in which he tortured and murdered 2,300,000 people. They have symbolised that event near the village of Katyn, where 150 people were herded into a barn and burnt to death. They have symbolised their losses by the planting of three birch trees, with another space for a fourth tree, where, instead of a tree, there is a living flame which symbolises the 2,300,000 people, the one in every four of the population, who lost their lives to Nazi atrocities.

1413
No one going through the experience which I have had in the last eight days could come away believing that the Russian Government or people contemplate the starting of an aggressive war, and I venture the opinion that if the Government attempted such a thing the people would not allow it to happen. I believe that they would have the kind of revolution that the Czar provoked in 1917. I believe that propaganda which suggests that we are under the menace of aggressive war from the Soviet Union is entirely without foundation.
Thirdly, I would say that in a discussion I had with the chairman of the Council of the Union of the Supreme Soviet and four of his colleagues last Friday afternoon they convinced me that the Soviet Government are genuinely determined to help to carry out the policy of the final document of the first special session of the United Nations in 1978; namely, general multilateral world disarmament, nuclear and conventional, down to the level at which no Government retains more arms or forces than they need to maintain internal order at home and to make a manpower contribution to a United Nations peace force, the disarmament to be carried out in progressive stages, which should be rapid, and under international inspection and control. There would be the further provision that the enormous resources so released by this general world disarmament should instead be devoted to world development, to ending world poverty and hunger, to providing proper shelter for those who live in mud huts and slums, to providing food for the 800 million people who are starving, and to saving the children who are dying from hunger every year.
I am no simpleton in international affairs. I lived in the Foreign Office for eight years. I was an original member of the secretariat of the League of Nations. I have represented Britain in the Security Council and in the General Assembly of the United Nations. I am not easily taken in by foreign statesmen. I was genuinely convinced that the Soviet Government desire world disarmament and desire to use their own national resources to make communism succeed, to give their people the standard of living that they ought to have and which, being saddled with a war economy, they cannot give them today.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and bearing in mind that he asked me to clarify something in my speech, I wonder whether he would be so good as to clarify a matter. He referred to what the Russians need for maintaining order internally. Did he ask them why they had to imprison and put in so-called psychiatric hospitals, and otherwise victimise, people who were standing up for human rights in accordance with the Helsinki Agreement, to which the Russians are a party?
Lord Noel-Baker: My Lords, I answer to the noble Lord, that of course we are all agreed that it is regrettable that the Soviet Union do not take the same view of human rights as we take. However, I would add that when world disarmament is carried out, and when the Soviet people are freed from the burden of the war economy with which they are now saddled, much more will be done for the human rights of Soviet citizens than can be done in any other way.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, we are greatly indebted to the initiator of this very interesting debate. It is indeed necessary to have a debate limited to one great issue, in fact the greatest of all issues, the nuclear issue, rather than to stray over the whole field of defence if we can avoid it. So, as I have said, we are very much indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, for raising the matter in the way that he has done. As I understand it, his aim was twofold. In the first place he wanted to make the case for our own nuclear power, for Trident, so far as he could. In the second place, if I am not wrong, he wanted to contest the general theses of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which he thought were very dangerous.
On Trident, the views of those of us on these Benches are very well known, and I shall not repeat them. I tended to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, when he said that in his view Trident was doomed and in any case would be rejected by the next Government when they came to power, which I think I said myself in a debate a few months ago. More and more people are coming to that conclusion. The price will undoubtedly escalate over and above inflation, and I do not see how we can possibly avoid that. So I believe that eventually it will be abandoned; certainly it will be if the Liberals and Social Democrats have anything to do with the next Government.
On the CND point, we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, in private and in public, and we all respect his views. But surely the main argument against his case is that you cannot profess the views and objectives of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and at the same time be in favour of NATO; they are definitely contradictory. If, as the noble Lord said, we told the Americans to clear out of this country, bag and baggage, with their nuclear weapons and otherwise, from all their bases, we should create a situation in which the position of the German Chancellor would probably become impossible, and the whole of NATO would begin to crumble. The Americans would then go back to America, and the result would be that NATO would collapse. I think that I am expressing the views of nearly everyone in this House when I say that I believe that that is the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, also said that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, who is not here to express his views, and others—I suppose that he was also referring to me—belong to a school of thought which held that we should "do without" nuclear weapons. I do not think that Field Marshal Lord Carver holds that the alliance should do without nuclear weapons. He believes rather that it should have nuclear weapons as a deterrent. I do not think that he has ever said anything to the contrary. All he feels is that our own so-called independent nuclear deterrent is not independent and could not profitably be used as a deterrent in war.
If one rejects altogether the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, what therefore is the right philosophy for defence? Here we come up against certain real diversities of view. Purely personally, I do not now have the kind of leaden feeling that I had in the late 'thirties that war was absolutely inevitable. Somehow, I do not feel that now. I feel that it is certainly possible

1415
and is a great danger, but I believe that the greatest danger we face is that there will be some kind of collapse of our present industrial society in the next few years. If that should happen, then inevitably the Soviet Union would win the third world war without ever fighting it. That, I think, is the real danger we are up against.
If we are to combat the spirit of pacifism and indeed, I think, to some extent, defeatism which is now sweeping over the country, I therefore think we must first of all do our best to cure the recession, to get out of the slump. That is the best way to counter all the undoubted Soviet propaganda which is now certainly encouraging movements like CND and other such movements in the western world. I do not think that the CND is motivated by the Soviet Union as such. I agree with Lord Chalfont, however, that they are undoubtedly encouraging that movement. The best way to combat that feeling is really to get the better of the present recession and to get a move on in improving our own industrial society.
But, of course, the danger of nuclear war still exists. We must maintain the alliance; and how best are we to do that? The present position is not what it was 10 years ago, when our basic defence strategy or policy was formed. Here I should like, if I may, to refer to what I think is a very impressive document called, The Credibility of the NATO Deterrent, a policy paper issued by no less a body than the Atlantic Council of the United States—a body on the board of which, I note, sits no less a person than Eugene Rostow and, indeed, Paul Nitze, to say nothing of Goodpaster and other generals and other famous American characters who cannot possibly be said to be influenced in any way by heterodox views, or so one would have thought. What they say is:
"What has occurred to change the picture is the loss of that fairly clear NATO superiority in both strategic and tactical (or theatre) nuclear weapons, which had given the Atlantic Alliance escalatory control. Such clear NATO superiority is not likely to be seen again. To the extent that control of the situation through escalation to tactical or theatre nuclear war exists, it can be said to rest now with the Warsaw Pact rather than the West".
That is a sombre thought. The conclusion, of course, broadly speaking, is that the way to combat this is, by one means or another, to increase the credibility of our conventional deterrent—in other words, to strengthen our conventional forces.
What are the deficiencies that they detect in these forces now? I should like to read them out because it will not take a minute and I think that we really should understand what these Americans (who, after all, are experts in this matter) believe are the present deficiencies in our conventional defences. These are, they say:
"lack of defence against, and response to, chemical warfare, both still inadequate in the Allied Forces in comparison to the threat; deficiencies in operational reserves; inadequate numbers of tanks and anti-tank weapons to counter the Soviet armoured superiority; shortage of ammunition of all sorts, currently inadequate for sustained combat conditions of more than a few days, and in many cases poorly located and protected; shortage of other War Reserve Material stored in the theatre to replace material consumed or destroyed in combat; inadequate air-defence measures, particularly surface to air missiles, compared with an excellent Soviet capability in this area, presaging serious NATO losses early in any air battle; lack of survivable
1416
war headquarters and interface of Allied and national communication networks; insufficient allied war headquarters manned in peace-time; lack of sufficient exercises in which national forces are placed under international command; shortages in infrastructure of all kinds, national and international; lack of naval forces needed to ensure the arrival of reinforcements in Europe; deficiencies in trained manpower in ready and reserve units; lagging electronic warfare measures to counter the impressive Soviet capability in this field; and inadequate training of personnel and maintenance of equipment".
To this, I think, so far as the BAOR is concerned—to which I think this catalogue of deficiencies probably also applies—one might add the lack of hardened airfields to resist any bombardment by the enemy in the case of war. All this makes very bleak reading, but it is apparently the view of, as I say, this highly intelligent and informed collection of people.
All this, however, could be remedied. It could be remedied more particularly if co-operation on the production of the new, ultra-modern defensive weapons, notably anti-tank weapons and anti-aircraft weapons, was undertaken in accordance with a scheme for their forward deployment on the Continent. It need not be—and this is a point I should like to emphasise—colossally expensive. We are told that money in not available. Of course, it never is. We are told that even the 3 per cent. by which, as I understand it, we are going to increase our forces here over the next two or three years—we are told this by the press, and the noble Viscount will no doubt correct me— is now in danger. Perhaps it is not, but that is what the press say.
Yet, in spite of all this, we propose to spend about £10 billion on Trident, not now but over the next few years; and, unless I have got it wrong, the United States proposes to spend some £200 billion on new nuclear weapons of all kinds, including the new bomber, apparently for the admitted purpose of achieving a preponderance and not for restoring even a nuclear balance. That, I must say, makes one think. If only a proportion of this enormous sum—some of our Trident money and some of the huge sums which the Americans propose to devote to nuclear rearmament—was diverted to remedying the deficiencies which the Atlantic Council has observed in our conventional forces in Germany, the situation would obviously be enormously improved and we should not be confronted, as we still may be if nothing like this is done, with the alternative, in the event of war, of defeat or prospective annihilation.
Of course, we all hope for negotiations; but if only we can achieve some kind of conventional credibility it will assist these negotiations in Geneva and Vienna. It will not wreck them; it will assist them. Therefore, I think it is all the more necessary for us to devote ourselves, if we can, to the construction of some credible conventional defence. The negotiations will not be assisted by merely piling up enormous quantities of nuclear weapons, of which there is a vast superfluity already. It might even wreck the negotiations if that happened.
Perhaps—and I should like to end on a note of hope—both super powers now, despite appearances to the contrary, are beginning to think that the negotiations simply must succeed, that there is no alternative to their success. Naturally, if they are to succeed I agree with my noble friend Lord Mayhew that the

1417
Europeans ought to be more nearly associated with them than seems likely at the present moment. But if we all work together to this end, I believe we shall close the famous window of opportunity for the Soviet Government which has been referred to in the debate, and, with luck, arrive in calmer waters by the year 1984.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Peart: My Lords, may I first congratulate the noble Earl for giving us the opportunity today to hold a very fine defence debate. I have listened carefully to all the speeches that have been made today, and I think that, of all the debates we have had in this House of which I have had experience—and I have not been here as long as other noble Lords—this is the best I have heard. I hope I can make a good speech, but one never knows. The quality of the speeches I have heard has been remarkable. I will not single out names, but it was a fine performance on the part of all noble Lords.
My Lords, listening to the debate and thinking about the horrific implications of nuclear weapons takes me back to another place in June 1945 when I made my maiden speech. In it I described how the:
"development of new Wellsian scientific devices has increased the necessity for world peace".
I argued then—I am not a pacifist but a multilateralist—that:
"the world cannot afford to have another war…the atomic bomb has seen to that".
I declared that:
"total peace must follow total war. If mankind is to survive, we must have a new approach to foreign politics and international affairs".
At that time I was thinking of the need to have a positive, constructive attitude towards nuclear energy. I hoped that the famous Baruch plan would represent that new approach. This was a plan to create an international atomic energy development authority to which would have been entrusted all phases of the development and use of atomic energy. When Baruch presented that plan at the first meeting of the United National Nations Atomic Energy Commission in June 1946, he called on the commission to make a choice between the "quick and the dead". He continued:
"Science has torn from nature a secret so vast in its potentialities that our minds cower from the terror it creates. We must provide the mechanism to ensure that atomic energy is used for peaceful purposes and to preclude its use for war…the search of science for the absolute weapon has reached fruition in this country. But she stands ready to proscribe and destroy this instrument if the world will join in a pact to that end".
This was the theme I developed then. I still think that we have sadly foundered: the plan has foundered on the question of the authority enforcing the agreement. It never came.
I believe that this was a tragic lost opportunity. We shall never have another one like it. How much further we are now from an international agreement on nuclear weapons! How much more difficult it is now to agree on even a limited reduction of the massive stocks of nuclear weapons which the super powers now possess, capable of destroying the world many times
1418
over. We cannot even agree on the arithmetic. Not only do the two sides differ very substantially over the number of weapons each possesses—the United States has recently claimed that the Soviet Union has a 6:1 advantage in intermediate range systems, while the Russians claim that there is an approximate balance—but the United States figures conflict with those circulated by its allies as well as by the International Institute of Strategic Studies. This is so important.
In a recent report the Institute concluded that the,
"numerical balance over the last 20 years has slowly but steadily moved in favour of the East. At the same time the West has largely lost the technical edge which allowed NATO to believe that quality could substitute for numbers…The overall balance continues to be such as to make military aggression a highly risky undertaking…The consequences for an attacker would be unpredictable and the risks, particularly of nuclear escalation, incalculable".
The numerical permutations are seemingly endless; what matters is whether the will to agree exists; and that has seemed in doubt in recent months. I think that this was partly due at first to the belligerent stance of the United States. I am pro-American, but I still think it was essential for them to think in terms of opening up negotiations. Too much rhetoric! Now we know we are having the negotiations, and I trust they will succeed. Every noble Lord and people all over Europe and the world will hope that these talks are successful and that we shall see an era of peace come into being. Everyone will accept that.
I am glad that President Reagan has at last sought to have a confrontation with the Soviets and the East. We cannot afford to have the super powers wilfully misunderstanding one another. I should like to take this opportunity to express my admiration for, and gratitude to, Chancellor Schmidt, who has played such an invaluable role as mediator and interpreter between the two sides.
In a recent article—I think it was quoted today—George Kennan, the former American Ambassador emphasised that:
"Western policy makers should consider that a Western policy that offers no encouragement to the more moderate elements in the Soviet hierarchy must inevitably strengthen the hand and the political position of those who are not moderate at all".
He questioned the assumption that there has been an enormous build-up of Soviet conventional strength on the European continent and warned:
"Western Governments in particular should not try to gain support for such a program [of strengthening NATO forces] by painting on the wall an exaggerated and unnecessarily alarming image of Soviet intentions and capabilities. This procedure represents, in my view, an abuse of public confidence and one that, in the end, is invariably revenged".
Turning to nuclear weapons, he concluded:
"…if there is any incentive for the Russians to use such weapons against us, it surely comes in overwhelming degree—probably, in fact entirely—from our own enormous deployment of them".
He may be right; he may not be right. We can only be grateful that other Americans are beginning to take heed of these arguments.
I welcome President Reagan's proposals, especially the "zero option", but I do not think that we should ignore the contradictions this proposal involves. As one British analyst asked:
"What would we do if Brezhnev said yes?"
Acceptance of the "zero option" would undermine

1419
NATO's claim that the Pershing and Cruise missiles are vital links in the chain of flexible response. I believe that NATO and the United States should take this opportunity openly to renounce all plans involving a first strike. This would be in keeping with the "zero option" and would be a valuable gesture of goodwill. If the Geneva talks are to achieve anything, they must be conducted in an atmosphere of mutual trust or, at least, suspended suspicion.
My Lords, I should like now to turn to another aspect of defence that I feel is often neglected. A recent leader in the Financial Times declared:
"The monstrous cost of armaments has soared, is soaring and ought to be contained".
Economics cannot be divorced from defence and I believe that our present defence policy is dangerously weakening an already weak economy. This has even been admitted by Mr. Nott, the Minister of Defence, who is on record as saying that if the present 1:2 ratio of British spending on research and development production costs is sustained
"it may drive us into bankruptcy".
Yet it was announced last week that an extra £500 million will be spent on defence next year. Heavy military expenditure has been accompanied by relatively low investment in the rest of the economy. Whereas civil sector industry has suffered cuts in R & D and in investment, the military sector has remained immune. A rising military budget is certainly no way out of a recession. A report published in Washington this week by Dr. Ruth Leger Sivard has shown that the slowest growth in investment and manufacture productivity among 10 developed countries has occurred in the United States and the United Kingdom where military expenditures are the highest in relation to GNP:
"The best investment and productivity record is in Japan where the military-to-GNP ratio has been very low and productivity has grown at an amazing 8 per cent. a year".
Finally, I should like to add a note of warning to the optimism that has been engendered by the start of the Geneva talks. Sadly, a nuclear-free Europe is not just around the corner, but I believe that it is vital that Europe continues to maintain the pressure on the super-powers to keep talking until they reach an agreement. It was hard enough "getting them to water to begin these talks". We must now make them drink.
My Lords, I remain committed to NATO, as I have been since its inception. I believe now, as I believed then and as other leading members of the Labour Government that helped set up NATO believed, that peace can only be preserved by a British contribution to NATO, which must be accompanied by a contribution from other countries. I cannot visualise a situation in which Britain would come under direct attack except in the context of a general European war. Such a war would involve nuclear weapons at some stage. Even if the philosophy and practice of neutralism dominated our political thinking, we would inexorably be sucked into the conflagration.
I make no apology for supporting NATO or believing in multilateral disarmament. I believe the two can be matched. But I would ask those who vilify the peace movements and brand them as dupes of the Soviet Union and worse, whether the United States
1420
would have altered its position quite so drastically and whether it would now be sitting down to talks with the Soviet Union (a fact that was welcomed throughout Europe) if it had not been for the strength of feeling represented by the peace movements? We should not blind ourselves to the fact that so long as multilateral disarmament fails to deliver the goods, unilateralists will have an increasingly persuausive case. I believe in multilateral disarmament. I believe that we should have the best weaponry that we can have. I believe that what I have said is the right approach, and I hope that it will be accepted by most people.
8.32 p.m.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I, too, am glad that I am not on this occasion replying to a Motion which covers both foreign affairs and defence, although I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that it covers the problems affecting the whole of defence, including nuclear weapons. That is bad enough. I will not go over the ground that I covered this afternoon with which a number of your Lordships do not fully agree. I will not, therefore, go into the question of Trident and the extremely small percentage of the defence budget for which it accounts. I would only say that my words clearly have not been accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, but I hope that he will do me the credit of reading in Hansard the spell-out of the situation in money terms as it is.
I welcome the speech of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, and particularly his support for NATO, which the vast majority of your Lordships have supported in this debate, and for multilateral disarmament. I will not tackle the interlocked questions of armament expenditure in different countries and the correlation—I believe a rather simple and perhaps facile correlation—which the noble Lord quoted, because we have a short debate to be held before Christmas which will be introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, on that specific subject.
Let me start by saying that the Government stand by the July review. Of course, in defence, in an age of change, we every year are redoing both our annual estimates and, internally, our long-term appreciations, and things do in fact change. But we stand by the July measures and the major recast of programme which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced at that 'time. It puzzled the noble Lords, Lord Kennet and Lord Peart, that so soon after that review we read in the papers—and it is published in the statement of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that defence is to receive another £500 million. Let me mention but three reasons for this. We are moving on to a cash rather than a volume control basis. We continue to suffer from the very encouraging fact that industry is delivering our orders on time, within specification, extremely efficiently; as I said in reply to a Question earlier, at a higher rate of productivity as well. The third factor is that the exchange rate has moved rather fast, particularly in relation to the USA, back to what many might regard as a more normal level; and our defence suppliers—not that we buy a great deal directly from America at the moment—use a great number of American components in their goods
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell us a little more about those American components? We know it is nothing to do with Trident because he has told us that the increase is nothing to do with Trident. What is it to do with, if it is affected by the exchange rate charge from America?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I do not wish to delay your Lordships at this hour. The three reasons that I have mentioned—and when the noble Lord reads Hansard I think that he will see them—account for substantially more than a £500 million change in the purchase of £5,000 million-worth of equipment in a single calendar year.
A number of noble Lords have expressed worries about the maritime role. Let me first remind all those who have brought this up that the July review included our submarine-building programme, which is proceeding as rapidly as possible. We have six Type 42 destroyers under construction and four Type 22 frigates. We are still considering the question of a further 22 frigates beyond the last one announced. We are looking hard at the design of the successor frigate that was mentioned in the July review. In the field of weapons, some of your Lordships have mentioned the torpedoes and the submarine-launched missile, the sub-harpoon, which will also be in service very soon. So, there really is no question but that we are still re-equipping our maritime forces, not only the Royal Navy but also our maritime patrol aircraft, and the whole field of anti-submarine warfare is changing to a degree that make the ratios of frigates and escorts which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, raised, and about which I will write to him, really not a very relevant factor.
In general, we believe that, of the essential roles that we still have to meet, the maritime role can be met within the NATO context in the way outlined in the July review. Of course, we should like more of everything, and a number of noble Lords suggested that perhaps it was easier to rebuild an army or that commitment to 50,000 personnel in Germany was out of date. I have to say that one look at the build-up on the Western Front in Europe and at what is facing us and our allies disabuses us of any idea that there are economies to be made there. Some noble Lords have pointed out that they would like to see more staying power in the front line in Europe. It is our front line. We are re-equipping it; we are cutting down on headquarters. We are supplying the Challenger tank to a percentage of our armoured regiments in Germany. There is no economy to be made there. Neither is the offensive threat which has been built up in recent years by the Soviet Union greater in the maritime area than in the air, in the nuclear area and in the area of land warfare. The build-up is everywhere, and it needs a good deal of investment in modern weapons and a great deal of thought and skill by experts to be able to meet it adequately.
We cannot keep five dockyards in existence. The overheads of a dockyard are far too great and we really do not need five of them. If we are to have teeth in our defensive weaponry we cannot spend unnecessary money on overheads. I welcome the suggestions made by my noble friend Lord Glasgow
1422
for smaller type designs for the Type 23 frigates. Work on the design of this frigate is still proceeding and I will ensure that his suggestions are brought to the attention of our experts.
Our out-of-area forces are very small. Indeed, such is the cost of modern defence and such is our current position in the industrial world that there are limits to what we can do outside our essential roles in Europe. We still do have small mobile forces and they still can be used to help dependent and ex-dependent territories which depend upon us and where we have treaties. We support the United States in the emphasis they are putting on the rapid deployment force, and we hope very much that the non-aligned world in the East may perhaps build up its alliances and begin to get to a stage of having something more comparable with the NATO defensive organisation in that part of the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, raised the air role question, and I will not weary your Lordships with going over the many points which we raised in the July review and which involve the strengthening of the air defence of this country, which we believe is necessary. The plans are going ahead; the infrastructure plans are going ahead, as are the radar improvements and the force multipliers which my noble friend did not have time to mention, such as the tanker aircraft; the early warning aircraft which are also force multipliers are going ahead together with the other measures he knows of in relation to maintaining the Phantoms, which were due to be phased out, and being able to provide a further Lightning squadron in time of emergency as quickly as we possibly can.
We are also moving forward on all the important weapons mentioned in the July review that affect the air role. I would tell my noble friend that I have passed on his point regarding the benefits of the United States National Air Guard exercising in this country, not only through our own air force, which has discussed the question with the United States, but also raised them with all concerned on my visits to Washington. I believe his point is a good one and I hope very much that something will come of it; it is entirely in the hands of the United States.
A number of noble Lords raised the question of civil defence, and I think that in the time available I would be wrong to do more than say that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is not twiddling his thumbs and doing very little in this area. There are to be civil defence exercises in 1982, and a great deal of work is going on. I would just say in passing that this should not be taken by any of our peace movements to mean that we are planning to fight a nuclear war. Our main strategy remains deterrence; but deterrence, to be creditable, must include emergency plans.
I want to mention the United States, since at various times in the debate our largest and most powerful ally in the Alliance has been mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont—and I agree with him—said that you really cannot have a sort of intermediate position, halfway between the United States and the USSR and, at the same time, be members of NATO, which virtually all of us believe we must remain with and which is the cornerstone of the defence of freedom.

1423
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham mentioned the Americans who came and gave evidence to his meeting in Holland. I will ask him on another occasion to tell me: which Americans? I have seen many of the United States Administration who are concerned with defence and also members of the State Department, and I do not find a cynical attitude anywhere. I accept completely that the proposals they have put forward they mean, and while I do not believe that any of us really think they would be accepted just like that, if they were accepted after considerable deliberation nobody would be more pleased than the United States.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, twisted the Americans' tails a little hit, if I may use that expression; and even the noble Lord, Lord Peart, when he talked about the difference between the American assessment of armaments and that of the International Institute of Strategic Studies, did so also. He queried the reality of the zero proposal. I have read very carefully, and several times, the figures of the International Institute of Strategic Studies on the balance and I have also read the various American publications on the strength of the Soviet Union. I find no major differences between the two.
Tail-twisting is a hobby in a free society, and I think that we in the West all find it more fun to do with a chap who is big, important, rich and very powerful. When we were the richest and most powerful country in the world we had our tail twisted a lot, and particularly by the United States. I think we took it quite well. I think all of us are now twisting the United States' tail and, although they have not yet quite the experience of taking it in the way that we did for long years in our great past, I believe that they are taking it extremely well.
I believe also that we are in danger of being very unfair to them. We say at one moment that we doubt whether they would use their nuclear weapons, and we ask them to place some nuclear weapons in Europe to counter the Russian weapons which cannot reach America but can only reach Europe. And when they start to do that, some of us say, "We don't want you". I really feel we all owe an enormous amount to the United States, and think that should be recognised.
On the question which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, raised, of whether communications are adequate within NATO on the main negotiations in the nuclear disarmament talks, there are the two bodies—NATO's special consultative group and NATO's nuclear planning group—which meet regularly, which have met recently and which have agreed with the United States unanimously exactly what should be negotiated. Reporting-hack procedures, both formal and informal, exist and, as I said earlier, there are special lines from the heads of all the members of the Alliance to each other. There are also hot lines which we have to the Kremlin, to the White House and to Paris as well. Perhaps I might just finish the sentence and then I will give way to the noble Lord. I believe that purposeful meetings will be better held by the smallest numbers of those most directly involved, and I believe that all the others concerned will be fully informed of the progress of those negotiations.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Viscount is very well aware of the important difference between being informed and invited to make comments, on the one hand, and being given observer status and being able to make up one's own mind from one's own observations, on the other. I ask why the European allies are refused the second status.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I do not think they are. I used the word "informed" just now, and I believe that there are continual consultations in NATO. These groups are just for that purpose. I do not believe that the United States, although the strongest nation within NATO, can move, nor do they believe they can move, without the agreement of their allies. I also do not believe that they will move in any direction which is not endorsed by their allies.
I do not have the time to do anything other than add my praise of the very striking speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who drew our attention to the great importance of the psychological war. The only thing I want to say to him is that we are not, of course, doing nothing. I am not speaking in the terms which he envisaged, but we are realising, perhaps a little too late, that we must inform our own public—and our allies are realising that they must inform their own public—of the facts of the situation. A great many publications and much literature have been produced by my noble friend the Foreign Secretary and by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I remain worried at the volume of contacts being made by people who are not in possession of the full facts, particularly with our young, in schools and universities. Fairly busy Ministers in this "Yes, Minister" syndrome, on a part-time basis, are not adequate to deal with this situation. So I very much hope that the noble Lord, and other noble Lords who have spoken so clearly and so well in this debate, will spare the time to go and explain the facts and their points of view to all and sundry.
Let me try to summarise what we believe, and what we do not believe, in the area of deterrence. Deterrence is inherently a contradictory concept. Great war fighting capability is required not to fight, but to prevent, a war. That is a contradiction in itself, but it is a truism. There are good reasons for the alliance having all the options that we have. There are good reasons for modernising the weapons in each of these option areas to make deterrence credible. We need the options to prevent nuclear blackmail, perhaps allied to conventional attack. We need the option of our own deterrent to make sure that the Soviet Union never gambles on the possibility of swift attacks or blackmail in Europe, resulting in the decoupling of the USA from the alliance in Europe. Our allies, including the United States, welcome this.
We do not accept that renunciation of the first use of a nuclear weapon, in any circumstances, is either reliable or sensible, in view of Soviet conventional preponderance. We do not believe that achieving parity in conventional forces, involving perhaps a 60 per cent. increase in the defence budgets of all NATO nations, is practical, nor does it remove the vulnerability to nuclear blackmail. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, quoted a criticism in what I think was an American report—I shall check in Hansard and get

1425
hold of it—of NATO's conventional forces. I do not recognise it. I have some knowledge of the degree of equipment of those forces and I believe that it is, perhaps, another example of the West's capacity to criticise itself—
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, would the noble Viscount agree that it is published with the knowledge and apparent approval of such great American authorities as Mr. Paul Nitze and Mr. Eugene Rostow?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I told the noble Lord that I will study it closely. Perhaps it may sound impertinent, but every day of my life I listen to famous experts or read what they say, the one in contradiction to the other—
Lord Kennet: My Lords, was the noble Lord not admitting—
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I really feel that, with 24 minutes on the clock, I should not give way. We do not believe that in a situation which, if deterrence continues to work, will never arise, it necessarily follows that the first use of a nuclear weapon by defenders of freedom and democracy would automatically result in nuclear retaliation. The aggressor would take stock from his bunkers as to whether his prize was attainable at an acceptable cost. Neither could he have any interest in acquiring a nuclear desert. I, therefore, regard the term "nuclear exchange" as misleading. There is no intention by Her Majesty's Government or by NATO of—nor any interest in—fighting a limited nuclear war which no one can win. Our interest lies in keeping it clear in the potential aggressor's mind that no aggression will pay. We can certainly give the guarantee that, if there is no aggression, there will be no first use, second use or any use of any nuclear weapon or any other weapon at all.
In conclusion, I would say that our disarmament hopes are high, and I am glad that a number of noble Lords have supported that view. That does not mean that we expect miracles, or expect miracles quickly, but, for the reasons I gave in my opening statement, we are optimistic. I would end by appealing to all those who have a burning interest in peace, including those in our peace movements, to draw close behind the leaders of our alliance, to give them every support and to put all pressure possible on those behind the Iron Curtain, where the same freedoms do not exist, to react and to respond. I, too, believe that they have enough self-interest and abhorrence of war, as the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, said, to react at this time.
8.57 p.m.
Earl Cathcart: My Lords, your Lordships would not wish me to detain you at this late hour, except to thank my noble friend the Minister for the very full part he has played in this debate, and for the clear way in which he has summed up. I should also like to thank all noble Lords from all parts of the House for their contributions to the debate. We have heard many distinguished speeches, and I hope noble Lords will feel that it has
1426
been a worthwhile debate. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Industrial Training Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House, the Bill to be printed as amended.
Agricultural Training Board Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House, the Bill to be printed as amended.
  MENTALLY-HANDICAPPED PERSONS: VIOLENT CRIMES
  MENTALLY-HANDICAPPED PERSONS: VIOLENT CRIMES
  MENTAL DISORDERS: GUIDANCE FOR OFFICIALS
  MENTAL DISORDERS: GUIDANCE FOR OFFICIALS
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS: RECONVICTION RATES
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS: RECONVICTION RATES
  NATURE CONSERVATION: CONSULTATION
  NATURE CONSERVATION: CONSULTATION
  ORGANO-CHLORINE PESTICIDES
  ORGANO-CHLORINE PESTICIDES
  ORGANOCHLORINES: USAGE
  ORGANOCHLORINES: USAGE
  DUTCH HORTICULTURE SUBSIDIES
  DUTCH HORTICULTURE SUBSIDIES
  OFFSHORE EXPLORATION: LICENSING CRITERIA
  OFFSHORE EXPLORATION: LICENSING CRITERIA