Sitting of 7 May 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 Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday 14 May.

    COUNTY OF KENT BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Monday 11 May.

    WESTERN ISLES ISLANDS COUNCIL (BERNERAY FERRY) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Read the Third time and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Radio Reception (London Area)
    Mr. Norman Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will inquire into the poor quality of radio reception in the London area and seek powers to remedy the problems caused by tall buildings.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I understand that the BBC and the IBA consider that reception of their radio services in London is generally satisfactory, though they are constantly seeking ways of making further improvements within the limitations imposed by the availability of frequencies. If the hon. Member has a particular reception problem in mind, and will let me have details, I will ask the appropriate broadcasting authority to look into it. My right hon. Friend has no plans to seek additional powers in this area.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will the Minister accept that there is universal criticism of the quality of reception throughout London and that it is getting worse? That universal criticism relates to general interference and to the signal strengths used and applies to all wavelengths, long, medium and ultra-short. I understand that many property developers pay no attention to the need to equip their buildings with reflectors and other means whereby they could contribute towards improved reception in those areas of London where there are tall buildings. Will the Minister reconsider the question that he should himself institute an inquiry to see what can be done to improve services?
    Mr. Mayhew: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. The coverage of their respective radio services is primarily a matter for the broadcasting authorities. The authorities
    254
    try to provide a stronger signal in urban areas wherever possible to compensate for higher electrical noise levels. I know that the BBC has work in hand to improve reception of its VHF radio services on portable and car radios. I am sure that the corporation will note what has been said.
    Mr. Stallard: I would like to press the Minister to be more positive in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson). It is our experience in London that reception is deteriorating. The complacency in the attitude of the BBC and the IBA should be seriously considered by the Minister. The hon. and learned Gentleman should examine the points raised by my hon. Friend to see whether he can intervene to improve reception in inner London areas.
    Mr. Mayhew: I believe that hard evidence needs to be provided for the authorities and, indeed, the Home Office to show where reception is bad. Such evidence would be noted and acted upon. I have already said that the view of the authorities is that reception of their services in London is generally satisfactory. If that is wrong, they should be informed.

    Marches
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further consideration he has now given to the damage caused to race and community relations by marches and demonstrations organised to propagate racial hatred.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement of his general policy concerning public marches.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): The object of policy in relation to marches is to strike the right balance between the freedom to demonstrate peacefully under the law and the need to minimise the risk of public disorder. The damage that certain marches may do to community relations is being considered as part of my review of public order legislation.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Home Secretary aware that a clear distinction needs to be made between marches and demonstrations aimed at inciting and provoking race hatred and other types of acceptable demonstrations, marches and carnivals, political or non-political? Is he aware that it is an affront to the traditional liberties of the British people that a blanket ban on marches and demonstrations should have been imposed in the last few months?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman and the House will appreciate that there are dangers at present, particularly in the Metropolitan Police area. I imposed the ban at the request of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. I have frequently made it clear to the House that I do not like bans and would much prefer not to impose them. However, where there is a question of public disorder, I believe that it is essential that I should act in the general interest of all the people in the area concerned.
    Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with chief constables the compilation of a list of certain organisations which specialise in professional agitation,

    255
    such as the National Front or the Anti-Nazi League? Will he consider changing the present arrangements so that those on such a list would in future have to seek specific permission to hold a march under any circumstances, rather than the present arrangement whereby my right hon. Friend is so often called in to cancel such a march?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Those matters will be considered in the context of the review of public order legislation. It is important that in the House we should consider all those options. With regard to specific organisations, the House must face the fact that it is easy to change the name of an organisation and thus evade a ban which is put specifically on one organisation. That has been done by many people in the past.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Does the Secretary of State understand that many of us are deeply worried about the situation into which we are slipping, whereby, by one blanket ban after another, large numbers of people who wish to indulge in perfectly peaceable and normal processions are likely to be prohibited from doing so? Does he recollect that in the past he has said at the Dispatch Box that, legally, he could do nothing other than make a blanket ban? I understand that the Home Office has given some guidance to the press on that matter. Will the Secretary of State now confirm that that is not the meaning of the Public Order Act, that he can have specific bans if he wants and that we must all consider ways of having specific bans so that the fundamental right of processing on the streets is not denied to more people than absolutely necessary?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I confirm that. I made a specific arrangement whereby the Labour Party and TUC march on May Day was able to proceed. The result of that march and its peaceful nature was evidence that that action was correct. I am most anxious to make sure that the jobless marches which will come into London at the end of the month will also be able to take place. I am sensitive—and should be as Home Secretary—particularly to marches against the policy of the Government of which I happen to be a member. That is right.
    Mr. Jessel: Is not marching a singularly stupid way of expressing an opinion on any subject? Marching is not a rational argument. Why should our cherished freedom of speech imply a freedom to march regardless of the inconvenience to other people?
    Mr. Whitelaw: No march can be justified regardless of the freedom of other people. That is one of the important problems we face. It is faced particularly by people who try to conduct business on the route of some of the marches. They must also be considered. As for the idea that marches are not a way of expressing an opinion, as my hon. Friend will have noticed from the questions today, many other people take an opposite view. We can argue that about public order, but many feel that it is a freedom; if they feel that that is so, that freedom must be preserved for them.
    Mr. Jay: Has the Home Secretary received any applications for a march from people wishing to demonstrate support for the present Government's policies?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I would be delighted to do so, but I am not in the habit of marching.

    Firearm Certificates
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total of firearm certificates issued in each of the last three years.
    Mr. Mayhew: Annual statistics of firearm certificates issued and renewed by chief officers of police are not collected centrally, but on 31 December 1979 169,590 firearm certificates were in force in England and Wales.
    Mr. Farr: Will my hon. and learned Friend accept that there has been a worrying decline in the number of firearm certificates? As it is in the national interest that people should be encouraged to use rifles for recreational purposes, can he look into the reasons for that decline and see if something can be done?
    Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend, who takes great interest in that matter, is right in saying that there has been a decline. There was a decline from about 191,000 in 1971 to 169,500 in 1979. On the other hand, the number of shotgun certificates over the same period has risen from 715,000 to 783,000. I cannot promise to undertake an inquiry on why the numbers in the first category have fallen, but no doubt my hon. Friend has his own suggestions, which I shall be interested to hear.

    Open Channel Radio
    Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his latest estimate of the number of 27 MHz AM transmitters in the United Kingdom.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): It is not possible to esitmate the number of 27 MHz AM citizens' band sets in this country, but information recently provided by the Post Office radio interference service indicates that illicit use has increased significantly. Estimates must necessarily be imprecise but we would now put the number of illicit users at about 160,000.
    Mr. Moate: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are enormous discrepancies between the figures available to him and those used by the radio enthusiasts, which range from 250,000 to 1 million sets? Many of us believe that there is as much chance of the radio enthusiasts being right as of the Home Office being right. If the radio enthusiasts are right, is there not a danger that the Minister will now introduce new regulations and rules which will not be enforceable and which will be widely flouted? Will he give further consideration to the idea of legalising AM transmitters?
    Mr. Raison: Estimates are difficult to make. Ours have been raised substantially. The estimates of enthusiasts are liable to some exaggeration, but I recognise that many AM sets are in use now. However, I remind my hon. Friend that the sets in use are causing much interference to people who have legitimate entitlements to television, radio, hi-fi and emergency services. We cannot permit a service which causes such interference. The alternative which we are offering should prove completely acceptable.
    Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. Gentleman bear it in mind that last year only 457 people were convicted for importing, using or installing sets, yet that compares with his estimated number of 160,000 using illegal sets? How will his new specifications be any more legally enforceable than the old ones?
    Mr. Raison: I do not deny that there is an enforcement problem, but a thoroughly acceptable service on FM will now be available, which should help us to overcome that problem. If necessary, however, we may have to bring in new legislative measures to cope with that.
    Mr. Norman Atkinson: How does the Minister reconcile what he has said with the answers given to me by the Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew)? The Minister has now told the House that interference is taking place and that there may be a need for legislation to prevent it. Interference is denying people good radio reception in certain parts of London, yet the hon. and learned Gentleman has assured the House that there is no such interference.
    Mr. Raison: My hon. and learned Friend's remarks went wider than the specific problem of citizens band interference. That is a serious problem which we recognise and which we believe must be defeated.

    Race Relations (Inner Cities)
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Commission for Racial Equality about race relations in inner city areas.
    Mr. Whitelaw: This topic was among the matters raised when my hon. Friend the Minister of State met the chairman and deputy chairman of the Commission on 15 April to discuss the disturbances in Brixton.
    Mr. Price: Were the relationships between the Metropolitan Police and the black community specifically discussed? While thanking the Home Secretary for changing the officer investigating the Brixton disturbances for the Scarman inquiry, is he aware that that inquiry will have to take place with much more sensitivity than the New Cross inquiry if the Scarman inquiry is to be conducted with the trust between the police and the black community which everyone hopes for? What measures is the right hon. Gentleman taking to increase the number of black policemen?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The relationships between the Metropolitan Police and the black community were discussed. I believe that the House has great faith in Lord Scarman. I hope that all those concerned will co-operate with him because it is extremely important that they do so. I hope that they will be encouraged to do so by everyone. As for relationships, it is important for the maximum encouragement to be given by all local leaders to the improvement of relations between the police and the local communities. Many do, but there have been instances when the opposite tactic has been used. That does much harm because the police need to be supported in the proper exercise of their duty and encouraged in their work in the community.
    Mr. Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem in several inner city areas is not race relations but public order, which we have preserved for centuries? Does he agree that public order must be maintained, whatever races or peoples are involved?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Yes. That has been made clear on many occasions, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for stressing it again. The police have a duty to ensure that all
    258
    law-abiding citizens are properly protected. It is also important for them to establish the best possible relations with the community, remembering that successful policing must be based on good relations and understanding.
    Mr. Hattersley: Was the substantial reduction in funds for inner city areas discussed at the meeting? Has it struck the right hon. Gentleman that, by cutting off funds to inner city areas, the Government have increased deprivation and, consequently, discontent and discrimination? Would it not help race relations to restore inner city programmes?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am told that the matter was not discussed. It should be remembered that the Government have given money to the borough of Lambeth and have done a great deal for the area.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most hon. Members endorse his remarks about supporting the police and admire the way in which they carry out their difficult task, but that there is no ground for complacency? Does he accept that in the discussions with the Commission for Racial Equality everything should be done to improve the standard of police work in immigrant communities? Is he further aware that recently in my constituency, when the mosque was broken into and defiled, the proper and sensitive reaction of the Local police greatly contributed to race relations?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am most anxious to encourage good community work by the police. I have seen many examples of such work when visiting various police forces. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said.
    Let me remedy my omission in my reply to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is anxious to recruit more coloured policeman, as are other chief constables. The problem is that not enough coloured people are coming forward to join the police. It would help greatly if community leaders could encourage them.
    Mr. Thomas Cox: Is the Home Secretary aware that, tragically, in many communities the relationship with the police is fragile and that rebuilding it must be a priority? Before he reacts to demands to introduce tear gas and water cannons, will he note the great success of the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall in community policing., which is where the future should lie?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The relationship between the police and the community is important, but it is a two-way traffic. The police must make a positive effort in the community and community leaders must make a positive effort towards the police. I hope that both will continue to be forthcoming, because without a positive approach we shall not succeed. Although the hon. Gentleman is right about the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall, similar methods are practised by the Metropolitan Police and many other forces, and they are important. At my meeting last Friday with chief constables, members of the Superintendents Association and members of the Police Federation, we were unanimous that we should stick to traditional methods of policing. I reinforce that view today.
    Sir Frederick Burden: Coloured immigrants claim that they are unable to obtain jobs, but does my right hon. Friend agree that because of their violence and riotous behaviour in some areas employers will naturally be reluctant to employ them?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Those problems and others make what has happened in Brixton tragic for all who live in the area.
    Mr. Hattersley: Is the Home Secretary aware that in reply to my question on inner city programmes he dealt only with Lambeth? Would it not be a tragedy if the Government's obsession with Lambeth prejudiced the inner city programme?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I accept that.

    Late Night and Sunday Trading Laws
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his review of late night and Sunday trading laws.
    Mr. Raison: My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement before the Summer Recess.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my hon. Friend accept that that is good news? Is he aware that, as 17 years have elapsed since Lord Crathorne's committee recommended that the Sunday trading laws be tidied up, and as absurdities continue to multiply, including an instance when a supermarket attempted to open on Sunday for the benefit of the disabled and was closed under the present law, a statement cannot come too soon?
    Mr. Raison: I am glad that my hon. Friend is looking forward to the statement. There is great difficulty in taking action over the trading laws because of a total lack of agreement, which was well illustrated in my hon. Friend's recent debate.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Although the Minister cannot give us the detail of the statement, will it contain the final Government decision on what they want to achieve or will it be more speculative and tentative?
    Mr. Raison: It would be wrong to encourage exaggerated expectations of a strong and positive programme. We shall give our views on what, if anything, should be done.
    Mr. Viggers: Have the Government formed a view on traders who hire rooms in hotels to carry on business on Sunday?
    Mr. Raison: The Government have not formed a collective view on the matter and nor have I formed a view. No doubt we can consider it when considering the general problem.

    Vandalism
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to introduce additional measures to combat vandalism.
    Mr. Mayhew: Combating vandalism is a task for all sections of the community. The Government are playing their part by strengthening the police. We also propose to strengthen the powers of the courts to deal with young adult and juvenile offenders.
    Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware of the great concern about vandalism? What action are the Government taking on the Central Policy Review Staff report of 1978? Does he accept that, although there is no simple solution to the problem, massive youth unemployment is a major contributory factor? Why are the Government complacent—as reflected in the main answer—about such a serious matter?
    Mr. Mayhew: It is unjust to say that we are complacent about such a serious problem. There is no specific criminal offence of vandalism. It is normally associated with criminal damage, which has been increasing annually by about 10 per cent., so it is important to strengthen the courts' powers. The hon. Gentleman will have read the White Paper published at the end of last year. An increased police presence on the beat will help substantially, but many other matters are also important.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Will the Government be introducing measures to enable courts to make parents pay for damage caused by their children?
    Mr. Mayhew: That is a significant question. The White Paper sets out the Government's proposals to strengthen and clarify the complex provisions under which parents can be made to pay a fine or under which an order for compensation or costs can be imposed on a juvenile, which are important and valuable measures.
    Mr. Edward Lyons: I endorse the need for an increased police presence in areas where vandalism prevails, and particularly where old people living alone are afraid, but does the Minister accept that violent crime among Asian youngsters is far below the average?
    Mr. Mayhew: The hon. and learned Gentleman sits for a constituency with a high concentration of people of Asian stock. I do not have in my head the exact proportions, but I think that it is common knowledge that the record of the children of those people bears favourable comparison with others. But we must recognise that vandalism is a nation-wide problem. Its roots are complex and are certainly not to be found in any one factor. We must try to understand it and at the same time to protect the public from it.
    Mr. Hill: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that large council housing estates are generally in the forefront of vandalism? Does he agree that a security patrol financed by the local authority would give the elderly more protection and prevent excessive vandalism, which itself costs local authorities a great deal of money? Will he at least institute discussions along those lines?
    Mr. Mayhew: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that on many council estates vandalism is a serious problem. That may have something to do with design in some circumstances. I believe that any measures over and above those taken by police forces must be a matter for individual communities in consultation with the police.

    Metropolitan Police
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current strength of the Metropolitan Police.
    Mr. Whitelaw: It was 24,066 on 31 March.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there was widespread support for his statement that recent attacks, and indeed attacks generally, upon the police are attacks upon the community which they represent and of which they are part? In view of the widespread support among the vast majority of law-abiding people in this country for the work of the police, will my right hon. Friend reflect—perhaps not this

    261
    afternoon—on whether there might be ways in which that support could from time to time be expressed in a tangible form towards police officers and their dependants?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The truth is that frequently when tragedies have affected the police public response in raising money to help the widows and so on has been remarkable. I am very grateful for that because it shows strong support for what the police seek to do. I believe that the best way in which the community as a whole can support the police is to give them encouragement and to work with them. They will find that as there are more policemen—and I am glad to say that more are being recruited—it will be possible for more of them to be on the streets and to get to know the people in an area. If the people respond to that, that is the best way forward for all of us.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Does the Secretary of State realise that the new policy of getting large numbers of police back on the streets, on foot, in many parts of London is made difficult and sometimes impossible by the need for commanders to supply large numbers of police for the policing of demonstrations and the like? Will he bear that factor in mind when he reviews the need for an increase in the establishment of the Metropolitan Police?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman seemed at first to be arguing rather on the other side with regard to marches and demonstrations. I am grateful for what he has said. Marches and demonstrations place a considerable load upon the Metropolitan Police. For example, I believe that there was no Easter leave for any member of the Metropolitan Police this year. The House might well reflect on that. We should be extremely grateful to the police, and I believe that we are. It is also true that when they are taken off normal duties to police demonstrations and marches they have to be taken from the areas that they would normally be policing, which does harm in those areas. Those are extremely valid points.
    Mr. Moate: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the figures that he has given indicate that the strength of the Metropolitan Police is at a record high? Does he accept that there is widespread support for the movement of policemen back to the beat? Does he also accept that the figures reflect the carrying out of an important election promise that will have widespread support throughout the country?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Yes, they are record figures for the Metropolitan Police. The force is, however, still some 2,500 below the authorised establishment. If we proceed as we are doing at the moment, and the training school at Hendon is working to capacity, we should make that up within the next two years. That will be very helpful for the Metropolis and for getting more policemen back on the beat. I am grateful for the unanimous support of the House for that development.
    Mr. Grimond: If the Metropolitan Police is 2,500 under strength, how quickly does the Secretary of State hope that that shortage will be made up and how far is it preventing what he rightly wants, namely, policemen on the beat taking up the full responsibility for curing vandalism and so forth?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I said that I hoped that it would be possible to get up to establishment within two years. As I made clear, I believe that the limiting factors are not only
    262
    the capacity of the training school, but also the very large number of young policemen and thus the imbalance between older, more experienced policemen and young ones, which has its own dangers on the streets as well. We must get that balance right, and we are seeking to do so.
    Mr. Churchill: Bearing in mind the importance of avoiding any waste of police time while, at the same time. providing the maximum protection for members of the public, may I ask my right hon. Friend, in the light of the disturbing and increasing tendency in recent years for letter bombs to be sent through the post, to introduce legislation at the earliest possible opportunity requiring the senders of all packets and parcels to put their names and addresses on them, as is required in the United States? Will he meanwhile encourage that to be done on a voluntary basis?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Clearly, letter bombs being sent to public figures is a very bad development which is wholly to be deplored. All of us in the House should be extremely careful in handling our own post. I trust that all hon. Members will be so. Despite all the dangers, efforts are not nearly strong enough, even now. We have ourselves to blame if things go wrong, so we must take great care. As for my hon. Friend's proposals, I am afraid that I have no such plans. I think that there would be great difilculty in enacting such legislation.

    Parliamentary Candidates (Disqualification)
    Mr. Stanbrookasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the law concerning disqualification of candidates at parliamentary elections.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am now doing so.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Does my hon. Friend agree that the removal in 1967 of the disqualification of persons serving a sentence of imprisonment for serious crime was a mistake which has led to unforeseen and serious consequences? In view of the possibility of the repetition of recent events, does he also agree that the need for the reinstitution of that disqualification is urgent?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I accept that a very important problem has been raised. The need for action is important and urgent. I hope that we shall be able to proceed. with agreement throughout the House. I believe that on a House of Commons matter of this kind it is very important that we should seek to do so.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that when my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) deferred from tomorrow to 10 July the motion for the Second Reading of his Bill which would restore the law to its state before 1967, he did so upon the understanding that before that date of 10 July the Government would be ready to come forward with an announcement and with their proposals?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend for that action, which I think will help us all. Inevitably, producing a Government Bill involves certain problems and complications, which the House will have to face. In any proposals of this kind, I hope that we can proceed with as much unanimity as possible.
    Mr. Stallard: Will not the Home Secretary accept that there are dangers in jumping in to amend legislation which

    263
    was discussed as recently as 1967? There are many precedents. Indeed, we all know the situation before 1967. In view of recent events, if we were to jump in flow, there would be widespread misunderstanding both at home and abroad. It may be said that we change the rules as we go along to suit the circumstances. Would not such action lower the dignity, prestige and authority both of democracy and of this House?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Various balances have to be struck. As it stands—and can be exploited—the present situation cannot raise the standing of this House. It is important to remember that. All those who were Members of Parliament at the time bear some responsibility for what happened in 1967. For one reason or another—the general election was one of the factors—this matter was not raised and discussed in the House at that time.

    Recess Elections Act 1975
    Dr. Edmund Marshallasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will seek to amend section 1 of the Recess Elections Act 1975 to extend the definition of "disqualifying office" to include the office of steward or bailiff of Her Majesty's three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham or of the Manor of Northstead.
    Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend has no present plans to do so.
    Dr. Marshall: Why should a distinction be made between seats in the House that have become vacant as a result of death or elevation to the Peerage—for which by-election writs may now be issued during the recess—and vacancies that arise, in effect, through resignations? At present, constituents must remain unrepresented until a writ has been issued after the House has reassembled.
    Mr. Mayhew: It is a long-standing convention of the House that the obligation on you Mr. Speaker, to issue a writ during the recess when two hon. Members desire it does not extend to a seat that has become vacant because an hon. Member has accepted one of the stewardships. That is reflected in the statute to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

    Television Licence Fee
    Dr. Summerskillasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the proposal of the British Broadcasting Corporation that an independent body should be set up to provide an impartial assessment of any licence fee increase proposed by the corporation.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The BBC's proposal that future requests for a licence fee increase should be examined by an independent review body is still under consideration.
    Dr. Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the BBC submitted its proposal over six months ago and that the licence fee is due to be reviewed again in November? Before there is another increase, will the Government make a statement on their response to the BBC's suggestion and on their general attitude to the licence fee as a way of raising money to fund the BBC?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am well aware of the facts that the hon. Lady has put to me. I shall consider what she has
    264
    said. I emphasise that the Government still believe—as did the Annan committee—that the licence fee is the best method of financing the BBC.
    Mr. Waller: Does my right hon. Friend understand that as the BBC licence fee increases the resentment felt by retirement pensioners who do not live in sheltered accommodation also increases? They feel discriminated against, because those who happen to live in sheltered accommodation can obtain a concession. Without increasing public expenditure, will my right hon. Friend consider this issue and whether it might be possible to find a fairer system, whereby all retirement pensioners—whether or not they live in sheltered accommodation—could be treated equally?
    Mr. Whitelaw: There are problems in this area. Consideration must be based on the fact that free television licences for all pensioner households would cost between £155 million and £170 million per annum in lost revenue. That represents about one-third of the licence revenue and shows the complications involved.

    Prison Visits
    Mrs. Knightasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now consider reducing the number of visits paid for by the taxpayer to inmates of Her Majesty's prisons.
    Mr. Mayhew: Assisted visits are available only to an inmate's near relatives of limited income, and their frequency coincides with a convicted inmate's four-weekly statutory entitlement to a visit. The present scale of provision seems proper, having regard to the importance of maintaining contact between a prisoner and his family in the interests of his eventual return to the community.
    Mrs. Knight: Will not my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that every section of the community is having to accept cuts? In addition, will he bear in mind that the victims of the IRA bombers who were maimed and disfigured as a result of the attack in Birmingham find it bitter and unjust that they must pay through their taxes for their attackers to receive three or four weekly visits? Relatives travel all the way from Birmingham to the Isle of Wight, are put up overnight and then return. Many of the victims of the attack will never walk or work again. Does my hon. and learned Friend appreciate that the victims of terrorist attacks will have no chance of a holiday at the seaside, paid for by the taxpayer, and that they feel that an injustice is being done?
    Mr. Mayhew: I well understand the feelings that my hon. Friend has so sensitively and eloquently expressed. However, it would be unwise to treat those who are imprisoned because of the crimes that they have committed as members of the IRA, or of any other terrorist organisation, in a manner that suggested that they were other than the criminals that they are. There is a statutory entitlement to visits. For the reasons that I gave in my initial reply, it is right that near relatives of limited income—which means entitlement to supplementary benefit—should, without discrimination, continue to be entitled to the assistance that they receive.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Michael Spicerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 7 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Spicer: Has my right hon. Friend had time to study yesterday's decision of the certification officer to the effect that the National Union of Mineworkers had misspent £86,000 from its general fund for political purposes? Does not that underline the need for those trade union members who are not Labour Party supporters to opt out of paying the levy? What further action does my right hon. Friend propose to take to ensure that a man's or woman's right to work is not dependent upon being a member of a trade union?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that that case underlines the need to take advantage of the right to opt out of the political levy. That right has existed since about 1913. We always advise people that that is their right and that they should take advantage of it. I also agree that to require a person to join a trade union as a condition of employment is contrary to the fundamental liberties of this country. We said as much in the Green Paper. We are consulting about whether there should be any further changes in the law. In that connection, I have noticed the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale), and signed by 140 of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
    Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady inquire a bit more closely into such matters before she pronounces her views to the House? She clearly does not know the details of the case.
    On this election day, would she mind telling us which of her achievements she would like to be uppermost in the minds of the voters? Is it higher rents, higher rates, higher taxes, higher prices, the higher number of bankruptcies or the ever-rising unemployment? Which of her achievements does she want voters to remember?
    The Prime Minister: I should be happy if the voters bore in mind that it was this Government who gave them the right to purchase council houses. Already, 120,000 people have taken advantage of that right and there are another 100,000 applications in the pipeline. This Government managed to get the police forces to full strength in most parts of the country. There are 6,000 more police than there were. National Health Service waiting lists were reduced by 111,000 by September 1980. Pensions and supplementary benefit have been increased in line with inflation. Indeed, pensions are slightly higher in real terms than they were when the Labour Party was in office. This Government took tax off the pensions of war widows and gave a number of war widows pension rights that they had not had before. For how much longer would the right hon. Gentleman like me to go on?
    Mr. Foot: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, because she has made it clear that she does not want voters to remember rates, rent, unemployment, prices, taxes and all
    266
    the items that have been so grotesquely raised by the Government. Is the right hon. Lady still interested in a matter in which she used to display some interest? I refer to British manufacturing industry. Should not the Government pay attention to the fact that the collapse of the British manufacturing industry under her Government is more serious than at any time since the recording of figures? Does she not think that her policies have contributed to that?
    The Prime Minister: Well now, rates, rents, prices and employment. I hope that people will remember when they vote today that, of all rating authorities, the average increase in the rates in Labour rating authorities has been 27 per cent. compared with 15 per cent. in Conservative-controlled authorities. I hope that the majority of our people will feel that those in council or any other sort of houses who can properly afford to pay the rent required under the fair rent provisions should pay it and should not rely on the ratepayers or taxpayers to pay it. I hope that they will remember that an unusually high proportion of people of working age want to work and that, even with the present unemployment figures, there is a larger proportion of the population of working age in work here than in any other country in Europe except Denmark.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. John Wilkinson.
    Mr. Foot rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I had called Mr. John Wilkinson. I shall call the right hon. Gentleman afterwards.
    Mr. Wilkinson: During my right hon. Friend's busy day, will she find time to read the report of the speech of the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) in which he suggested that a future Labour Government would nationalise part of Britain's merchant fleet? If that were carried out, would it not mean the death knell of a competitive and sound industry, which brings good invisible earnings to this country?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct. The merchant fleet brings in handsome invisible earnings and we are grateful for its expertise, which is mostly private enterprise.
    Mr. Foot: Was it by accident or design that the right hon. Lady did not mention in her reply to me the record taxes that her Government have imposed? Her promise to cut taxes is the chief reason she sits on the Treasury Bench today. Is she proud that taxation is higher than ever?
    The Prime Minister: That is not true of direct taxation. I can only reply to the right hon. Gentleman that, had his levels of expenditure prevailed, taxes would have been even higher. It lies ill in his mouth to criticise us for having set them a good deal lower than he would have had them.
    Mr. Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious situation in the port of Southampton, where a handful of shop stewards have put the port out of action for almost six weeks and are now working no overtime or night shifts? Is she aware that we have already lost two container firms which have laid down the gauntlet and will not return to Southampton? Is there any way that the Government can help in a review of the national dock labour scheme, because a docker can put himself out of work and receive £94 a week for doing so?
    The Prime Minister: I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what my hon. Friend has said. The lesson is that some people are losing their work because they have been striking themselves out of jobs and much business that should come to our ports has gone to European ports. People must learn this lesson. There are good jobs available in the ports for those who work fully, long and conscientiously to keep them.
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cox: Will the Prime Minister spend some time today considering how she may be able to salvage something from the ruins of her Northern Irish policy? Is she aware that she has two possible options—first, to seek a meaningful new political initiative or, secondly, to see the continuation of the killings and destruction that have bedevilled that country for so long? Is she telling the House and the world that no matter how many Republicans die as a result of hunger strikes there will be no change in her policy towards Northern Ireland? She must be aware——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is taking a long time to ask his question.
    The Prime Minister: No one has sought a new political initiative more earnestly than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He has done everything in his power to try to bring to the Province more responsibility for decisions that affect its future. That initiative undoubtedly failed. We shall continue to search for methods of bringing greater responsibility for decision-making to the people of Northern Ireland but I repeat the guarantee to the people of the Province that as long as the majority wish to stay in the United Kingdom they shall do so. That guarantee must stand. In the meantime we shall do everything possible to have peace and reconciliation with our neighbour the Republic of Ireland, south of the border.
    Mr. Charles Morrison: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on his helpful supplementary questions which have enabled her to elucidate and enumerate the successes of her Government, which are of relevance on county council election day?
    The Prime Minister: Yes indeed. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his questions today.
    Mr. Grimond: Has the Prime Minister had any consultation with the American Government over the resumption of wheat shipments from America to Russia? Were not the sanctions taken against Russia on her invasion of Afghanistan supposed to be a joint Western effort? Does not that invasion still persist? Would it not be as well if there were agreement and coherence in our policy towards Russia in view of her activities in Afghanistan?
    The Prime Minister: I fully understand the right hon. Gentleman's comments and the point he makes that the occupation of Afghanistan continues yet one of the sanctions has been removed. We were warned in advance that that might happen because President Reagan came out against that sanction during his election campaign and he felt that he had to take it off.
    Mr. Waller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is intended to hold a requiem mass for Bobby Sands in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon)? Is she further aware that, when my hon. Friend criticised that, he was told to mind his own business? Does she agree that that is very much the business of my hon. Friend, bearing in mind that his predecessor, Mr. Airey Neave, was murdered by assassins because of his views on Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: That is a matter on which a number of us feel very deeply indeed and it is why the feelings and thoughts of most of us are with the victims of the Provisional IRA.
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 7 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Price: Will the right hon. Lady once again reconsider her decision to pre-empt the whole Scarman inquiry by announcing in advance that unemployment was not a primary cause of the problems in Brixton? Is she aware that unemployment in inner London is rising faster than in almost any other part of the country and that unemployment among the black community is rising nearly twice as fast as that among other sections of the community? In view of those facts, does she not think it better that Lord Scarman should decide the causes of the problems rather than that she should do so without hearing the evidence?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has been working very hard with his question for some time. He has repeated it more than once. I did not pre-empt Lord Scarman's inquiry. My right hon. Friend and I would not have appointed him had we pre-empted the inquiry. I was asked for my opinion and I gave it. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not like it when I give a candid answer.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Has my right hon. Friend read the excellent speech made on Britain and the EEC in London last night by the Leader of the House? Will she confirm that the fact that no flags flew on Europe Day on Tuesday does not indicate any weakening of the Government's resolve to play their full part in the European Community and to defend and protect British interests through that institution?
    The Prime Minister: I read my right hon. Friend's excellent speech on Britain and Europe and I hope that all other hon. Members will also read it. It sets out clearly the reasons why the Government firmly believe that we must continue to be a member of the Community and why we find no inconsistency between that as an ideal and a practical reality and fighting Britain's corner in Europe, which this Government have done better than any other.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Prime Minister take time today to intervene in a dispute between two Labour councillors and the Conservative-controlled Sefton council, which is denying the councillors their democratic right to sit on committees merely because they removed the mace from a council meeting in protest at the vicious cuts being implemented by that council, which had a £19 million cut in its rate support grant imposed by the Secretary of State for the Environment? Does not the

    269
    Prime Minister think that illicit mace-bearing is an appropriate protest against cuts imposed by the Secretary of State for the Environment?
    The Prime Minister: I am not responsible for the acts of elected councils.

Business of the House
Mr. Michael Foot: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 11 MAY—Further progress in Committee on the Finance Bill
Motion on the Local Loans (Increase of Limit) Order.
TUESDAY 12 MAY—Completion of consideration in Committee on the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY 13 MAY—Progress on remaining stages of the Social Security Bill.
THURSDAY 14 MAY—Until about 7 o'clock, completion of remaining stages of the Social Security Bill.
Progress on remaining stages of the Iron and Steel Bill.
Remaining stages of the Ports (Financial Assistance) Bill.
FRIDAY 15 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 18 MAY—Private Members' motions until Seven o'clock. Afterwards, completion of remaining stages of the Iron and Steel Bill.
The House will wish to know, Mr. Speaker, that subject to progress of business it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Spring Adjournment on Friday 22 May until Monday 1 June.
Mr. Foot: May I make three points to the right hon. Gentleman? First, will he make sure that we have early next week a statement on the future of the computer industry, about which there is great concern throughout the country? I trust that we will have an assurance from the Government that the industry is not to be allowed to fall into foreign hands.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman will recall the debate on the Armitage report a few weeks ago and the matter that I have raised with him on a number of occasions. May we have an absolute assurance that the Government will provide a further opportunity for the House to vote on the matter? The Government fully agree that we should have the opportunity for a fresh vote.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman recently made a speech about unemployment, and since almost every hour that the House has had to discuss unemployment and the record rates over which the Government have presided has been provided by the Opposition, may we have an absolute assurance that the Government will provide what I have often asked for, namely, a debate on the day or the day after the next monthly set of unemployment figures is published?
Mr. Pym: I shall convey the right hon. Gentleman's views on the future of the computer industry to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and will consult him to see whether, if a statement is appropriate, we can arrange one.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is considering the representations on the Armitage report that have been made in the House and outside. In due course he will announce a decision, and I am looking for an opportunity to return to the subject at some stage. I note the right hon. Gentleman's views.
The Government share the right hon. Gentleman's views about the seriousness of unemployment and the need
272
to help the unemployed. We have had a number of debates. I agree that all but one have been in Opposition time, and although I cannot give the absolute assurance that there will be a debate in Government time when the next monthly figures are announced I do not exclude the possibility on a later occasion.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on what date the recess motion will be taken?
Mr. Pym: Not at present.
Mr. R. A. McCrindle: Does my right hon. Friend recall giving me an undertaking that there would be a debate on index-linked pensions in the near future? In the light of the imminent publication of a further report on the transferability of occupational pension schemes, could we bring the two matters together and have a debate soon?
Mr. Pym: I will consider what my hon. Friend has said. I think that I said that I hoped that there would be an opportunity for the House to debate the subject in due course. I do not think that I gave an undertaking about the near future, and I cannot find time for such a debate in the near future. However, I have the subject in mind as a likely candidate for debate in due course.
Mr. Alfred Dubs: Is the Leader of the House aware of the large increase in the money supply last month, apparently as a consequence of industrial action by the Civil Service? Is it not time that the House had an opportunity to debate pay problems in the Civil Service, because, in the face of Government inaction, we cannot accept that nothing should be done while the dispute drags on?
Mr. Pym: I have no plans for a debate on the Civil Service dispute. On the whole, the House has found over the years that it is better not to debate a current dispute. There are other ways in which the hon. Gentleman can raise the subject, but I cannot provide Government time for it.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call the hon. Members who have been rising in their places.
Mr. Alan Clark: There is a great variety of rumours circulating about an impending defence review. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is desirable that the subject should be debated and that such a debate—not necessarily in the same form as debates on White Papers—should take place at the earliest date convenient to him? Does he also accept that the House does not take kindly to hearing of major decisions affecting national security and hon. Member's constituencies four or five days before we rise for the Summer Recess? Perhaps my right hon. Friend will have a word with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about that.
Mr. Pym: The subject to which my hon. Friend has referred is extremely important and the House knows my direct interest in it. Defence is an appropriate subject for a debate and I am trying to arrange such a debate before long, but I cannot say exactly when it will be. I hope that in the meantime my hon. Friend will not attach undue weight to any rumour, because rumours sometimes turn out to be unfounded.
Mr. Edward Lyons: In view of the continuing savage fall in employment in the textile industry, particularly in West Yorkshire, which is wreaking havoc on the prosperity of the region, will the right hon. Gentleman consider a further debate on textiles in the near future?
Mr. Pym: I cannot give an undertaking that there will be a debate in Government time.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: Some of us greeted with at least mild disappointment the news of yet another truncated Whitsun Recess. Can my right hon. Friend give us any explanation why that practice is continuing, particularly in the light of the promise made by the Prime Minister at the beginning of the Session? Will Back Benchers have an early opportunity to debate the length of recesses?
Mr. Pym: My hon. Friend may have to find some time other than Government time for that debate. The length of the Whitsun Recess tends to vary according to the circumstances of the Session. I concluded that a week is as much as we can afford at present and my hon. Friend will have to be content with nine days on this occasion. There are many precedents for that, although I appreciate that my hon. Friend would have preferred longer.
Mr. Donald Dewar: Is the Leader of the House aware that many Scottish Members are anxious to have the chance to comment on the miserably timid proposals for the government of Scotland that emerged from the all-party talks? Does he recall that on 23 March he told me that he hoped that there would be a debate within two weeks? Six weeks have passed. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can promise us a debate before the Whitsun Recess.
Mr. Pym: I should be surprised if six weeks ago I said that there would be a debate in two weeks' time.
Mr. Dewar: That is what the right hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Pym: Obviously that was unduly optimistic. I thought that I said that I would table the motions. The motions, whatever view the hon. Gentleman may have about them, are based on the conclusions reached by the all-party committee. In due course there will be time made available on the Floor of the House to debate the motions and the amendments thereunto if they are selected. There will certainly not be a debate before Whitsum. There will not be a debate in the immediate future, but I will find time after Whitsun.
Mrs. Jill Knight: Has my right hon. Friend noted on the Order Paper Early-Day Motion 103 in my name on lead in petrol?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to eliminate the largest controllable source of lead pollution by phasing out the use of lead additives in petrol with an immediate reduction to 0·15 grammes per litre, and by making available lead-free petrol for those vehicles now able to use it.]
Will he recognise that already 129 hon. Members have signed the motion and that a further 30 hon. Members have indicated their general support for it? Will he consider finding time for a debate on the subject before too much time has passed?
Mr. Pym: I cannot promise a debate, but I expect that a statement will be made early next week.
Sir Albert Costain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is concern about the delay in the consideration of the County of Kent Bill? Will he estimate when we are likely to debate the Bill's Second Reading?
Mr. Pym: I shall require notice of that question because my hon. Friend refers to a Private Bill. My hon. Friend might consider consulting the Chairman of Ways and Means.
Mr. Roger Moate: Will my right hon. Friend find time for the House to re-examine the role of the European Assembly? Does he agree that the decision by the Assembly to debate the Sands affair is offensive, is undoubtedly an encouragement to terrorism, and is an abuse of the Assembly's role in relation to the member nations of the Community?
Mr. Pym: I do not think that it is for me to comment on that Assembly and its proceedings. I must disappoint my hon. Friend about providing time.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Has my right hon. Friend any intention of finding time for a debate on the press so that the views of the House may be made known about the willingness of some Fleet Street editors to pay the wages of sin and crime regardless of the suffering of people who are close to those who have been killed?
Mr. Pym: I have no plans to do so in Government time.
Mr. Tony Marlow: My right Friend is no doubt aware that 69 important documents have been referred to the House for debate by the Select Committee on European Legislation &c. Twenty-five of them were recommended for debate by the House before 1980—one as long ago as 1973—four in 1976 and 25 in 1980. Will my right hon. Friend say whether he believes that it was wrong to make this decision or whether the documents are unimportant? Will he ensure that they are debated by the House fairly soon?
Mr. Pym: The House takes the opportunities available to it to debate European matters as recommended by the Select Committee. Some of the documents to which my hon. Friend refers may be out of date. We have debates on European matters on many occasions. I remind my hon. Friend that certain of them are considered in Standing Committee. Between us all we try to find as much time as we can so that, if possible, we have a chance to discuss these matters before decisions are taken.
Mr. John Silkin: If I heard the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he said in reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) that there would be a statement on early-day motion 103. Which Minister will make that statement?
Mr. Pym: The statement will be on lead pollution. It will be made by a Minister of State, Department of the Environment. It may be made by the Secretary of State, but I think that it will be made by a Minister of State.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Accession of the Republic of Zimbabwe to the Second ACP-EEC Convention of Lome) Order 1981 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Foreign Affairs
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gummer.]
3.44 pm
The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour): The deterioration of East-West relations in the wake of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the spreading of regional conflicts, particularly in Africa and the Middle East, have posed a severe challenge to the West. In the six months since the House last debated foreign affairs, the dominant events have been: first, the continuing shadow of events in Poland over Europe; secondly, the advent of a Republican Administration in the United States which is committed to restore the strength of the American economy and American diplomacy; and thirdly, the stalemate in Afghanistan, marked by increasing opposition across the world to the Soviet occupation.
In these months, the Government have been intensely active in their diplomacy. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went to Washington in February, and was the first European Head of Government to visit President Reagan in office. She has just completed successful visits to India and the Gulf.
My right honourable and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has in addition visited Nigeria, the Ivory Coast, Pakistan, Hong Kong, China and Japan. These contacts symbolise Britain's continuing role in international and regional questions in all parts of the world.
Regrettably, or perhaps not regrettably, it is not possible to deal with everything in this speech. For example the internal affairs of the European Community, which are of great importance to our citizens and therefore a major preoccupation of the Government, were fully debated only a month ago, and I shall accordingly not dwell on these aspects. However, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able, when he replies, to address himself to issues raised at a later stage.
The main strand running through the Government's visits and consultations which I have outlined has been security. This is a reflection of the present troubled international environment. The Government see their primary responsibilities as being to ensure our defence and to contribute to the relaxation of tension through the resolution of disputes.
The week between meetings of NATO Foreign and Defence Ministers is therefore an appropriate juncture for a debate. Europe and NATO are the bedrock of our defence and way of life. Moreover, freedom and security elsewhere in the world are profoundly affected by developments in Europe.
As I have said, the coming to power of President Reagan's Administration is an important factor for the Alliance. There has also been a significant change in the political balance in the United States Congress, reflecting changes in American public opinion on domestic as well as foreign policy issues. There is a wish on the part of the American people to reassert their influence upon events. The Administration is determined to renew the strength and cohesion of the Atlantic Alliance. Her Majesty's Government welcome this, and believe that it will enhance the West's ability to defend its vital interests.
Co-ordination of policy within the Alliance and among our partners in the Ten is crucial to the success of our

277
efforts. On the management of intra-Alliance relations, the new United States Administration has already made a major effort. Clearly there must be a proper transatlantic consultation before major decisions affecting European members are taken. That is necessary if mutual confidence is to be maintained among the members of what is, in contrast to the Warsaw Pact, a free association of peoples and Governments.
Improved co-ordination within Europe can and should lead to improved co-ordination in the Alliance. Much has been achieved by the system of political co-operation. This has been a major success of the past two years. Europe is speaking more and more with one voice, as for example on the Middle East, Afghanistan, Poland and on CSCE at the most recent review meeting in Madrid. As a result, our views have carried more weight.
We believe that Britain's interests will best be served by strengthening the machinery of political co-operation both to extend its area of application and to make it able to respond faster to international crises. As the House is aware, my right hon. and noble Friend made some proposals for this towards the end of last year, and others, notably Herr Genscher, have expressed a similar desire to set up a firmer foundation for European activity in foreign policy. Important discussions on this subject are continuing within the Community.
On the substance of NATO's activities, as the House is aware, the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting was held in Rome earlier this week.
Mr. Robert Hughes: May I intervene before the right hon. Gentleman goes into too much detail about NATO? So far, he has dealt mainly with security. In our last foreign affairs debate, the Government made no statement about Namibia. In view of the triple veto that was recently cast in the Security Council, will the Lord Privy Seal assure us that he will tell us the Government's policy to resolve the issue?
Sir Ian Gilmour: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
My right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues agreed that, in the face of increasing Soviet military power, the collective strength of the North Atlantic Alliance remains indispensable to the security of all its members. They agreed also that the members of the Alliance should work for
"genuine detente and the development of East-West relations whenever Soviet behaviour makes this possible".
They warned that outside intervention in Poland would have the gravest consequences for international relations as a whole.
The Foreign Ministers stressed the importance of effective Alliance consultations on developments affecting the vital interests of the West, not only in Europe but worldwide. NATO Ministers recognise the benefits to security which arise, when those Allies possessing suitable defence resources—and this includes the United Kingdom—use them to good effect in defence of shared Western interests.
The Foreign Ministers also reaffirmed the importance of securing realistic measures of arms control. They supported the French proposal for a conference on disarmament in Europe aimed at achieving a coherent set of militarily significant, binding and verifiable confidence-building measures, applicable throughout the European continent. They particularly welcomed the
278
announcement by the American Secretary of State that the United States intended to resume negotiations with the Soviet Union on theatre nuclear forces by the end of this year.
Mr. Douglas Jay: Before the Lord Privy Seal leaves the subject of General Haig's statement on arms control, is it true that that statement referred only to theatre nuclear weapons and negotiations in that connection? If so, what are the Government doing to ensure some progress on strategic nuclear weapons, either by accelerating the ratification of SALT II or by renegotiating it?
Sir Ian Gilmour: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the SALT negotiations take place between the United States and the Soviet Union. We do not take part in them. Earlier we expressed our hope that SALT II would be ratified, but that hope was vitiated by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. There was then no question of the American Senate ratifying the treaty. The Reagan Administration are now looking at the whole subject, as they are fully entitled to do. At this stage, at least, we can play no useful part. In view of the 1979 decision it is important that Secretary Haig made the announcement about resuming talks on theatre nuclear forces before the end of the year.
Mr. Denis Healey: I apologise for intervening so early in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but is it not true that the 1979 decision was based on the assumption that the SALT II treaty, which had already been negotiated, would be ratified by the United States, and that the decision not to ratify and proceeding with the development of weapons whose development and deployment was forbidden by SALT II, destroys the basis on which the 1979 decision was taken?
Sir Ian Gilmour: The decision was not conditional on that, although it is true that SALT II would probably have been ratified. However, that was before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan which, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, transformed the situation in America and, to some extent, has transformed East-West relations ever since,
The wisdom of the Alliance's 1979 decision to modernise its theatre nuclear forces has been amply reinforced by the continuing deployment of Soviet SS20 missiles and Backfire bombers.
Mr. Brezhnev has offered a moratorium on the deployment of these weapons while negotiations proceed. This is an unacceptable precondition, because it would freeze the existing imbalance between East and West. However, the exchanges on theatre nuclear forces between the United States and the Soviet Union offer the prospect of greater stability through verifiable and genuinely balanced limitations on both sides.
The pursuit of worthwhile arms control agreements, by which I mean agreements that work on both sides, remains an important element of the Government's security policy. We have supported the efforts of the United States and Soviet Union to reach agreement on the limitation of strategic arms, and we attach importance to continuing the SALT process.
We have been engaged in talks with the United States and the Soviet Union on the cessation of nuclear weapons tests. We introduced the draft of the convention on

279
inhumane weapons which was signed at the United Nations last month. In MBFR we continue to work for the reduction of NATO and Warsaw Pact forces in central Europe. We have made a major contribution to the discussions on the prohibition of chemical weapons which are continuing in Geneva, and a comprehensive programme of disarmament in the 40-nation Committee on Disarmament in Geneva. Preparations began this week for the second United Nations special session on disarmament in 1982. All this adds up to considerable international activity by this country in arms control and disarmament.
Thus, any allegations that Britain is inactive in disarmament are utterly at variance with these facts. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition, whom we are delighted to have with us today, has listened to what I have just said. I hope that it will lead to a certain improvement in this aspect of his speeches.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that Her Majesty's Government are acting in concert with the United States and with the European communities to reduce the sale of arms throughout the world?
Sir Ian Gilmour: That is not what I said. If we tried to do that we would run into considerable difficulties. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are far from the only country that sells arms. The sort of initiative that he mentioned is not practical at present.
I think that the House will be interested to know what the Labour Party policy is on NATO and disarmament. The recent remarks of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) show that this is a fair question. I hope that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) will tell us what the party policy is and, if not, I hope that he will tell us what his own policy is.
In general, I may be able to help the right hon. Gentleman locate his party's policy—if, indeed, there is one. Presumably, it can be found somewhere between what was voted through at the Labour Party conference last October, including a call for significantly lower spending on defence, and the views of the right hon. Member for Stepney, and Poplar (Mr. Shore) who thought recently that present levels of expenditure were inevitable, given the threat. Alternatively, it might be found between the same right hon. Gentleman, who does not seem to wish even our Allies to be stronger than ourselves, and the Leader of the Labour Party, who, irrespective of our opponents' stength, would like to disarm unilaterally. The right hon. Gentleman may find it if he looks between his leader, and Mr. Terry Duffy, leader of the AUEW, who calls unilateralism a "never-never land policy". When he has found it, I hope that he will have time to bring it to the House of Commons and the British people, if he is not marching around London with placards, because we would like to see it.
Moving from the subject of NATO and Europe to the crucial issue of relations with the Soviet Union, I am not necessarily pessimistic about the long-term prospects. If the Russians are made to recognise that the West has both the means and the will to defend its interests, they will respond accordingly. It is of course deplorable that the Soviets have not yet shown any willingness to participate
280
in a genuine political settlement in Afghanistan. But we shall maintain our activity over this question for as long as is necessary to produce an acceptable solution.
Strong resistance by the brave Afghan people to the Soviet Union's 80,000 well-armed troops is continuing against great odds. Every month thousands of Afghan families make the hazardous journey to neighbouring Pakistan and Iran rather than accept Soviet domination. Over 2 million—one in seven of the population—have already made the trek.
The hardening of world opinion against the occupation is evident. Last November the United Nations General Assembly passed by an even larger majority than on the previous occasion a resolution which clearly condemned the occupation. In February of this year the Non-Aligned Movement, meeting in New Delhi, issued for the first time a demand of its own for the withdrawal of Soviet forces. The Islamic heads of State have maintained their strong position on the issue. However it is achieved, a withdrawal of Soviet forces would remove the major obstacle to East-West contacts and co-operation.
We are prepared in the meantime to keep open our channels of political communication to prevent misunderstanding but it should be recognised that the primary cause of the present strain is the failure of the Soviet Union and its friends to act with restraint in the international arena and to create the climate for genuine arms control and disarmament. I do not need to remind the House of the roles of Cuba and Vietnam in recent international crises.
Mr. John Maxton: Will the Lord Privy Seal make the same condemnation if the United States intervenes militarily in El Salvador?
Sir Ian Gilmour: I do not think that the United States has the remotest intention of intervening militarily in El Salvador. President Duarte is now planning elections in that country for next year.
A major factor in determining our relations with the Soviet Union will be events in Poland. The significance of the recent Polish internal reforms has been the subject of much commentary in the press and is well understood in Britain. I need not take up the time of the House by any commentary of mine. Indeed, on this issue I think that there is a remarkable unanimity in the House. It is based on the idea and belief that it is essential that there should be no foreign interference in Polish affairs.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I support and congratulate the Government on the way in which, with their Western allies, they are providing food, credits and debt rescheduling to Poland. However, is it not ironic that the capitalist and free enterprise West has to go to the rescue of the Poles when the Soviet Union can not do so? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that if the Soviets interfere militarily in the affairs of Poland—we hope that they will not—there will be no question of any support from the West continuing either to the Poles or to the Soviet Union?
Sir Ian Gilmour: I agree that there is an irony in the fact that the Soviet Union, with vast agricultural land, is unable to feed itself. Poland is in the same position. However much we may criticise agricultural surpluses in Western Europe, surpluses are a good deal better than famine and shortages.
I take my hon. Friend's second point. I have no doubt that it is properly understood that what we are doing

281
depends upon a lack of foreign interference in Poland. I remind my hon. Friend of what the Prime Minister said. She said that if we are called upon to react to an external intervention in Poland we shall do so
"far more quickly, effectively and appropriately than after Afghanistan."
We have already intervened to give food aid to Poland and to reschedule Poland's debt. Such actions show our support for the people of Poland and our confidence that they will overcome their present troubles.
It is right that Europe should be the focus of our efforts but the defence of our national interests cannot be pursued solely in Europe. History since the Second World War shows that local or regional conflicts outside Europe have repeatedly carried within them the danger of wider conflict.
The Prime Minister's recent visit to the Gulf was the first by a British Prime Minister in office. It was a great success—[Hon. Members: "You are joking."] It was a great success. Anybody who denies that is indulging in petty partisanship. It is a denial of the truth to say that the visit was not a success.
The visit reinvigorated our traditional links with the Gulf in the light of the changes in our relationships caused by the Gulf's huge economic advances since British withdrawal in 1971. The Prime Minister stressed that the United Kingdom is keen to participate in all aspects of the Gulf's future development plans. Clearly there is still room for further expansion of British commercial effort in the Gulf. In the Prime Minister's political talks there was wide agreement, particularly on the dangers to the region and the means of combating them. Any misunderstandings which there might have been among the Gulf States about our intentions in relation to support for the rapid deployment force concept were removed during the Prime Minister's recent visit.
The Prime Minister also pointed to the Venice declaration and subsequent follow up by the Ten as evidence of the great importance that we attach to a settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute, which is a primary concern of the Gulf States, as it is of the Arab States as a whole.
Mr. Tony Marlow: The Arab-Israeli dispute is the main threat to peace. Will my right hon. Friend explain the conundrum which puzzles me, wherby the Israelis, whose air force daily invades Lebanese sovereignty and kills counties women and children, both Palestinian and Lebanese, has the gall to complain that the Syrians, who are there with the blessing of the Lebanese Government, are producing air defence against Israeli bombardment?
Sir Ian Gilmour: I shall come later to the Lebanon which, as my hon. Friend says, involves a number of paradoxes. The situation there is extremely delicate.
The importance of peace in the Middle East, the importance of good relations between the Middle East and the countries of Western Europe, as well as the region's traditional links with Europe, make it natural that we should continue our efforts to contribute to a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute.
The Dutch Foreign Minister, acting on behalf of the Ten, is nearing the end of his consulations. We await his report with interest. We hope that our Presidency of the Ten in the second half of this year will coincide with an
282
opportunity for renewed progress. That hope is widely shared in the Arab world, as the Prime Minister's recent visit to the Gulf showed.
The principles of the Venice declaration, which are carefully balanced, will remain the basis of our efforts. Our object is to persuade all concerned to accept them as a reasonable and realistic basis for peace. If progress is to be possible, both Palestinians and Israelis must move from their present entrenched positions.
I underline once again the fact that we want a settlement fair to both Israel and the Palestinians, giving them both, within the limit of the possible, the future security which they crave.
Mr. Toby Jessel: My right hon. Friend mentioned being realistic. As a matter of practicality, how can it be realistic to expect the Israelis ever to give up land of strategic importance to people who are sworn to destroy them?
Sir Ian Gilmour: My hon. Friend must also question whether he thinks it is realistic for Israel indefinitely to occupy land which, by any stretch of the imagination, cannot be said to belong to it. The Venice declaration is designed to ensure that the Israelis' security should be balanced by the recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians.
It was Henry Kissinger who once said that 100 per cent. security for one side means 100 per cent. insecurity for the other. Both sides have a great interest in an agreement, and that is what the European initiative is seeking to foster.
We have, of course, kept in close touch with the American Administration, most recently during Mr. Haig's visit to London following the Middle East tour. We are agreed that European efforts should not conflict with those of the United States but that each has a role to play, and that the stability of the area requires urgent progress towards a solution of the Palestinian problem. We share the same objective of a comprehensive negotiated settlement.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we are to see any movement towards a settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute, it is essential to bring Chairman Arafat, the moderate and responsible leader of the Palestinians, into the centre of the discussions? Is it possible that, when the Foreign Secretary becomes chairman of the EEC Council, that meeting will take place? Further, is it possible that, with our special knowledge of the Middle East, we should try to impress on that simplistic cretin who is the present President of the United States, that a Palestinian involvement in this matter is absolutely essential?
Sir Ian Gilmour: I do not think that that sort of language, applied to the Head of State of one of our major allies, is either accurate or helpful, and I cannot go along with it. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Venice declaration mentioned that the PLO had to be brought into the negotiation.
The current crisis in Lebanon is increasingly disturbing. It arises from the failure since the end of the civil war in 1976, to reach a political solution to the differences within Lebanon. This has been a tragedy for the Government and the people of Lebanon. It is encouraging that fighting has now ceased and negotiations are under way. At the moment, there is all the more cause for concern now that

283
a new element of Israeli-Syrian tension has been introduced. I shall say no more than that we have urged all concerned to support the United States in its efforts to mediate.
Britain's historical ties have also led to our involvement in peace initiatives in Africa. The Government have continued to give vigorous support to Zimbabwe to consolidate the Lancaster House settlement. In his recent address to the nation, Mr. Mugabe expressed warm appreciation of the role of the British military training team in intergrating the former guerrilla forces into the national army. The transformation from a bloody civil war 18 months ago to the peaceful situation of today is a remarkable tribute to Mr. Mugabe and to Zimbabweans of all races.
Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
Sir Ian Gilmour: The recent conference on reconstruction and development in Salisbury, attended by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Soames, was a resounding success. The whole Western community, including Britain, responded generously. We remain the largest donor, with a contribution of £111 million. There are welcome signs that the economy is improving rapidly, which will bring valuable benefits to other countries of the region.
A settlement in Namibia is essential for progress and stability in Southern Africa. The five nations concerned intend to intensify the search for agreement. The Foreign Ministers agreed on 3 May that the United Nations plan provides a solid basis for a negotiated settlement, and that it should be strengthened in order to facilitate agreement. They instructed their officials to draw up proposals which would include constitutional arrangements for the future independent Namibia.
The five nations can use their good offices only if there is will to reach agreement. We regret that it was not possible to reconcile differences of view in the Security Council last week on the breakdown of negotiations in Geneva in January. The five hope to re-establish a common approach among the parties involved and call upon them to play their part.
Our vote against sanctions in the Security Council, in the company of France and the United States, is not a sign that our will to work for a settlement has diminished. It is not a sign that we side with apartheid. We voted against sanctions to keep open the prospects for a negotiated settlement.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Humbug.
Sir Ian Gilmour: Such prospects may not look bright at present but they are brighter than the prospects of reaching early independence by the means proposed by others, such as relying on economic or military strength.
Mr. Robert Hughes rose——
Sir Ian Gilmour: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. It has always been our view that sanctions against South Africa would discourage rather than promote internal reform in South Africa. Our views on apartheid are well known. While congratulating the South African Government on their recent electoral victory, we hope that the opportunity thereby created to
284
move towards more internal reform will not be missed. In our view, this is essential for the maintenance of peace and stability in Southern Africa.
Mr. Robert Hughes: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he recall that it was in 1977 that the so-called "contact group" of five Western Powers began detailed negotiations with South Africa, saying at that time that sanctions were not the answer, and that negotiation was the quickest way of getting agreement? What has happened in the last four years?
Sir Ian Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do what has happened. There have been intensive negotiations and discussions. Towards the end of last year it looked as though we were getting quite a long way with them.
There is no question but that the failure of the conference in Geneva a few months ago was the fault of the South African Government, who decided at that stage that they did not want an agreement. Nevertheless, I believe that the methods we have been using are the right ones. I do not believe that sanctions would have the effect that the hon. Gentleman wishes. He must also take into account the fact that many of the countries adjacent to South Africa would suffer from sanctions far more than South Africa herself. They voted for them but they knew that they would not be imposed. Mr. Mugabe has said publicly, as have the leaders of other States, that they would suffer very badly from sanctions. There is no doubt about that.
As I have said, much of our limited national resources is devoted to defence and peacekeeping efforts. These reinforce our strength, in as much as our economy relies on peaceful conditions in our trading markets. Our influence is immeasurably increased by our ability too combine our influence and resources with those of our partners. There are problems, particularly in economic development, which must be tackled jointly and speedily with future generations in mind.
The lobby on the Brandt report on 5 May showed clearly the extent of public interest and concern in world development. The House had a full discussion of some of these issues in the debate on overseas aid on 24 March. My hon. Friend the Minister of State may have more to say later. I shall not dwell on them here except to reassure the House that the Government will continue to play their full part in international efforts to tackle these vital problems.
At the beginning of this debate, I referred to the intensity of consultations and visits in recent months. The months ahead will be even more active. Not only shall we be in the Presidency of the European Community, but the wider international agenda is extremely full. In July the Prime Minister will attend the seven-Power economic summit in Ottawa. In the autumn there will be the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Australia and the North-South Summit in Mexico.
Each of these meetings has its distinctive agenda, but they all to some extent overlap. The fabric of the international community is being woven more and more closely together. Britain is called upon to play an important part in this multi-dimensional diplomacy. In addition to material resources, creative diplomacy relies on trust, judgment, imagination and boldness. These are qualities which we feel able to provide. The record of the

285
past two years shows that our diplomacy does indeed have the strength and resources to make a real and valued contribution to the world.
4.20 pm
Mr. Denis Healey: It is not easy to be disappointed by the Lord Privy Seal, but I am sorry to tell him that I am a little disappointed this afternoon. I was expecting to get from him some information about the Government's policy on the issues which he named, but all we had was a tired recitation of communiqués we have already read, laced with a flaccid recitation of threadbare Central Office briefs about the Labour Party. As the poet said, the time will come when worms will try that well-preserved velleity.
We are having this debate—the first one of this parliamentary Session—at a time when the state of the world is more dangerous than it has been at any time since the Second World War, although the danger of war is not essentially in Europe. The crisis in Poland still looms over us, and I agree with the Lord Privy Seal that if the Soviet Union were to intervene by force we should have to say goodbye to any hope of detente for a long time. But whatever happens in Poland is unlikely to lead to war between East and West. We have a strong interest in giving economic help to Poland; if we had not rescheduled the debt recently the Western banking system would have collapsed. There is not much point in taking moral credit for that, but we have a moral obligation to Poland. We must not forget that Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered Poland at the end of the Second World War into the Soviet sphere of influence without getting Poland's agreement or consulting Poland. Let us not forget in this House, which has discussed the matter on so many occasions during the past 30 years, that we have some direct responsibilities to Poland that we cannot shrug off.
Europe has enjoyed, and still enjoys, 32 years of uninterrupted peace, thanks to the existence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which I am happy to tell the right hon. Gentleman, as he asked me about this, is overwhelmingly supported by the Labour Party. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman might unfold his limbs and raise himself to his feet if he wants to ask questions. I will answer them before they come.
The Labour Party also supports the NATO strategy of deterrence. We must accept that the political tensions in Europe since 1945 have been such as would, at any other period in world history, certainly have led to war. Such tensions did lead to war less than half a century ago, and in that war 50 million people were killed by conventional weapons. I find it difficult to understand why people welcome the prospect of conventional war when they find nuclear security so terrible.
The conventional weapons available to the world today are far more terrible than those which were available in the last world war. It is vital to maintain the security which we have enjoyed for the past 35 years and the conditions which have made it possible. We must accept—I was disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to this—that security based on balance of terror is bound to be at risk so long as the arms race continues. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman must be as conscious as anyone in the House—he has been Minister of Defence—that the cost of maintaining security in a continuing arms race is intolerably high, particularly for Britain.
286
I hope that the Minister who is to reply will tell us how much truth there is in the report in The Daily Telegraph today that the Government are engaged in a major defence review in which their contribution to NATO both in Germany and the Eastern Atlantic is an issue, and whether the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), who wrote a fascinating piece in The Daily Telegraph today, is right in describing the situation that has been reached so far in the discussions inside the Ministry of Defence.
It is impossible for this country, or any country, to continue to maintain its security at an acceptable cost if the arms race continues. Therefore, effective initiatives to control and reverse the arms race must be an indispensable element in any Government's policy. I was disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman had practically nothing whatever to say about that.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Nonsense.
Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman had very little to say about it. Anyone can verify that by reading Hansard tomorrow.
The immediate threat to world peace lies not inside but outside Europe, where 10 million people have died and many more have been rendered hopeless over the period when Europe has enjoyed unparalleled peace and security. The origin of the conflicts in which those 10 million people have died, mainly in the Third world, does not and did not lie in the conflict between East and West, although on many occasions either the Soviet Union or the Western Powers decided to intervene in these conflicts.
Fighting is going on now in Southern, Central and Eastern Africa, 'in South Arabia, between Iraq and Iran, in the Lebanon, Afghanistan and Kampuchea, and there is an imminent threat of fighting beginning in some countries in South America. This morning we read the horrifying news in The Times that 22,000 people have been killed in tiny El Salvador since the beginning of last year.
These wars and conflicts outside Europe not only carry appalling costs in human life and suffering, costs which are being paid all over the world by thousands of men., women and children; they also create the risk that they may drag the great Powers into confrontation with one another. That risk is particularly great in a period when there has been an important change of government in Washington, and when we must all expect an imminent change in Moscow. I want to concentrate my remarks on the implications of the change that has taken place in Washington and the change that may take place in Moscow for the instability in the Third world, which is the main threat to peace.
In talking to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs recently, the Foreign Secretary referred to the long period required before the new American Administration will crystallise their policies. Having visited Washington after every Presidential election since the war, I cannot remember a slower transition than the present one. Half the people who are charged with responsibility in the State Department have not even been nominated, never mind confirmed, by Congress.
There is a worrying and unresolved conflict proceeding between the Conservative ideologies in Washington and the Conservative pragmatists. That is reflected in the confusion of American policy in most of the Third world areas—in Central America, Southern Africa and the

287
Middle East—and on the overriding problem of disarmament and arms control. If the ideologues were to win the argument in Washington, their policies would render the current instability in the Third world far more dangerous than it is even today. It would present great dangers to world peace and to the unity of our alliance. I must confess that even the pragmatists in Washington seriously exaggerate the role of the Soviet Union in the instability of the Third world and are dangerously insensitive to the local and regional factors which determine what happens in most of these areas.
In Moscow the situation is rather different. We still have in power an elderly leadership which faces the failure of its economic policies both for industry and for agriculture, which faces the imminent collapse of its system of control in Eastern Europe, which has trapped itself in a colonial war in Afghanistan on its southern frontier and which is increasingly worried by the difficulty of divining what American policy on all these issues is or might become.
What struck me most in talking to some Soviet representatives recently was the way in which they look back—this may surprise some of my hon. Friends—on the age of Nixon and Kissinger as a golden age. So it was by comparison with the last few years. If we could restore co-operation between East and West to the level at which it existed under the last Republican Administration, all the problems to which I have referred would be that bit easier to deal with. To restore relations between East and West to that level now could be decisive in persuading the next generation of Soviet leaders to seek their security by co-operation rather than confrontation with the Western Powers.
As it is, the process of co-operation between the West and the Soviet Union has completely stopped, as the right hon. Gentleman said. There has been no movement in this area since President Reagan took office. There was a good deal of movement after the invasion of Afghanistan right up to the date in November when President Reagan's election was announced. There has been no progress on disarmament. On the contrary, both sides in the conflict are embarking on a new cycle of the arms race. When all this is happening in relations between East and West, the combination of the increase in oil prices and the deflationary response of the industrial countries is pushing the developing world into bankruptcy and increasing social and political strains throughout the West.
Unless rapid action is taken—by that I mean action in a matter of months, not years—at least to finance the growing deficits in the Third world which in 1981 are likely to amount to over 90 per cent. of the whole of the OPEC surplus, about $80,000 million, many parts of the Third world will face mass starvation within the next 12 months, and we risk also seeing the collapse of the private banking system on the scale of the collapse in 1929.
I was heartened to see that the magnificent lobby on the Brandt report yesterday produced at least a change of rhetoric from the Government. The Minister of State put the best face on the disastrous policies of his Government in this affair, and so did one of his colleagues in the Foreign Office. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will put to the Foreign Secretary that he should bestire himself to exert effective pressure both on the Treasury and on No. 10 to take these issues seriously.
288
We need desperately to provide more aid to the developing world, more help to the Internaional Bank for Reconstruction and Development and more help to the International Monetary Fund for recycling. There is no sign, and has not been for two years, that the Treasury takes these issues seriously. Within a few weeks the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to meet his colleagues at the interim committee in Gabon which is where the issues of the IMF and the International Bank must be discussed. In July the Prime Minister will meet her colleagues at the summit in Ottawa. I hope that the Foreign Office will exert some influence on the briefs which are provided for these meetings since I see no sign whatever that the Treasury or No. 10 will help.
The modest target which my right hon. Friend set himself in speaking to the Brandt report yesterday—that is, to restore the cuts of 15 per cent. in our aid programme carried out by the Government against the increase in aid of 30 per cent. promised by the Labour Party and to move before the end of this Parliament to the 0·7 per cent. of GDP in international aid—is something to which the Government should commit themselves if they are interested in the problems which the Foreign Secretary at least has described so eloquently in talking to the Select Committee.
I should like to look at the background to the specific problems which the right hon. Gentleman enumerated. First, I agree with what I think was behind what he said, namely, that the European countries, not just those in the European Community but others such as Norway, Sweden and Austria, can play a decisive role in helping the pragmatists to win the battle in Washington and also help them to see some of the realities more clearly because there is still much to be done in that area, too. Many European leaders have contributed to a crystallising of American policies in these areas over the last few months, particularly the German Chancellor and Foreign Secretary, the Austrian Chancellor and our own Foreign Secretary, to whom I pay tribute.
The Community has played very little part in this because it has been distracted from these important world affairs by the need to remedy the patent inadequacy both of its rules and institutions which were established in the Treaty of Rome. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would agree—certainly the Prime Minister would—that they are proving as inappropriate to the problems facing Western Europe in the 1980s as the institutions of the Communist bloc in Eastern Europe are appropriate to them. It is vitally necessary to get them changed quickly to produce a much looser and more flexible framework for policy making based on a fair sharing of the burden and the right of national Governments to decide their own policies.
I was glad that in an interview on Sunday the Prime Minister promised a long drawn out battle on the refashioning of the budget. I hope that she still believes in a battle to refashion the common agricultural policy as well. While these battles are proceeding, we must seek closer co-operation with our European allies on the international issues where we clearly have an interest in common. That means essentially co-operation on the problems which Europe faces vis-a-vis its ally the United States and vis-a-vis the Soviet Union.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing that it will be easier to find effective

289
co-operation with our European partners if we are not prepared on our side to play any part in a meaningful common agricultural policy, which he knows perfectly well is a sine qua non for effective co-operation on the part of more than one of our European partners?
Mr. Healey: I can only answer by saying that if the hon. Gentleman means that effective international political action by the countries in Europe depends on Britain and Germany soaking their consumers to pay a grossly unfair bribe to the electors of France, Holland and Denmark so that politicians in those countries can buy their farmers' votes, I disagree with him. I believe that most Germans agree with me and not with him about the matter. That is why the German Chancellor has so often promised, but delivered, I fear, slightly less often, to join us in refashioning completely the common agricultural policy.
Mr. Dennis Walters rose——
Mr. Healey: I should like to continue for a while.
The Foreign Secretary will agree, I think, that the real problem is that his efforts are continually frustrated by interventions from the Prime Minister. On all the major issues I have described, the right hon. Lady has identified herself with the tendencies that the Foreign Secretary is trying to defeat. On her visit to Washington recently, she argued in favour of the neutron bomb just at the moment when the United States Administration were deciding to drop it——
Dr. M. S. Miller: Not to produce it.
Mr. Healey: —not to produce it. She played to the gallery, both in Washington and in New York, of the extreme Right wing. She played a sort of dual role, half John Wayne and half Calamity Jane, blazing away with her six-shooter at targets of opportunity and of the most vulgar opportunistic opportunity. I am glad to say that she shot herself in the foot over the rapid deployment force by appearing to offer a degree of support which is practically impossible for the United Kingdom and which scared the whole of the Gulf out of its wits.
On her visit to India, the right hon. Lady reduced our relations with India to their lowest ever level, as The Times of India pointed out in a blistering editorial. She even got a slap on the wrist from The Times of London—which was something—by pandering to racialism with her talk of immigrants pouring into this country. On her visit to the Gulf, if she did succeed, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, in appeasing the hostility that she herself had created by her speeches in Washington, she did so only by offering to pour more arms into an area already unstable and already bulging with more armaments than it could conceivably need.
In the run-up to the Maastricht summit——
Viscount Cranborne: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Healey: I shall be delighted to give way when I have finished this little exordium.
In the run-up to the Maastricht summit, the right hon. Lady's behaviour led the German Chancellor to accuse her of deceit. She forced the summit to spend a meeting that should have been devoted to discussing the major issues of Poland, the Middle East, detente and disarmament into discussing a week's fishing for 1,000 fishermen from Hamburg in Canadian waters. She has been at it again.
290
Perhaps the Lord Privy Seal did not read, or perhaps his officials did not dare show him, her interview in The Sunday Times where she had another bash at Chancellor Schmidt. After referring to his promise to help her on the budget, she said:
"It does no good your saying that to me and then retreating."
What a helpful diplomatist she is. How much the Lord Privy Seal, with his well-known delicacy, must appreciate her assistance on these matters.
Sir Ian Gilmour: If the fishing issue is as unimportant as the right hon. Gentleman makes out, does that mean that he would have given way? I should like to correct hint. The idea that the Prime Minister forced the summit conference to spend a lot of time on the issue is not true. My right hon. Friend did not even bring up the matter.
Mr. Healey: All that I can say is that the right hon. Lady could have fooled me. That is not the impression that I gained when I talked to many of the German protagonists in the discussion when I had the pleasure of attending the Königswinter meeting with the right hon. Gentleman's Parliamentary Private Secretary a few days later. I can see, as I know the right hon. Gentleman can see, why Chancellor Schmidt and even President Giscard d'Estaing refer to the Prime Minister as a rhinoceros. I mentioned this fact when I was Shadow Chancellor. What has struck me is that the Foreign Secretary seems to be her zookeeper. He is dragged away continually from the delicate, diplomatic task of feeding the marmosets by the news that Rhoda the rhino is on the rampage again. The poor fellow has to put down his pipette, or whatever it is that one uses to feed marmosets, and follow a trail of wrecked cars, shattered shop windows and bent lamp posts, until he finally tracks her down in the middle of some great store where the counters are overturned, the goods are strewn over the floor and the sales staff are clinging to the tops of pillars. I must pay the Foreign Secretary credit. By some magic, or pitchfork, he manages to lead her back to her pen, past the flamingo pool where the Lord Privy Seal is standing immobile, elegant and elongated, his long leg in the water, pink and wet, we have always known.
Viscount Cranborne: Is it right that the right hon. Gentleman implied that he would not have sold Hawk aircraft to the UAE? If not, will he explain his reason to the workers in the factories that manufacture those aircraft?
Mr. Healey: I am coming to that issue. I want, against this background, to take in order the issues that the Lord Privy Seal has raised. I refer first to the dog that did not bark in the night. What is happening in Central America, to which the right hon. Gentleman chose not to refer? I suggest that the British Government have a special interest in what happens in Central America. I congratulate the Government on being on the brink of bringing about a settlement of the problem of Belize, which has troubled many Governments over a long period.
I must tell the Lord Privy Seal that the Opposition believe that the United States must forthwith cease giving military aid to the junta in El Salvador. We know from too many painful reports that the aid is used only to massacre the innocent and to drive more of the population of El Salvador into the arms of the extremists. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also mention to the American Administration that they must put an end to the training

291
of terrorists for the death squads in Florida. All hon. Members know that this is going on. There is no excuse for a Government, especially a Government who accuse the Soviet Union of organising international terrorism, allowing that type of training to continue on American soil.
The Government should support the initiative, now publicly taken by the Governments of Mexico and Venezuela, for talks to end the civil war. I understand that President Duarte has expressed himself in favour of such talks, as has the Revolutionary Front. The major German parties, the SPD and the CDU, have played a big role in helping to bring them about. I hope that the British Government will lend all their support to the efforts now being made unofficially in Germany and officially by Mexico and Venezuela to produce a peaceful end to that terrifying conflict. It will not be successful if the United States continues to supply arms to a junta that is trying to prevent its own Prime Minister, President Duarte, from pursuing the talks.
I suggest also that the Government should ask the United States to cease the bullying of Nicaragua. I hope that there is no truth in reports that I have seen in the last day that the United States plans again to send arms to the junta in Guatemala. I can think of nothing that would be more damaging to the prospects of success for the settlement in Belize, for which the Government deserve genuine credit.
I wish to say a word about South Africa. The veto cast by the Government, along with the French and United States Governments, on sanctions against South Africa has been a tragic disaster, especially after the Foreign Secretary had said in public that he was not committed to a veto. I raised that matter several times in questions some months ago. Whether the Lord Privy Seal likes it or not, he cannot deny that the Western Powers have now lost the confidence of Black Africa, because they are thought to have surrendered to American pressure.
The Lord Privy Seal told us—I hope that it is true—that the casting of the veto does not imply any change in Western policy. I hope that he can assure us that the statement by Mr. Chester Crocker when he was in Africa, that resolution 235 was dead in the water, is untrue and does not represent American policy.
I hope that the Lord Privy Seal can persuade the United States Administration that if they want to get Cuban troops out of Angola, as we all must, the way to do that is to obtain independence for Namibia. If the American Administration were to support the forces of Mr. Savimbe in Namibia, that would guarantee the permanent presence and reinforcement of Cuban troops in Angola.
When the Minister of State replies to the debate, will he answer a question which the Foreign Secretary promised to answer when he was talking to the Select Committee but only after notice. What is our information about the number of Cuban troops in Angola? Are they being increased or reduced? The Foreign Secretary said that he would have liked to answer the question, but he was not sure whether he was able to do so when the Select Committee questioned him.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I have just returned from South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman has condemned the British, American and French Governments for using the
292
veto. Bearing in mind the enormous amount of trade, investment and jobs in this country that are dependent on our business with South Africa, would the Labour Party be in favour of a ban on trade or investment in that country?
Mr. Healey: When I was Chancellor of the Exchequer—I agree that that was over two years ago—we conducted a study on the importance of trade with South Africa for Britain compared with trade with black Africa. We came to the conclusion that trade with black Africa was significantly more important. Moreover, we note from our experience with Nigeria under this Government that our trade with black Africa can be at stake if we behave in ways which the black Africans consider to be inconsistent with their position.
Mr. Douglas Hurd rose——
Mr. Healey: I shall give way in a moment.
If the Lord Privy Seal is right and the black Africans passed the resolution for sanctions only because they knew that we would veto it, why did we not let them know that we were not going to veto it, and then they would not have passed that resolution? What did the Foreign Secretary say?
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman was asked a civil question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) which I was about to ask. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Labour Party is now in favour of the imposition of economic sanctions against South Africa?
Mr. Healey: The answer is "Yes", with regard to the Namibian question. If the South African Government were to change their policy in Namibia—that policy was changed against the will of the British Government—[Interruption.] I would support it, and I am saying that for the reason that I have just explained. Both the long-term and immediate interests of Britain in trade with black Africa are greater, not less than, its interest in South Africa. We conducted a careful study of that when we were in power. My right hon. Friends who were then in office will know that to be so. Since then our stake in trade with South Africa has increased, not decreased.
I agree with what I believe the right hon. Gentleman was implying about the Middle East, that there can be no peace there until there is a solution of the Palestine problem. There will be no solution of the Palestine problem without the implication of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. I agree that that organisation must accept the existence of Israel as a State with secure frontiers. On that issue there is probably no difference between the two Front Benches, although I know that there are many hon. Members on the Back Benches who would disagree with what I have said.
I am worried about one matter. Western policy in the Middle East has been waiting for the elections in Israel, in the belief that following them negotiations might be made easier. That is an assumption that we can no longer take for granted, because Mr. Begin has had some success in seeking votes through the ruthless exploitation of greed, chauvinism and even, latterly, racism. I hope that the whole House will join me in deeply deploring the remarks that have been made in the last two days by Mr. Begin, purely for electoral purposes, about Germany's people and

293
its Chancellor. I hope that Mr. Begin and the Israeli people will accept that such behaviour can only isolate Israel from the rest of the world, to their great disadvantage.
The most urgent problem in the Middle East is that of the Lebanon, where in recent days there has been a risk of war between Israel and Syria. That is perhaps not unconnected with the coming elections in Israel. The only real gleam of hope in the international scene arises from the fact that the United States has sent out a special emissary to try to persuade the Israeli Government to shift their policy. At the same time the Soviet Union has sent an emissary to Damascus to try to persuade—I assume—the Syrian Government to adjust their policy. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has any information on the matter. I hope that that suggests a recognition by Washington and Moscow that they have a common interest in the stability of the Middle East, and that neither has any interest in its continuing instability.
If that is so, can we not go a little further and persuade the two great Powers to deal with some of the causes of instability in the Middle East, one of which—I accept that it is by no means the only one—is the continuing arms race, not only between Israel and the Arabs, but between one Arab country and another, and between Iran and some of her Arab neighbours?
Nothing would do more good for stability in the Middle East than an agreement between Russia and the Western countries to limit and control arms supplies to the Middle East and also to limit and control arms supplies to India and Pakistan, because there is now a danger that the arms race in those areas, which has so far been largely in the conventional area, will take a new turn in the next few years with the production of atomic weapons by Arab countries, Isreal, India and Pakistan. There is little time left to deal with that problem. However, determined action by the West and the Soviet Union could help to head off the danger. I say no more than that. Such an agreement may not succeed in heading off the danger, but everyone has an immense common interest in urgent action on that problem. I believe that from that seed and from action on those problems in the Middle East and the Indian Sub-continent other plants could grow.
I hope at least for an agreement to limit political competition in both areas. I hope, too, that the Government were as encouraged as I was by Mrs. Gandhi's reported remarks in an interview with a Kuwaiti newspaper the other day, strongly asking the Russians to leave Afghanistan in order to prevent competition between the great Powers from moving into South-West Asia. Most important of all, the beginning of co-operation on urgent and immediate problems that are common to East and West might enable us to start dealing more purposefully with the central strategic balance—the arms race between East and West.
I applaud the Government's support of the French proposal for confidence-building measures. It also has the Opposition's support. I hope that the recent NATO council meeting in Rome means that the West will take visible and effective initiatives well before the end of the year to reduce and control theatre nuclear weapons in Europe. I was interested to see that the Lord Privy Seal accepted that the 1979 decision on the deployment of cruise and Pershing missiles was made on the assumption that SALT II would be ratified and enforced before the new weapons were deployed in 1983.
294
I hope that there is no truth in newspaper stories that the United States Administration are developing new intercontinental nuclear weapons—not only the MX, but a new light missile. It is not good enough to say that the strategic arms limitation talks are for America and the Soviet Union. When we were in power we were deeply involved in consultation with the United States on its position. Progress in the talks is a vital British interest. The failure to ratify SALT II damages Britain and every other country. The Government have a responsibility to use their influence to the maximum to get the treaty ratified and to make progress as quickly as possible on SALT III.
Europe can make a decisive contribution by insisting to the United States that new steps in defence must be accompanied by steps towards detente and disarmament, and by insisting to the Soviet Union that if it fails to respond positively to Western initiatives on detente it cannot expect the West not to proceed with new defence measures.
Although the Lord Privy Seal may find elements of my speech difficult to agree with—at any rate in public—I suspect that there is not a great deal of difference between himself, the Foreign Secretary and the Opposition Front Bench on the main thrust of our ideas. The fringe movements that have their mayfly existence for a month or two and then flicker out and disappear may also agree. As long as the Lord Privy Seal and the Foreign Secretary fight to overcome opposition to our common ideas from No. 10 and the Treasury, they will have our support on foreign policy. If they could overcome that opposition on domestic issues, they would have our support there, too.
5.3 pm
Mr. Julian Amery: In the closing passages of an incisive if not illuminating speech, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said that rearmament should at every step be accompanied by a show of readiness to accept arms control and to work for detente—but how long is that to continue? We have had Afghanistan. We have had unacceptable pressures placed on Poland. The Soviet Union does not need to invade Poland. She is there already and in control of its main communications. We have a level of Soviet rearmament unexampled since the war.
I do not object to the fact that, in the Rome communiqué, the United States Administration should have been pressed by their European allies to accept the idea of resuming arms control talks on theatre nuclear weapons this year, but it is shaming that we were obliged to ask the Americans to get European Governments off the hook because of a failure of democratic leadership. The spectacle of statesmen on their knees to their electors, with an ear to the ground, is unedifying. Their bottoms are in the air, which is undignified and vulnerable.
The right hon. Gentleman devoted much of his speech to Africa and the Middle East. For two reasons I, too, shall concentrate on those areas. First, there is increasing agreement that the threat of Soviet imperialist expansion is most likely to develop in the Middle East. It may also exert considerable pressure on events in Central and Southern Africa. Secondly, in those areas there may be differences of opinion between the United States Administration and the European Governments, which could become dangerous if they are allowed to grow.
A school of thought that the right hon. Gentleman voiced is that the real danger in those areas comes from

295
subversion arising from local problems rather than from direct military aggression, some months ago the Foreign Secretary also gave comfort to that view. If that were so, the response should be political instead of military, and we should give the lead in solving local problems rather than deploying armed forces, I believe that that is a cosy view, designed to allow us to escape from the obligations and sacrifices involved, physically, financially and diplomatically, in deploying military forces. In any case, the distinction is unreal.
Over the past six or seven years, subversion has been at most the preparation for military intervention. In Angola, the Soviets helped the MPLA—now the present regime—to build up. But it would never have been able to retain power without direct military intervention by regular Cuban forces, assisted by Soviet and East Germans. Nor would it hold its power today without that force. In Ethiopia, Colonel Mengistu headed a revolution— a subversion, if one prefers. He would long ago have been destabilised and overthrown by the combined efforts of Somalia, the Eritreans and the internal Ethiopian opposition had not regular Cuban forces been deployed with Soviet and East German elements attached. The great Soviet base in Aden did not come about by subversion, except in the initial invitation. The initial Taraki coup in Afghanistan could be said to be subversion, but it could not have been maintained without the occupation of eight or nine Red Army divisions.
Those were all military victories; and they call for a military response. That is not so say that we should not use our best endeavours to settle local problems, but it is idle to believe that a settlement of the Palestinian or Namibian problems would exorcise the Soviet threat to the Middle East or to Southern Africa. On the other hand, the converse may be true, that a full military deployment can provide in itself the backing for diplomatic efforts to bring about the settlement of local problems.
Taking first the Middle East, the main threat in the Levant, in the Western part of the Middle East, comes from Soviet influence exercised through Syria and to some extent through the Palestine Liberation Organisation. It has been reduced by the Camp David agreement between Israel and Egypt and will be further reduced if, as seems to be the case, the Americans have succeeded in achieving agreement with Egypt and Israel for the establishment of American forces in the Sinai as an element of the peace-keeping force. I believe that that development is of the greatest importance.
I cannot help but express once again to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal my regret at the lukewarm attitude that we have consistently adopted towards the reconciliation of Egypt and Israel. We are dealing here with the two strongest military powers and the two most advanced, if not the wealthiest, economies in the area. No country has done more than ours to bring about the creation of the State of Israel or the creation of modern Egypt as we know it today. In spite of its present isolation in the Arab world, Egypt remains by far the most important cultural and political influence in that area.
Yet when it comes to a peacekeeping force in Sinai, participation by Britain is not even considered. That is most regrettable. If we were there, we should have far
296
more say in the development of events in the Middle East than we shall achieve by any declarations made by the Grand Canal.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Lebanese crisis is the focal point at the moment. It arises from the determination of the Syrians to crush the Christian community in the Lebanon. Secretary Haig has described the Syrian action as "brutal". If press reports that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are cutting off their subsidies to the Syrian element in the Arab Defence Force are true, this suggests that Mr. Haig's work has already begun to bear fruit and that there is some co-ordination of American and conservative Arab diplomacies. I have not yet seen any British statement supporting what Secretary Haig has said. I hope that we may get it from the Minister of State tonight. Certainly, it is scandalous that no voice has been raised in Rome or in Canterbury in favour of one of the oldest Christian communities in the world and that it has been left to Israel to stand up for our co-religionists.
The far graver, although less immediate, threat is to the Gulf. It comes fron the Soviet presence on the Northern border of Iran, in Afghanistan, only 300 miles from the straits of Hormuz. It comes also from the Soviet presence in Aden and in the Horn of Africa. Clearly, the first answer here must be the rapid deployment force. The countries between the North of the Gulf and the Horn have small populations and cannot be expected to exercise a great influence on the course of events, as they themselves are the first to admit. We must welcome the decision of Kenya, Somalia and Oman to help the Americans in setting up the rapid deployment force. I pay special tribute to the Sultan of Oman for his courage in being prepared to enable the Western powers to use the island of Masira, so incontinently and improvidently thrown away by the Labour Government only a year or so before the Gulf crisis came to a head.
I say emphatically that Britain must make a major contribution to the rapid deployment force. The right hon. Gentleman rather scorned what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on this in Washington. In my judgment, she was quite right to say what she did, just as Mr. Haig was quite right to say what he did during his recent tour of the Middle East. The immediate and public reaction from some of the Arab countries should not dismay her or the United States. It is natural that those countries should adopt a rather cool attitude towards the proposals when first put forward. They do not yet know how strong the force will be or how soon it can be deployed. In the Middle East, one has to live for the day. One cannot plan very far ahead.
Naturally, those Governments do not wish to provoke either their opponents at home or the Soviet Union. It is also natural that they should wish to obtain a good price for their co-operation, but the Saudis know very well that they are wholly dependent on the United States for their survival, and their actions speak much louder than their words. Their keenness to acquire modern American weapons systems and the men who will maintain and operate them over several years shows clearly where they stand. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have been left in no doubt about this in the private talks that they had during their visit. Perhaps the Minister of State can also enlighten us a little more about the course of the visit in which he took part.

297
I suppose that it is also natural that in an election year, the Israelis should be critical of the American proposal to sell advanced weapons to the Saudis, I think that they are wrong in this. The more widely the United States is involved in the Middle East, the sooner the Saudis will be reconciled with Cairo and involved in the peace process themselves.
The immediate crisis in the Middle East comes from the Iran-Iraq war, which at present is at stalemate. But the situation may change suddenly, and the consequences could be unpredictable. The Ayatollah's regime is inherently unstable and will collapse—possibly soon. When it does, this may open the door to the Soviet penetration towards the Gulf against which even President Carter warned in unmistakable terms. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it is urgent to develop a Western policy to prevent this. It is not easy to say what it should be, and this is certainly not the arena in which to discuss these matters. It may be tempting to wait and see, but inaction could lead to an accomplished fact. Once the Soviets are installed on the North shore of the Gulf, it will be very difficult to secure their withdrawal.
By comparison with the immediate Lebanese crisis and the crisis in the Gulf resulting from the Iran-Iraq war, the Palestinian problem seems much less urgent, but it is deep-seated and deep-rooted, and it is not just a local problem. It reverberates through the Middle East. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, whose links with the Palestine Liberation Organisation are well known, are right to emphasise the importance of the problem. I am glad to note that both have somewhat changed their emphasis since the Reagan Administration came to power and have been putting rather more pressure on Mr. Arafat to recognise the rights of Israel to secure and recognised boundaries.
The only reservation that I would express about the views that my right hon. Friends have publicly stated concerns the PLO. The Palestine Liberation Organisation is not a State, and it is not an organisation. It is a movement. Like all movements, it is many-faced and has many links, not least with Moscow. It is often said that the PLO is not basically pro-Soviet, but works with Moscow only because it has no Western backing. There may be some truth in that, but we are entitled to suggest that Mr. Arafat takes a leaf out of President Sadat's book. Egypt fought three wars against Israel with Soviet support. In each of them, it failed altogether to achieve its objectives.
It was a mark of the statesmanship of President Sadat that he learned his lesson, broke with the Russians and turned to the United States. As a result, he has secured all of Egypt's objectives without striking a blow. We have a right to tell Mr. Arafat that he cannot expect us to support him until he first breaks with Moscow and makes it plain to us that he will no longer be on the other side.
Here is the rub. The leaders and the chief components of the PLO are physically situated in Lebanon and Syria. Inevitably, they are under the considerable pressure of Syrian and Soviet control. To involve the PLO as principals—that is what the Venice declaration suggested—in a settlement of the Palestine question would, in present circumstances, be to bring in the Soviets through the back door.
I know that some people hold that we cannot get a settlement of the Middle Eastern problem without Soviet participation. That is a tenable view—it is the view of Mr. Cy Vance—but in the context of American-Soviet
298
relations today, it is wholly unrealistic to seek that kind of approach to a settlement. To do so would mean abandoning any possibility of a settlement for a long time to come.
I wonder whether we would not do better to seek a more localised approach to a settlement rather than a general approach. Resolution 242 commits the Israelis to withdraw at any rate from most of the territories occupied on the West Bank and Gaza. Camp David commits them to some form of autonomous regime for those areas. Therefore, should we not encourage them to negotiate either with the previous owners—in the case of the West Bank, Jordan—or with such local representatives as may emerge as a result of the autonomous development? Let those negotiating parties between them decide how, and at what level, to bring in the PLO. That is an approach, and I can say no more about it. My own personal view is that we shall make very little progress towards a settlement until an American presence has been much more firmly established in the area than it is today.
Such a presence will be the basic condition of confidence between Israelis and Arabs. Even today, I do not think that the Israelis would leave the bit of Sinai from which they are due to withdraw before April next year if there was not an American component in the peacekeeping force in Sinai. Similar considerations apply much more strongly to the relationship between Israel and its Arab neighbours to the east. Meanwhile, I hope that the Government will accept that the Palestine problem is not yet ripe for solution and that they will perhaps be wise to keep it on the back burner.
I should like to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) on the African problem. Whether we like it or not, we are in for a new relationship with South Africa. We cannot deploy substantial naval, air and land forces in the Indian Ocean without ensuring their communications with the Atlantic ocean and both seaboards of the Atlantic.
Only South Africa offers the harbours, air fields and industrial equipment which could make such communication possible.
Mr. Healey: I know this argument very well. I could scarcely not do so as an ex-Secretary of State for Defence. However, the present Secretary of State for Defence has made it very clear that the Government have no intention whatever of deploying substantial naval forces in the Indian Ocean; therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's whole argument falls.
Mr. Amery: I was talking about the West as a whole Our American friends have made it perfectly clear that they will deploy substantial forces. If they are to have a new relationship with South Africa, as they will inevitably do, we shall find it very difficult not to follow suit if we are to have an element attached to the rapid deployment force. A new relationship is inevitable. It is not a question of whether we like it. It is something that is now written into the new geopolitical development which has taken place since the Reagan Administration came to power. It is ironic and regrettable that the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member should have thrown away the trump card of Simonstown at a time when it might have been extremely useful and advantageous to Britain. This strategic interest which the West is bound to develop from now on will be compounded by our existing dependence on South African minerals.

299
We should be doubly concerned to prevent the destabilisation of South Africa from outside. That is not say that we should condone apartheid. On the contrary, a greater involvement in South Africa will give us both the right and the interest to press the South Africans for timely reforms. However, it means that we can no longer sit on the sidelines and condone Soviet-inspired subversion of Central and Southern Africa, as we did in Zimbabwe and are still doing in Namibia.
This new relationship will not be very popular with some of the countries of black Africa, but the Americans have made it clear that they will not be made to choose between black and white Africa. Nor should we. The black States of Central and Southern Africa need the West—and, for that matter, South Africa—much more than we need them. The situation to the north of the Republic is pretty grim. In Angola, there is civil war and a Cuban garrison. In Mozambique, there is civil war, with Soviet gunboats coming to the rescue when the Government there are shown up for what they are worth by a small South African raid. The heads of Zambia and Zimbabwe are just kept above water by massive injections of Western aid. Tanzania is a slum, there is anarchy in Uganda and there is no chance of massive aid from Moscow.
The West and South Africa perhaps represent the only possible locomotive which could pull Central and Southern Africa out of the grim consequences of premature decolonisation.
Dr. M. S. Miller: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman might say a little more about apartheid in South Africa. Is it enough merely to say that we are against apartheid and to do nothing whatever to try to impress upon the South Africans the fact that they must give us a clear indication that they will dismantle effectively the brutal and inhuman policy of apartheid?
Mr. Amery: It would have been easier, had we had a friendlier relationship with South Africa in the past, to work towards a reform of the system. The march of events will now oblige us in any case to establish a new relationship with it, but my hope is that that relationship will give us both the right and the interest to try to help it reform its system in the light of a closer understanding of the situation that prevails.
Against that background, I must ask whether we are right to give as high a priority to a Namibian settlement as my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal appeared to do in his speech, because it is a settlement which is likely to bring SWAPO to power, even with such paper guarantees as are now being discussed for the minorities. This is a vast, rich, strategically placed and under-populated territory. At present it is pretty stable. I was in the operational zone in the autumn. It is by no means operational for those who saw the operational situation in Zimbabwe. From what I saw of them, the operations are insignificant.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that about 18 months or two years ago he told the House in the same solemn tones how he had just returned from Rhodesia, how everything was under control and how insignificant events were taking place there? The right hon. Gentleman strains our credibility too much.
Mr. Amery: If the hon. Gentleman would do me the courtesy of consulting Hansard he would see that I did not say that the operations were insignificant. I said that I thought that the Salisbury Government were still on top of them. I do not want to rehash the Rhodesia/Zimbabwe debate today, but I take nothing back. I still believe that the decision and course that we took was mistaken.
The Foreign Minister of Angola has said that if Namibia is settled on the United Nations basis, the Cubans will be withdrawn from Angola. I see that Mr. Brezhnev told Mr. Waldheim yesterday that if there were no more outside intervention in Afghanistan, the Russians would withdraw from it. That is a pretty flimsy basis for a policy in a vital part of the world. We would do better to leave well alone and to give some encouragement and help to Mr. Savimbi.
As regards the Namibia problem, the right hon. Member for Devonport (Dr. Owen) and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary were anxious to avoid the risk of a confrontation with the Russians when they could count on little or no support from the United States of America. At the time, I thought that their fears were exaggerated and I said as much. The lines of communication between the Soviet Union and Southern Africa are too tenuous and their local allies too weak. However, the situation today is different. The age of Cy Vance, Andy Young, and McHenry has gone. A completely different attitude prevails in the United States of America. If we adopted a more robust attitude towards Southern Africa we could get the Americans to stand with us and to give us their help in the same way as we would give them ours.
In the last few years I have come close to despair, as I watched the Carter Administration and successive British Governments—both Labour and Conservative—retreat in the face of Soviet imperialism, from one important area or another. I have seen the West run down its defences, while the Soviets have built up theirs on an unprecedented scale. This policy of appeasement, inspired by good intentions, defeatism or lack of understanding, has brought us to the brink of catastrophe. The balance of power has moved in favour of the Soviets and will inexorably continue to do so for some years to come. As a result, the prospects for peace are more fragile than at any time since the war and the danger to our survival is great. We may have to pay a heavy price for the years which the locusts have eaten.
There is a new hope and opportunity. The American people seem to have shaken off the defeatism of Vietnam and of Watergate. The Reagan Administration seem determined to restore a favourable balance of power. They are concerned to have sufficient strength overall—and at any vital point—to deter aggression. They are also concerned to give diplomacy the backing it needs to roll back the aggressor.
That determination is shown not only in speeches, but in the latest American defence budget and in America's commitment to the rapid deployment force. But the task is too great for the United States of America to carry alone. Europe must play its part and that includes us. We have the means. Collectively, we are richer than the Americans. Our interests and those of Japan are more in the front line than those of the United States of America. Japan should also play a part, or make at least a financial contribution.
For the first time since President Truman there is an opportunity of wholehearted support from an American Administration. If we fail to grasp that opportunity—whether from fear or from failure to lead our

301
peoples—we can hardly complain if voices are raised in the United States calling for isolationism or for a new Yalta settlement between the super powers. It is not easy to turn about British foreign policy. The habits of appeasement are ingrained. However, we must achieve an about-turn. I hope that I do not need to say to my hon. Friend that we should not sell or try to sell the policies of President Carter to President Reagan. Our interest is not to restrain the United States Administration but to encourage it on the course upon which it has embarked. We should ensure that our European friends do the same.
5.35 pm
Dr. David Owen: It is probably true to say that for the past 20 years relations between the United States of America and the Soviet Union have improved. One of the major problems facing the world is that over the past two years those relations have been extremely uneven and, at times, bad. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned, because those relations could deteriorate rapidly. They have not done so yet.
It is premature to judge the Reagan Administration. They have not been in office for many months. There are signs in the development of that Administration's policy offer little hope of an improvement in relations. There are other signs that the same degree of realism that characterised relations between the Soviet Union and the last Republican Administration could emerge. One of the central questions facing this House and Europe is how to rebuild a constructive dialogue between the two world super Powers.
There is immense scope for Europe to play a role. At no time since the 1930s has there been the prospect of a major division between the two big parties on foreign policy. The 1930s were scarred by major differences in foreign policy. Britain and Europe paid a heavy price for that. We have not got the same influence and we do not carry the same weight as we did then.
In the 1980s Britain is not the global Power that it was in the 1930s. Nevertheless, it would be a serious state of affairs if a deepening difference of opinion arose between the two parties that have held the monopoly of power since 1924 on the two pillars of foreign policy, namely NATO and the EEC. It is no use scoffing or trying to avoid the issue as the Lord Privy Seal and the deputy Leader of the Opposition did.
I turn to our commitment to the Alliance. It is true, as the deputy Leader of the Opposition said, that the Labour Party is committed to NATO by a conference resolution. One would not like to feel that one had to pray that in aid. Unfortunately, it is not true that the Labour Party is solidly committed to the policies of that Alliance. I am glad to say that the deputy Leader of the Opposition confirmed that it was his policy—and presumably that of his party—to remain committed, as he said, to NATO's strategy of deterrence. The right hon. Gentleman did not refer to nuclear deterrence. We all know that deterrence is both conventional and nuclear. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's views on NATO are pretty unequivocal—at least in private. In order to find a public demonstration of his commitment, one has to search through "Fortune" magazine. There is a good statement in the edition of 11 August 1980. I believe that it contains the right hon. Gentleman's view. I hope that it will be confirmed as the Opposition's view. The right hon. Gentleman said:
302
"The bedrock of allied security is the commitment of America's strategic nuclear forces to retaliation against the Soviet Union if it attacks Western Europe."
Most of us—and, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman—support that position. However, no one can believe that that will remain the bedrock of allied security, if we do not take account of the views of the American public about how we conduct ourselves in Europe in our dialogue on defence.
The other question relates to the European Community. It is extraordinary that speeches are made which barely refer to it. That was what the deputy Leader of the Opposition wished to do. He will have to make up his mind over the next few months and so will the Labour Party. I am surprised that he can presumably support a National Executive Committee economic statement which said that we would come out of the European Community. That has not been his position in the past and it is time that it was said clearly to the country that
"our weaknesses have nothing to do with the Common Market, they have been steadily increasing for the past 30 years … We can only make it more difficult to solve if we seek to find foreign scapegoats for our own shortcomings and to escape from real life into a cocoon of myth and fantasy."
Those were words well spoken by the deputy Leader of the Opposition in May 1975. I hope that in the next few months we shall hear more forthright statements from him. It is not enough to talk about the European influence as being that of Helmut Schmidt, Hans-Dietrich Genscher and Bruno Kreisky—important role though Austria has played, particularly in the dialogue about the Middle East—and the role that Sweden can play. There is a political role for the European Community that no one can avoid. That role needs to be enlarged and increased.
The diversion that has occurred with the badinage between the two leading speakers has not helped the debate much. The Lord Privy Seal in his eulogy of the Prime Minister could, I suppose, be said to be defending his own position in the Cabinet which these days appears to be somewhat tenuous. The deputy Leader of the Opposition in his excoriation of the Prime Minister was defending his position as deputy leader.
Mr. Healey: What is the right hon. Gentleman defending?
Dr. Owen: I am defending what I think are the views of the majority of people in this country. They will be represented. The right hon. Gentleman has always been good at handing it out but not at receiving it. We are good colleagues and friends. At times I have handed it out to him, as he has handed it out to me. I enjoyed, as did the House, his likening of the Lord Privy Seal to a flamingo—long, languid, pink and wet.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) reminds me of a bullfinch. He flew around in the debate with a great display of colour with a red face and a white behind. He must concentrate more on the central issues of foreign policy. We want to hear—it is the right of the House to hear it—whether the Labour Party is likely to stick to the defence strategy of NATO and to its commitment to the European Community. Those are central issues which affect the livelihood of every person in the United Kingdom.
The European Community is not just a foreign policy issue. It involves energy, employment, investment and

303
jobs. For the Labour Party to be drifting by default into outright opposition to the European Community is not good enough.
The right hon. Gentleman has a particular responsibility in these matters. He has been aetheist, agnostic, ambivalent, avid——
Mr. Healey: Never avid.
Dr. Owen: For a short period as Chancellor of the Exchequer—I would date it as 1977–78—the right hon. Gentleman was avid. He was aetheistic in 1961, agnostic in 1967, and in fairness to the right hon. Gentleman, enthusiastic only as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The right hon. Gentleman is an expert. In May 1971 he wrote an article in the Daily Mirror which he has always regretted——
Mr. Healey: No.
Dr. Owen: If the right hon. Gentleman does not regret it, I shall quote it at him. He said:
"Britain could be hammered into the ground if she were outside the main trading blocs. It would mean another quarter of a century in which what happens to all of us in Europe is decided mainly by the Americans and the Russians."
By July——
Mr. Michael English rose——
Dr. Owen: I will give way in a moment.
Mr. English rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman was trying to indicate that he would give way later.
Mr. English rose——
Dr. Owen: I will give way later. I was dealing with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East.
Mr. Healey: Not very effectively.
Dr. Owen: I was drawing attention to the fact that in May 1971 this right hon. Gentleman's position on the European Community was clear, positive and definite, but by July there was a problem on a television broadcast and others had to be brought in and by September or October at the party conference he had changed completely. What worries me is that in May 1981 we see ambivalence and I am not sure what we shall see by October 1981. Perhaps he will join us.
Mr. English: The slight contretemps was not due to the right hon. Gentleman, but to some of his supporters who appeared to be heckling someone who was not making a speech. Does the right hon. Gentleman regret anything that he said in 1971?
Dr. Owen: I am sure that I have made many mistakes and if I comb through what I said in 1971, there will be many issues that I would regret. I do not regret the vote that I made in 1971 to take this country into the European Community. I have never regretted that and I intend to stand by it.
The first key issue in the debate is how can Britain, especially with the combined weight of France and Germany in the European Community, make its weight felt in the United States? We must face it that our weight in decisions on the Soviet Union is limited, though the Western response over the past nine months as we have
304
watched a Soviet ring of steel around Poland has been correct—careful, well balanced with the right mixture of political toughness and economic help to Poland.
I have said before outside the House, and I repeat, that I hope that there will be no misunderstanding that the sort of action to be taken, were there a military invasion of Poland, would have to hit the Soviet Union in the only place that would hurt and that is high technology. There is no escape from economic sanctions in that. It will affect all countries. A series of political actions, such as withrawing from arms control negotiations, would be the wrong response at a time of crisis. If arms control negotiations are to mean anything they must be undertaken on the basis of protecting the security of the nation. They are not part of the diplomatic dance. By all means withdraw ambassadors. That will affect the climate of detente, but arms control negotiations are not part of the diplomatic dance. They are part of the deadly serious business of trying to lower the military threshold safely on both sides.
I do not wish the Soviet Union to sign an arms control agreement which it will later regret, because it will cheat. I do not believe that the British or NATO should sign an arms control agreement that they will live to regret. Such an agreement must be balanced and toughly negotiated. That is why the right hon. Gentleman was right to remind the Lord Privy Seal of the theatre nuclear weapons discussion and of the fact that the dual decision taken by NATO was taken in the context of endorsing the SALT II treaty.
The Soviet Union has shown some readiness to repackage SALT II but that repackaging should be kept to the minimum. The error of the Carter Administration was to make a dramatic change in the SALT negotiations in Vladivostock. With hindsight, there is no doubt that it would have been better to have carried on the continuity of the Ford-Kissinger Administration for the first few months of the Carter Administration and signed a more limited SALT II and moved on to a SALT III. The same message must be conveyed to President Reagan. It is better to make a few changes to the Carter Administration's package and go for a more adventurous SALT III or a different SALT III later.
I hope that the American Government will not lose the opportunity of building on the work done on SALT II. In addition, I hope that they will show in the negotiations on theatre nuclear weapons not only toughness, but a readiness to entertain seriously the possibility that, as a result of a tough negotiation resulting in the Soviet Union withdrawing its deployed SS20s, there would be no reason to deploy cruise missiles or the upgraded Pershing II missiles in Europe—the so-called zero option. Even if we cannot get the zero option immediately, there may be a way of reducing the number of cruise missiles or going ahead with only the Pershing missiles. The negotiations will be watched with great care and the British Government must show a great deal more commitment to the dual nature of the 1979 NATO decision.
I welcome the French proposal for a European disarmament conference. The time has come for that and there is a role for the EEC's political co-operation machinery in disarmament. It is not often understood how far that machinery has moved into disarmament. It played a major role in the preparation for the Helsinki conference and in the follow-up conferences in Belgrade and Madrid.

305
Those involved in the machinery have been prepared to discuss SALT II and it is logical for a disarmament initiative to come from the EEC.
That does not mean that the EEC would be developing a defence identity or treading on the toes of NATO. However, it is a forum in which France would be more imaginative over disarmament and arms control than it would be in NATO and during the next year, when the Reagan Administration will be acting slowly in this area, there will be ample scope for a European initiative, particularly in the months leading up to the United Nations special session in the spring of next year.
There is also room for movement in the talks on mutual and balanced force reductions. The first-phase agreement on MBFR should be implemented and I hope that the Government will start focusing their mind on some of the important matters involved. First, it would be outrageous if NATO responded to the Soviet deployment of gas by going for a gas capability. It is necessary to consider what is happening in space and the danger of an arms race in space, and we must also look at the new technology of lasers and other areas.
The Government must regard arms control and disarmament with the utmost seriousness. There is scope for a British initiative and for British pressure on our European allies and on the United States.
It has been pleasing to see the role of the Federal Republic of Germany in Latin America. It has had a powerful influence in restraining the United States position in El Salvador, and powerful influences have also been exercised by Venezuela and Mexico. The United States Administration are finding, as the British Government have found, that there is no way in which any single nation, even a strong one, can conduct its foreign policy without taking account of other people's views.
We had a strong influence in getting a settlement in Belize, and the Americans could be a helpful influence in relation to Guatemala. I am concerned about what is happening between Chile and Argentina. It is a mistake to believe that Britain alone could have much influence, but a war between those countries would have a serious effect and that is an area where, because of trading and other links in the past, the EEC has a formidable role.
On Africa and Namibia, I hope that the Minister of State will answer a fundamental question, namely whether the use of the veto was tactical, in order to avoid the United States imposing the veto alone and to give them more time for negotiations. I hope and believe that that was the reason for our use of the veto. If so, it need be only a hiccup in the process of achieving a United Nations based settlement in Namibia.
However, I have to ask whether the use of the veto meant something more. Are we starting to move our position into one of abdication from the initiative of the five Western powers for a United Nations based settlement in Namibia? If so, it will be a major error. The success of the Zimbabwe settlement should spur us on to achieving a settlement in Namibia and nothing could improve the possibility of eventual peace in Southern Africa than another success for peaceful transition to independence through the ballot box.
The Government may, by all means, attempt to make some changes in the exact arrangements, but the principles of resolution No. 435 should not be tampered with. It is vital to realise that we would not have got as far as we have but for the full support of the five front-line Presidents,
306
now joined by Zimbabwe. Contrary to what the Lord Privy Seal said, we have out-manoeuvred the Soviet Union in Southern Africa over Zimbabwe and we can do so again over Namibia, but not in an East-West polarised battle. We can do so only by mobilising the non-aligned and African countries.
There is a sign of an important policy initiative by the United States in the Middle East. The Americans have recognised that we shall not get a peaceful settlement out of the fraught situation in the Lebanon without using the full range of diplomatic initiatives, including the involvement of the Soviet Union. It was a good decision of the American Administration to involve the Soviet Union and I hope that it will be noted by the Prime Minister who seems to think that the Soviet Union has no role to play in the world. I wish Phil Habib and his mission on behalf of President Reagan every success. It is difficult to imagine a better envoy.
The situation in the Lebanon is fraught and difficult and there has always been a slight danger that the Americans, in picking up the initiative for President Sadat. as they were bound to do, and in forging ahead in Camp David, as they were right to do, would give sustenance to those who believe that we can shut the Soviet Union out of a role in the eventual settlemant of the Arab-Israeli dispute. That does not reflect the realities of power in the region. The major role will be played by the United States but the Soviet Union also has a role and it is good to see the Reagan Administration accepting that.
I utter a word of caution to the Foreign Secretary about the handling of the Middle East dispute. There is a fear that we may exaggerate the role of Europe in the Middle East. There is a proper role for a European initiative, but I must issue a caution about the meeting with Chairman Arafat that the Foreign Secretary will inevitably have eventually.
It is right to stress that the PLO will need to be brought into the negotiations, but the timing of the meeting between the Foreign Secretary and Chairman Arafat will be one of extreme delicacy. Successive Foreign Secretaries have said that there would be such a meeting in the right circumstances. They were right to do so, but they have never felt able to justify that meeting. I hope that the criteria that have always been applied will be maintained.
I authorised our ambassadors to open a dialogue with the PLO in certain key Arab countries and I do not believe that the Venice statement should have been criticised. It achieved the right balance, but I do not want Britain to adopt a position on the Arab-Israeli dispute that is governed solely by our membership of the EEC.
Britain's attitude to Israel has always been slightly different from that of some other members of the EEC, and the Community has benefited from the nuances of differences among the 10 countries. It would be foolish for Britain to lose the respect and trust of many Israelis. We shall need to use that capital when we say to Mr. Begin that he should not have made his recent speeches attacking the Chancellor of the Federal Republic and he cannot continue to flout international opinion by creating new settlements on the West Bank.
If we are to be able to speak as a candid friend of Israel—I believe that most people think that that is a necessary British role—it is necessary to convince Israelis that the British position on the PLO will be as realistic, fair-minded and tough as in the past. There is a suspicion growing that that position is changing. I am strongly

307
committed to the European Community, but I am even more strongly committed to believing that Britain has an independent foreign policy and that it exercises its judgment within the framework of political co-operation in what it thinks will be the best and most effective way. At times that means that we may have to hold out, even against the majority, and we have always done so. The European Community has benefited from the French understanding of the Arab world and the Dutch understanding of the Israeli position. That is one of the reasons why European diplomacy can be extremely helpful and successful in that area.
The Government have made one major foreign policy error in the past two years by virtue of the appalling way in which Britain has treated its aid and development programme. That which we have allowed to happen is a scandal. It is a tragedy that the Foreign Secretary is not answerable in this House for the depth of the cuts and the insensitivity of what has been done. It has caused great damage to Britain in the Third world. There are signs that we are beginning to change our position. The Government faced the prospect of being frozen out of the Mexico summit. It was clear that they would not be invited if there was no change in their position. The Government now have the possibility of playing an important role. If we can convert the Government to accepting the need for a more enlightened attitude to Third world issues, we could exercise considerable influence on the Reagan Administration.
I have always believed in horses for courses. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was Prime Minister, he exerted a helpful influence on President Carter in bridging the gaps between western Europe and the Carter Administration. It may fall to the Prime Minister, if she gains some greater sensitivity in this area, to convert President Reagan to accepting the need to take a more enlightened attitude on Third world issues. I note that the Minister of State shakes his head. The hon. Gentleman knows in his heart of hearts that this is the most abysmal part of the Government's record. It is a tragic error. There have been cuts of financial meanness and attitudinal changes towards overseas students, technical aid and transfers. Great damage will be done and it will take time to build up the position that Britain was adopting.
If only Britain were like Holland, where the political parties vie with one another for votes by promising a greater commitment to the United Nations and to aid and development. Let no one in the House or outside think that we have a great record in aid and development. In comparison with most other European countries our record is appalling. It is high time that we followed some of the other countries. It is high time that the Government changed their policy on aid and development. If they do, they will bring great returns and they will restore our position. If they continue to make cuts and to adopt an insensitive attitude, our ability to carry weight, especially within the Commonwealth, will be considerably undermined.
The debate should focus on how to improve the dialogue between the United States and the Soviet Union. In my view, Britain and the European Community can contribute to improving that relationship.
6.5 pm
Mr. Julian Critchley: I shall speak briefly on matters of security. I returned at the end of last week from a three-day visit to Washington as part of the North Atlantic Assembly where I am writing a report on theatre nuclear rearmament. One of the first clear impressions that one received in Washington was the hostility to arms control which is held strongly in certain sectors of the administration in the State Department and in the Pentagon.
Arms control—all good speeches should start with one robust assertion—is a Western interest without qualification. I do not accept the linkage argument, that others have to behave well so that we may do them a favour by negotiating with them on arms control. Arms control stands or falls by its being a Western interest that we should pursue.
Arms control has enemies. The USSR obviously preferred to intervene in Afghanistan at the risk of the Senate deciding not to ratify the treaty. The other enemies of arms control are the ideologues within the United States Administration. It appears that it will be a long time before the Senate is prepared to ratify SALT II. However, in the long term the United States, even under a Reagan Administration, will be forced eventually to start SALT II and SALT III processes because of the ever-escalating expense of nuclear weapons.
The Foreign Ministers' meeting last week in Rome appeared to be a success. Al Haig is clearly a good thing. It is clear that he is a highly intelligent man who has his eye upon the White House after President Reagan leaves it. He understands, more vividly than other members of the Administration, Europe and its problems. Indeed, he is a friend of Europe. As we all know, he agreed that there would be negotiations with the Soviets on theatre nuclear rearmament before the end of the year. That was half of the European demand. That was good news.
The question that we must all pose is, how firmly based in Washington is Al Haig? There were many in Washington last week who were saying to me that Al Haig's days are numbered. He advised against the lifting of the grain embargo that the President decided to lift. That is not the only occasion on which his advice has been disregarded. Yet it is clear that we have a great interest that Al Haig should stay as Secretary of State.
If NATO is unable to modernise its theatre nuclear weapons and to get agreement on that, we are incapable of doing anything in the context of the Alliance. It is vital that we pursue that policy. The rationale of the extension of theatre nuclear weapons to Europe is the refurbishment of the American nuclear guarantee to Europe. The American nuclear guarantee is strengthened by having 572 American theatre nuclear missiles stationed in European countries.
It is somewhat ironic that the British Government at one and the same time believe strongly in theatre nuclear modernisation, and therefore wish to strengthen and extend the strategic nuclear guarantee of the United States, but are in favour of the Trident missile programme. The rationale behind that is that deep down we have our doubts about the United States coming to our assistance if the worst were to happen.
That is only part of a wider contradiction. Europeans hope that if, God forbid, there is a war it will be fought over their heads between the United States and the Soviet

309
Union. On the other hand, the United States hopes that if there is a war it should start in Europe so that the United States might hope to control it and avoid the nuclear exchange that would obviously place American cities in some peril. The fact that the Atlantic divides Europe from America makes it almost intellectually out of the question to reach some form of firm defence conclusion.
I refer briefly to an article that I wrote that appeared today in one of the national newspapers. It considers the imminent defence review in the United Kingdom. I believe that a new review is to be announced to the House at some time in July. I hope that it will not be announced in the last week of July, shortly before we all leave for the sunshine of Europe. If that happens, there will be no opportunity for a debate.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Do not put words into the Minister's mouth.
Mr. Critchley: I do not need to put that idea into anyone's head. I even suspect that the defence review might be announced in a written answer, if the responsibility were that of the Department of the Environment. However, that is another matter.
I suspect—though I do not know, because the overseas and defence committee of the Cabinet has not yet decided on the parameters—that the proposals for the defence review now before that committee are roughly these: first, that there should be a marginal increase in the air defence capability of the United Kingdom; second—and here we start to get worried—that a one-third to one-half reduction is to be made in our forces in Europe, the Rhine Army; and, third, that there should be an even more drastic reduction in the Royal Navy's capability in the Eastern Atlantic, where we contribute 70 per cent. of all the available forces.
If those proposals emanating from the Ministry of Defence are accepted by the overseas and defence committee of the Cabinet, and that committee then reports to the full Cabinet, the full Cabinet, with no expertise on defence, will accept the recommendation and a statement will then be made in July. There will be no debate on what may be the most fundamental defence review that has taken place since the Sandys review in 1957. The exercise on which we are embarked is far closer to Duncan Sandys' review in 1957 than to Denis Healey's reviews in 1965, 1966 and 1967.
Clearly the Government face a dilemma. We live far above our station in defence. We spent 5·3 per cent. of our GDP on defence, while Germany spent 3·3 per cent. of a larger gross national product, and France spent 4 per cent. of a larger gross national product. Clearly, therefore, we live beyond our means, and something at some time will have to go. The question is, what?
I am afraid that if we went as far as some of the proposals now being put forward by the Ministry of Defence, the effect on Alliance relationships, in particular, would be nothing short of catastrophic. We look to the Foreign Secretary to argue his corner in the overseas and defence committee of the Cabinet so that there will not be a reduction of as uch as one-third to one-half of the Rhine Army forces. I can imagine the effect that that would have on the Reagan Administration, who were elected to spend more money on defence than their predecessor and who are eager to urge on Europeans a greater defence effort. What would be the effect on the
310
Germans? Their defence budget is already under pressure, and the German Army would have to fill the gap if there were any major withdrawals from the British Rhine Army.
The military argument is overwhelmingly against withdrawal. NATO needs and wants "ready forces", forces that are in being and on the spot, ready to meet an attack, were that to occur. NATO prefers ready forces, because forces that are kept at home—reserves—have to be mobilised at the time of crisis, the decision has to be taken to mobilise them, then a fortnight or more is needed to move across the channel or from the United States to join a battle which already will have been lost.
I fear that we shall have another Sandys review when, for reasons of economy, the nuclear is preferred to the conventional and we shall be back in the old position of putting too much reliance on nuclear deterrence without asking ourselves the question, what will happen were deterrence to fail? There must be some cuts, but surely they must be marginal ones, not major.
6.15 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux: In examining Britain's role in foreign affairs, it seems sensible, to me at any rate, for a start, to look at the head office, our Foreign Office. While my party has on occasions said unkind things about that establishment, we have never forgotten Lord Avon's oft-repeated remark that the most important thing about foreign affairs is that they are foreign. It follows that the Foreign Office must specialise in persuading others to change or modify their views rather than legislate for change, as other Departments of State are wont to do.
That may be why the Foreign Office avoids violent change. Indeed, the more important policy changes have not coincided with changes in Government. The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd), recently said that there had been continuity of policy, with only some changes of emphasis when Governments changed, but that the more radical changes were made in response to changes in the outside world. In short, the Foreign Office has a mind of its own, and tends to follow a predetermined course until it is forced to deviate by outside forces—not necessarily outside the bounds of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. While a certain remoteness might be thought to make for calm reflection and sound judgment, there is a real risk that detachment may result in mistaken advice being tendered, with disastrous results.
We had one such example last week, which I mention more in sorrow than in anger, and that was the visit to Northern Ireland by the Vatican emissary, Father Magee. He was reported to have said, while in Great Britain, that his was
"a two-way mission directed to the British Government and the hunger striking prisoners".
One must ask: was the Foreign Office aware of that interpertation when, presumably, it was consulted through the usual diplomatic channels before the visitors set out? If so, did it accept those terms of reference when tendering its advice through our envoy to the Holy See? one cannot imagine that the Vatican would have risked a rebuff or, indeed, have continued the initiative had it been fully aware of the true facts. Were those facts fully understood when the Minister of State met Father Magee at Heathrow, or was the Minister given to understand that the original explanation was correct, namely, that the visit was of a

311
purely spiritual nature? Did the role of intermediary emerge after the visitor had been in Northern Ireland for some time—and perhaps been advised by Cardinal O'Fee? Did the Foreign Office seek or accept the advice of the Papal Nuncio in London, who would have been aware of the views of Cardinal Hume?
The conflicting claims and assertions became so apparent that many people, including many English and Irish Catholics, suspected that both the Foreign Office and the Vatican had become victims of the IRA propaganda machine. Clearly the Northern Ireland Office—the Government Department that was most intimately concerned in the issue—was kept on the fringe of what decision making there was. It must have been disconcerted to hear the verdict that the mission had failed because of the intransigence of the British Government on the one hand and of the hunger strikers on the other.
There is another example of what appears to have been inadequate preparation and faulty briefing. I refer to that which has become known as the Dublin summit meeting, which took place on 8 December 1980. The Foreign Secretary has said that summits are of little value without the most careful preparations for them, and that such preparations may take several months. It is difficult to believe that such careful preparation was made for the Dublin summit. If it had been, the Prime Minister's position would not have been exposed to misrepresentation and party political exploitation by the Dublin Government. Surely it would have been foreseen that the joint communiqué would have placed upon it an interpretation different from that in the mind of the Prime Minister and, one hopes, her ministerial colleagues.
The Republic's Foreign Minister, Mr. Lenihan, has made the outrageous claim that the summit and the resulting study group provide the machinery for the unification of Ireland. Mr. Haughey, in a more subtle fashion, subscribes to the object of improving the relationship between the two nations. However, he goes on to explain that such a development will achieve the unification of Ireland in advance of the people of Northern Ireland voluntarily agreeing to any such thing. In other words, in typically Irish fashion, he is saying "If they do not agree, we shall make them agree."
Members of the Ulster Unionist Party accept the Prime Minister's word. We accept that she has no intention of allowing any of the Dublin arrangements to be used or exploited to weaken the integrity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, the Dublin summit caused confusion—and not only in the minds of Ulster people. Confusion has been exploited to create fear. Thousands of responsible citizens of the kingdom are genuinely suspicious and uneasy. Their suspicions will be increased if the impression is given that study groups, or, worse, institutional structures, are permitted to erode the Prime Minister's determination to maintain the Union intact.
The Government's advisers must ask how they will ensure that on future occasions the Prime Minister will not be exposed to the same risk, or certainty, of her good will being abused and her words twisted against her. In preparation for any future summit, the Foreign Office might begin by destroying the myths fed to the international community about Northern Ireland and its constitution. First, the false impression that Northern
312
Ireland was severed from the rest of Ireland should be destroyed. The Irish Republic cut itself off from the rest of the British Isles. Secondly, the Foreign Office should stop subscribing to the concept of a unique relationship between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic.
It is ironic that the word "unique" can be applied validly only to that which elsewhere would be regarded as a defect in normal relationships. The relationship is unique in that the Republic lays claim to the territory of a portion of the United Kingdom. It is unique in that the Republic permits its territory to be used as a launching pad for attacks on its neighbour's territory. On those points the uniqueness of the relationship cannot be denied. However, it is not a relationship that would commend itself to civilised nations and Governments in any part of the world. What other country in Western Europe would refuse to extradite known terrorists on the flimsy pretext that crimes committed for political purposes elevate the criminal above international law?
It is instructive to note how conveniently national integrity, the cornerstone of international politics, is forgotten when the Foreign Office is dealing with the Irish Republic. On 11 March, the Foreign Secretary said:
"Almost all the countries of the world are independent sovereign countries."
But, when the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the United Kingdom were attacked by the West German Chancellor, the Foreign Office was conspicuous by its silence. There was another example only yesterday when the elected representatives of the Irish Republic in the European Assembly took an initiative which resulted in that Assembly debating the internal affairs of the United Kingdom. Did the Government and the Foreign Office make it clear that that was an unwarrantable intrusion by the EEC into the internal affairs of a member State? I am afraid that they did not.
I have described some of the reasons why—and can anybody be surprised?—Ulster Unionists are often hard put not to believe that the Foreign Office is indifferent to the Government's policies and that it is working against the commitments of the Prime Minister and her colleagues.
6.25 pm
Mr. Dennis Walters: the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) will forgive me if I do not follow him on Ireland but return to some of the original themes of the debate and concentrate mainly on the Middle East.
I welcome some of the remarks by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Heeley). From what he said about the Opposition's attitude to talks with the PLO and the Venice declaration, I sense a shift in attitude from the position of his predecessor. I welcome that.
I was, however, surprised by the right hon.Gentleman's remarks on the supply of arms to peaceful and friendly countries in the Gulf. Moreover, when talking about the control of arms to the Middle East, one should remember that Israel, supplied with all the latest and most sophisticated equipment, still has undoubted and total military supremacy in the area.
I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Venice declaration and the Government's position. The Venice declaration of June 1980 by the European Ministers signalled the most important step forward since resolution 242 was passed unanimously in 1967 by the

313
United Nations Security Council. The principles of resolution 242 were accepted by the United States and the Soviet Union. They have been endorsed by all the relevant countries to the conflict, including Israel and Syria.
Moreover, the Camp David accord started by reaffirming the resolution "in all its parts." The essentials are:
"The inadmissibility of acquision of territory by war and a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security."
With regard to withdrawal, most informed observers agree that the American Secretary of State, William Rogers, got it about right in December 1969 when he said:
"We believe that while recognised boundaries must be established, and agreed upon by the parties, any changes in the preexisting lines should not reflect the weight of conquest and should be confirmed to insubstantial alterations required for mutual security. We do not support expansionism. We believe troops must be withdrawn as the Resolution provides."
Unfortunately, the troops have not yet been withdrawn.
One of the arguments put forward by Mr. Begin and others to justify the permanent annexation of the West Bank or large parts of it is that it is necessary for Israel's security. Even if tha were true, it would be a novel principle of international relations to concede that one State could justifiably take from its neighbours whatever territory it thought necessary to ensure its own security.
My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal aptly quoted Henry Kissinger, who remarked that the desire of one State for absolute security means absolute insecurity for all the others. Nor of course, does resolution 242 speak of ensuring Israel's security alone. It proclaims the right of every State in the area to live in security. In any case, is it true that Israel must have more territory in order to be secure? It may marginally improve its defences if they lie on the river Jordon rather than on the previous armistice lines, but today security cannot be achieved by a few more miles of territory.
Surely David Ben Gurion was right when in old age he said:
"As for security, militarily defensible borders, while desirable, cannot by themselves guarantee our future. Real peace with our Arab neighbours—mutual trust and friendship—that is the only true security".
I repeat his words:
"Real peace with our Arab neighbours."
That is precisely what the Israelis are denying themselves by insisting on hanging on to land which does not belong to them. The attempt to annex and incorporate the eastern part of Jerusalem exemplifies the fallacy of the whole argument. Far from ensuring greater security for Israel, it dooms Israel to unending conflict, not only with its Arab neighbours but with the whole Islamic world.
Viscount Cranborne: Can my hon. Friend be absolutely certain that if Israel gave up the territories that it conquered in the 1967 conflict the Arab neighbours of Israel that have not yet made peace with her—notably the PLO—would immediately accept the existence of Israel and undertake not to invade or undermine the existence of the Israeli State?
Mr. Walters: I shall come later to the solution that I would favour for the period in between the withdrawal and the formation of the Palestinian State.
With regard to mutual recognition between the PLO and Israel, if the PLO felt that Israel was prepared to recognise the existence of the Palestinians, and the Palestinian rights of self-determination, I believe that it
314
would be possible to get the PLO to recognise Israel. We should be working towards that objective in our diplomatic initiatives.
The step forward and the central achievement of the statement of the nine European Powers in Venice was that it recognised in definitive terms the right of Palestinian self-determination, and made it absolutely clear that the realisation of the rights and freedom of the Palestinians and the security of Israel are dependent one upon the other.
Regrettably, progress since then has been very slow. Meanwhile, Israel has been flouting the internationally recognised principle that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible, and has continued in its policy of increasing the illegal settlements on the West Bank, in open contempt of world opinion.
The insulting and hysterical abuse of Chancellor Schmidt by Mr. Begin—which was admirably described by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East—can be partly explained as electioneering tactics. But, coming at a time when the Israeli occupying forces are continuing to harass the Palestinian civilian population on the West Bank, and the Israeli air force has intensified its indiscriminate attacks on South Lebanon, killing thousands of innocent Lebanese civilians, Mr. Begin's outburst is remarkable for its cynicism and opportunism.
The explosive situation in Lebanon and the tense situation on the West Bank highlight the urgent need for the European initiative to gain momentum. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) rather over-simplified the Lebanese problem when he put the whole blame for the present crisis on the Syrians for wanting to exterminate the Christians. He seemed to have forgotten that Syrians first came into Lebanon to protect the Christians, who were at the time losing in the civil war against the combined forces of the Muslim left and the Palestinians.
There are many complicating factors, of which one is the Syrian presence. The most important factor, however, no doubt, remains the Palestinian presence, but that stems from the fact that the Palestinians have been thrown out of their own country, and they will continue to be there until they can return to at least part of their land. That makes it all the more urgent and necessary to find a solution.
There is a logical necessity for Europe to advance quickly in its role of peacemaker, if for no other reason than that there is no one else who can or will at this moment break the deadlock.
The new American Administration are still in the process of cautiously re-examining the situation, while slowly moving away from their original position. Their assessment at first appeared to be that the basic conflict of the Middle East—the Arab-Israeli conflict—and the tensions which it provoked could be set aside so long as a strong military posture vis-a-vis the Soviet Union was adopted. No doubt that rather simplistic conclusion had been influenced by the fact of the Iran-Iraq war. Time prevents me from going into that conflict in detail, except to say that it has become increasingly obvious that, in spite of that war, the Palestinian issue continues to hold the centre of the stage. That is why it would be a disaster to put it on the back burner, as suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion. It must be solved.
Reliance on the military option as the best way of supporting friendly regimes in the Middle East is, in my view, mistaken. It failed to sustain the Shah and would be

315
equally unsuccessful elsewhere in the area. There should, of course, be a strong military back-up to deter aggression, but the only really effective way for the United States to support its friends is by intelligent political action. That means, in the Middle East, a sensible, pragmatic and, above all, impartial attitude towards the Arab-Israeli conflict.
It is, therefore, greatly to be hoped that the American Administration will soon reappraise their thinking and eventually formulate their policies in a way which meets the realities of the situation in the Middle East. That means accepting the fact that Western interests can be effectively protected only when a solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been reached. Only then will it be possible for those moderate Arab States which are friendly and well disposed to the West to operate as they wish, freed of the constraints imposed upon them by the compelling need to give priority to a satisfactory solution of the Palestinian problem.
As a start, there should be an honest American acknowledgement of Palestinian rights. Alternatively, the same end could perhaps be approached from the opposite direction, that is to say, a forthright statement defining what Washington would regard as appropriate measures to safeguard the security of all States in the area, including Israel. That would put Israel under notice of the territorial price that it will have to pay for peace.
For too long Israel has been allowed to get away with undermining peace on the pretext of seeking security. If the new Administration were prepared at some stage to set out what they would regard as the secure and recognised boundaries envisaged for Israel in resolution 242, that would go a long way towards dispelling the profound distrust which now pervades the Arab world concerning the motives of the United States, and so open the way for a fresh start in the peacemaking process.
Although it is right that it should be a major objective of Western foreign policy to safeguard the Middle East from Soviet encroachment, it is by no means certain—in this I agree with the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)—that in the long term the West will profit from the attempted exclusion of the Soviet Union from the process of finding a peaceful settlement. Dr. Kissinger was, in my view, mistaken when he proclaimed in 1972 that an aim of American policy should be to eject the Soviet Union from the Middle East. Even if that were possible, which I believe it is not, the effect would be harmful to the prospects of a lasting and stable peace. It would merely mean that Moscow would cause all the mischief it possibly could in order to get back on to the scene in the Middle East.
Whether the West likes it or not, the Soviet Union has an important part to play in the peace process, and should be associated with it. No settlement will stick that does not command at least acquiescence from the Soviet Union. It should not be forgotten that the high point in the search for a real peace during the past 13 years was the joint American-Soviet statement of October 1977. It was a tragedy that within days the Carter Administration turned away from that hopeful initiative in response to Israeli protests and the orchestrated campaign of the Zionist pressure groups in Washington.
At the present time the Soviet Union has certainly disqualified itself from any effective leadership for peace in the Middle East by its intolerable aggression in
316
Afghanistan. My sympathy, and the sympathy of my hon. Friends, goes to the courageous Afghan freedom fighters. But that does not mean that the Soviet Union can or should be permanently excluded from the peacemaking process for the reasons that I have given. I therefore welcome, as have other speakers, the intervention by the United States and the Soviet Union in trying to bring about a calming down of the situation in Lebanon.
A strong military and political response by the West towards the Soviet Union should be combined with flexible diplomacy and a realisation that military strength, though necessary, is not a substitute for intelligent and imaginative foreign policy. The Soviet Union should be firmly challenged and discouraged from military adventurism, but it should not be excluded from diplomatic negotiation. Such involvement would reduce and not increase its capacity to exploit political unrest.
So we come back to Europe as the best hope for real progress towards peace. It would be a mistake to overestimate what Europe, even with the best will in the world, can do. At most it will be able to influence in some degree the policy of the new Administration in America; to stake out the ground for a fair and reasonable settlement; to produce and make public its plan for a comprehensive peace and to canvass vigorously for the support of others for that plan.
A first step must be top level discussions with the PLO leadership. It is peculiarly absurd that, while it has become universally recognised and is now accepted and even conventional wisdom that the Palestinians are the key to any lasting solution, it should still be argued by some that there should be no talks with their only effective representatives. It is also fair to say that Europe cannot by itself give effect to any plan it may produce. Having laid the ground for a fresh initiative, it must look to others to put teeth into it.
It will be asked—my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) asked in a slightly different context—what should be the central theme of the proposal. I believe that the West Bank and Gaza should be placed under some form of international authority responsible to the Security Council, with a mandate to administer the territories, to maintain security, both external and internal, and to assist in setting up representative Palestinian institutions of self-government. It would remain in overall charge of the occupied territories until such time as a comprehensive settlement was negotiated between Israel and her Arab neighbours, including democratically elected representatives of the Palestinians, or, failing agreement on a settlement, until such time as the Security Council decided on the future status of the West Bank and Gaza in the longer term.
The effect would be to establish not immediate peace but a halfway house towards peace; a chance to defuse the spiralling conflict and antagonisms in the West Bank; a breathing space and a cooling-off period; time to get effective security arrangements established and into good working order in advance of the final settlement—which should go far to meet genuine apprehensions about security in Israel. This could include demilitarised zones and other defence proposals thought to be suitable to meet the legitimate anxieties on both sides.
It should never be forgotten that at the end of the day only the United States can effectively bring about a peace settlement, because it alone can apply the necessary pressure on Israel, and Arab countries will have to be

317
prepared to use their leverage on Washington to help bring this about. Then it should be accepted that the Soviet Union cannot and should not be permanently excluded from the peacemaking process.
Finally, it should be recognised and vigorously acted upon that at this time Europe has a crucial role to play in the Middle East. In June, when my noble friend the Foreign Secretary takes over the chairmanship of the Council of Ministers, courage and imagination must be shown, and I feel confident that it will be.
6.47 pm
Mr. Norman Atkinson: I wish to take up one or two comments made by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) and to call for initiatives from the Government based on mutual co-existence which are required to restore political balance in the world.
To talk about peace in the Chamber, particularly in a foreign affairs debate, is almost sacrilege—like suggesting the sale of porn from the vestry. But it has to be done, especially in view of the statements that have been made from both sides of the House.
The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said that it is technically possible to get into orbit manless nuclear weapons and target them with absolute precision. With the recent developments in United States space technology, the technical difficulties of re-entry have been overcome. Now that those nuclear weapons cannot be tracked, they are an alternative to the deep-sea basing of nuclear submarines. These are horrifying thoughts which underline the necessity of coming to a new understanding of the political balance in the world. The former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Devonport, was right to talk about matters of that sort.
I find it not strange but worrying that the Lord Privy Seal should talk almost exclusively about defence matters. In the last few years international relationships have been depoliticised. Defence has taken over from political considerations. We talk almost exclusively of the military balance in the world and never of the political relationships which are so essential to establishing good international understanding. We have moved from defence as a substitute for foreign relations and foreign policy and we have depoliticised foreign affairs to the extent that we talk about all matters in a defence-orientated fashion.
That is perhaps best illustrated by the attitude of the Prime Minister towards the Foreign Office. It may be no accident that we have the Lord Privy Seal in this House and the Foreign Secretary in the House of Lords. Lord Carrington is often described as the alternative leadership to the Tory Party. Whether he constitutes a dire threat to the political existence of the Prime Minister I am not sufficiently well informed to say, but we are informed of the attitudes taken by the Lord Privy Seal, an he is of that ilk. Therefore, it may be good political strategy to have the Foreign Secretary in the House of Lords rather than the Secretary of State for Defence. There are political connotations that can be built upon that.
In his speech the Lord Privy Seal said that defence is the bedrock upon which our international relations are based. That was an astounding thing to say. Before that he said that the main strand running through the whole of his contribution was security. So we see from all of his statements the orientation of international relations and the presence of defence matters.
318
The second illustration is the policy, not generally understood, introduced by the Government. There has been quite a shift, almost unique in the world. The Government say that they recognise States but not Governments. It is part of the process of depoliticising international affairs when the Government of one country say that they will recognise all States irrespective of their Government. Relations previously have been based on the consideration given by one Government to the existence of another. This Government have said that they will recognise all States and not distinguish between one Government and another.
That is demonstrated by their recognition of Turkey, although NATO is not prepared to recognise the military regime there, despite the fact that the leadership of that regime is an integral part of NATO. Again that is a curious position. None the less, NATO collectively, as I understand Dr. Luns, has said that the military junta is unacceptable to it. The Turkish military leadership says that by the autumn it will have a new assembly. I suspect that that assembly will consist of nominated people and not of elected members. There is no intention of returning to elected Government in Turkey within that time.
Therefore, to comply with the requirement of NATO, the suggestion is that Turkey ought to have a nominated assembly. That spells out a number of dangers. The Government will continue to recognise the State rather than deal with the non-recognition of the military junta and the policies it is pursuing. Recognising the part Turkey has to play, one can see that is an integral part of the whole of the Middle East strategy. More important, it is an integral part of the containment of the Soviet Union. Turkey holds the key to the Black Sea, the Bosphrus and so on. Therefore, it is an essential element in that part of the world and the way in which military strategy is designed to contain the Soviet Union.
Again, part of the depoliticising of foreign relations is SALT II and what has happened since then. Let us not forget that it is almost two years since the signing of SALT II in Vienna. We can study the various stages since. Not only should we consider Afghanistan and Poland and other events which have disrupted normal relations in the world, but there are other reasons that have distorted developments since the signing of SALT II. Now it is suggested that ratification will not take place. The Labour Party has some ideas as to how we should inject a political dimension into that. Part of our argument for unilateralism on nuclear weapons is an aspect of that injection of a political dimension into what we believe is a political impasse.
To deal briefly with Afghanistan relative to SALT II and the way in which the position of that country is used to make it impossible for Western Governments to ratify the treaty, a study of the history of Afghan events strengthens my argument for ideological co-existence. Sufficient time has passed for us to see the mistakes that were made. As I understand it, no assurances were sought from the West that there would be no military moves in Afghanistan if the military Government toppled. The Soviet troops moved in because of the weakening of the Government. They said that they were responding to a call from the Government for some sort of military cover. The Afghan Government said that they wanted military protection because they believed that insurgent forces were coming from Pakistan and elsewhere. Therefore, they called upon the Soviet Union for support.

319
It was from that point on that mistakes were made, particularly by the Soviet Union. They should have tried to seek assurances from the West that there would be no military moves which would weaken the existence of the Afghan Government. That was essential at that stage. Let us not forget that there had never been any elections in Afghanistan. Governments were established on the basis of political muscle. Therefore, if the Government were to be weakened by external military muscle, they would naturally seek assurances from their immediate protector. They were a Communist Government; therefore, they went to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union should have sought an assurance from the West about non-intervention to deal with the situation which was developing in Pakistan.
The Soviet Government were obviously worried that, if the West had moved in, this would have weakened the whole of the southern flank, as it is now called, of the Soviet Union. Their fear was that it would perhaps have meant the introduction of hostile weapons, even nuclear weapons, into that part of the world, trained and directed on the Soviet Union. The Soviet Government naturally stated that they would support sympathetically a request from the Afghan Government to move in troops to prevent what was seen as a threat to the Soviet Union arising. The West could have prevented that development by seeking a political solution to the Afghan question. There could have been established a political neutrality. This would have meant the recognition by the West of a Communist regime in Afghanistan. Such ideological co-existence would, however, have prevented a rupture of international relations. Progress could have been made by moving in that direction.
I wish to relate ideological co-existence to the position in Poland. It has to be recognised that the Government in Poland are based on a monolithic party structure of democratic centralism. The nature of that system makes it resistant to external pressures. The greater the external pressure that is applied, the closer and harder the structure becomes. Indeed, the result of constant and consistent pressure from external sources is that the system becomes almost impregnable. The nature of a Communist Government is never understood in the West.
These mistakes are continually made. I do not think that even now the position in Poland is clearly understood. There are those in the West who say that they want to help what they call the free trade unions in Poland. They want, perhaps, to help build a pluralistic system in Poland. They also want to do a number of other things. All post-war history shows that those applying external pressure, hoping to bring about internal changes, merely harden the situation and make the position more difficult for those in Poland who seek changes in the structure of their society.
Mr. Hurd: South Africa.
Mr. Atkinson: That is not the case in South Africa. There is a different dimension to the South African situation, based on race and many other different issues. There is not at the moment a monolithic structure in South Africa. That is the great difference. One country is impervious to external influence; the other is not. In terms of ideological co-existence, both sides must recognise what is involved for South Africa and for other African States. I accept that one effect may have been to slow
320
down the process of bringing Zimbabwe into existence. I stick, however, to my theme of the necessity for ideological co-existence.
The issue of Poland and the Polish leadership would be different if the world started to talk about political differences and ideological differences and to establish a situation based upon a recognition of the differences that exist in the world.
The Prime Minister continues to broadcast the message in which she honestly believes—that the Western world in concert could bring about changes in the Soviet Union. All experience shows that such changes will not take place in our lifetime. If the Prime Minister still harbours those hopes, she should forget them as quickly as possible. To suppose that external pressure can restructure the Soviet Union and its society is not realistic. It will not happen.
Likewise, the Soviet Union has no illusions about what will happen in the Western world. It recognises that external influence or pressure will not change United States society. It is recognised that there is no chance of converting its pluralistic society to something else. Brezhnev has made clear that the Soviet Union has no ideological ambitions of that sort. He talked yesterday about the opportunity of bringing about changes in Afghanistan if there could be discussions on the political merits and methods for guaranteeing the existence or continuation of the Afghanistan Communist Government.
The Prime Minister may contend that it is a bitter thing to swallow to ask the Government to be prepared to back the existence of a Government alien to her own philosophy. I understand that approach. Nevertheless, that is surely what international relations are about. It is what foreign relations are about. It is the only process by which the world can look forward to a time when it can start to de-escalate the arms race and the nuclear pile-up. In post-war years, not a single nuclear weapon has been dismantled by negotiation. The weapons continue to pile up. In all the international negotiation that has taken place, there has never been an agreed reduction in nuclear weapons. That is the challenge with which the world has to contend.
My hope is that the Government, assisted by Labour Party leadership, will show that this country is big enough to take initiatives of the kind I have suggested. We should aim for policies based on ideological co-existence. I do not mean simply peaceful co-existence which is the language of the peace forces of the world. We should go further and explore the possibilities for building mutual trust. That trust will come from political understanding.
Dr. M. S. Miller: We can learn from each other.
Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend is right: we can learn from each other. That is the basis for making progress in the world. We should start to talk about mutuality. Mutuality in a world that is ideologically divided can succeed only if we start to explore those areas where we can achieve political agreement. That can be translated into disarmament and to a slowing down of the nuclear race. It is the positive approach to international relationships. I am grateful for this chance to make that point.
7.8 pm
Mr. Kenneth Warren: We have been treated in this debate to some magnificent tours d' horizon

321
by hon. Members on both sides. A debate that ranges across the world is not surprising when the world, as the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) remarked, is now confronted with weapons that can be fired from any part of the world and reach any other part, and a world in which satellite communications enable messages to span the globe almost instantly. It has been fascinating to find how a foreign affairs debate can dwell so much on the subject of defence. One begins to wonder whether a Front Bench spokesman on defence should not have been present.
The speeches show how diplomacy has steadily retreated over recent years as wars have taken over from debate. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) is not now present. I was dismayed that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have discovered wars. The right hon. Gentleman recorded how many were now taking place. Herman Kahn, enunciating his escalation theory, listed the number of wars that have occurred since the Second World War. The number runs into many hundreds.
We must be aware that war is with us all the time, even if we are not directly involved. The people of Kampuchea and Afghanistan are aware of war. With respect to the hon. Member for Tottenham, his analysis of Afghanistan was naive in the extreme. To ignore the Russian gunships near Kandahar which are now killing innocent Afghans, is not acceptable in a debate in the House.
It is clear that the chance of an all-out thermo-nuclear war has receded over the last few years. That is not just because of the SALT progress, small as it was in terms of the expectations which we had, but because the threat of Russian Communism takes many forms. It will not only take the form of diplomatic offensives, but of subversion and warfare if it suits it. The total thrust is indivisible in its separate parts. When my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) referred to the possibility of a forthcoming defence review, he said that he hoped that our Foreign Office would be involved in those discussions. I endorse that thoroughly. I hope that it will be involved. The work of the Foreign Office and of the Ministry of Defence are likewise indivisible in securing our defence.
In considering where trouble could come, Europe and, above all, Poland have been tremendously lucky throughout the whole year. If it were not for the fact that, if the Russians entirely took over Poland they might suffer more by having greater threats, to their three pipelines, which supply their armies in East Germany, or—on the economic front—they would incur the responsibility for £20,000 million worth of the Poles' foreign debts, they would have been there long ago.
It is true that in terms of theatre nuclear weapons, on which we rely extensively for the defence of Western Europe, that modernisation must go ahead. We must be part of that consultation. On that wider theme to which we have all referred I should like to look further eastwards towards the area, where, in the days of John Foster Dulles, it was possible to draw a nice, neat line round most of Asia and to say that beyond that physical barrier, Communism must not pass. At that time, China was within that perimeter. Recently I have had the opportunity of travelling extensively in China, where it was fascinating to have my first sight of what is happening to a population which makes up a quarter of all mankind.
A quiet revolution is now proceeding there after all the agonies of the great leap forward and the cultural
322
revolution. It is interesting that that quiet revolution is sponsored by young people who have great expectations that politicians will deliver something good in their lives rather than just play politics. It is interesting, too, to see how China is slowly beginning to emerge as an effective participant in world affairs.
China now presents a major barrier to Russia's expansion into south-east, and, to a certain extent, south-west Asia. That threat to Russia's expansion is something which even people like Mikhail Suslov with his dialectical materialism cannot ignore when he lectures the Poles. The back door, in Siberia, is frail to the Chinese touch if China ever decides that Russia has to be physically deterred.
It is in terms of China's military preparedness that we have to be somewhat careful in believing that it would be able to take any great military action against Russia, if it chose so to do. It has suffered a bloody nose in its defensive war in North Vietnam. The philosophy which was expressed to me in Beijing is that the Russians can come, but they would never be able to leave China.
It is worth making one or two observations about what is going on in China. It is moving slowly towards decentralisation by delegation to provincial levels, but in those levels there are populations of 100 million people or more in most provinces. Some of that decentralisation has already failed and there has been a move back to the centralisation which is indicative of all forms of Communism. There is no doubt that the Chinese are suffering from the bureaucratic rigidity which is called "discipline" in Communist terms. There is even a gentleman who is the chairman of the central commission for the control of discipline—I am sure that that would appeal to the Whips on both sides of the House. That bureaucratic rigidity is the only chance of holding together a Communist society.
I shall exemplify the way in which that system is operating to our detriment. British firms have high expectations of being able to take part in the exploration and recovery of offshore oil in China. It is difficult to contact those who make decisions. In the cause of decentralisation, one of the offshore supplies offices was moved to Shanghai. Now, because it is difficult to get through to anyone in Shanghai, a co-ordinating committee has been established in Peking. Therefore, one has to deal with two groups of people when trying to do the urgent business which China requires in obtaining energy to build up its industrial base.
I hope that our Foreign Office and all our Government Departments will encourage those British business men who have so earnestly been trying to obtain contracts in China. I congratulate those who have. One must face the fact that doing business in Communist China is never easy and often extremely expensive.
I should like to make one comment about the part that the British Government have played. I am sure that the Minister is aware that the Chinese were upset when the British Minister for Trade had to cancel his attendance at the opening of an exhibition in Shanghai recently. One vote in the House is sometimes not worth tens of thousands of jobs across the rest of the country. My hon. Friend is smiling—I see that I have at least his sympathy in that matter.
In the course of developing our trade with China, which we need to do to make certain that the Chinese understand us and that we understand their ways and build up good relationships, it is fascinating to note that the Chinese are

323
making the first hesitant steps towards a mixed economy. I visited some factories where "profit" is a welcome word and where it is also achieved. Bonuses are paid to workers for doing well in their tasks. However, the expectation which we may sometimes have of China being able to move towards a good, rich industrial economy in our lifetime would stretch my imagination at least.
In China there are 300 million people on the land and only 100 million in factories, trying to support a population of 1,000 million. In the development of the nation, we must realise that the Chinese may easily become disheartened at the way in which their standard of living may not rise as fast as that of those with whom they are trying to deal in trade in technological products. I hope that they will not be dismayed or deterred. They still throw labour at problems, when in the West, too often we throw only money. However, the Chinese have a determination of will and a pleasant attitude which augurs well for the good relationships which have developed between this country and China.
It is a delight that the Chinese people are so keen to learn from the English and to learn the English language. My hon. Friend for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), who was with me during that visit, would agree with me on that. I hope that the Minister will consider talking to the BBC about the somewhat poor reception which sometimes deters the people in China in their eagerness to learn about what is going on. The easiest description of BBC broadcasts in China is that they are sometimes like a curate's egg.
For all the good will in China and the hope of developing our relations with the Chinese, they are looking southwards to the Russians on their southern borders, who are encouraging the Vietnamese in Kampuchea. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to consider this delicate and difficult situation, if not this evening, on a future occasion.
The Chinese have elected to support the odious Pol Pot regime, but cannot accept the awful Khmer Rouge massacres. They have made a careful and discreet decision to fight Russian aggression from across the borders in Vietnam. The horror is that Vietnam has been left a starving waste. The soldiers were expected to return to the land and to the factories, to build up the wealth of that ravished country but, instead, there is a growing desert where there should be flourishing agriculture.
In any foreign affairs debate we come back to the relationship with Russia. The Chinese are containing the threat in South-East Asia, but our diplomatic efforts in the Middle East are not recording success. The Russians have moved with military force in a pincer movement around the Gulf States. They have firmly embedded themselves in Ethiopia and Aden and are committed in Afghanistan.
Recently, a new diplomatic philosophy about the area was enunciated by Mr. Brezhnev, when welcoming Colonel Gaddafi. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) is not present after his interesting speech. Only 10 days ago Mr. Brezhnev stated:
"Camp David was in fact a first step, though not to a lasting peace in the Middle East but to the knocking together of a military bloc, including the USA, Israel and Sadat's Egypt, spearheaded against the Arabs."
My hon. Friend may have missed that. When Mr. Brezhnev wants the Russians to be included in an
324
arrangement in the Middle East, we find them already there in theory, hoping to be there physically. The awesome fascination of Mr. Brezhnev's statement is that the Russians are clearly hoping to cut off the Arab oil States from the hope of peace that Camp David offered. I fear that our good friends in the Gulf States have not yet recognised that Russia's growing threat to their future must be faced in parallel with their wish to solve the Palestine problem.
After 1983, Russia will have to import oil, although it is at present the world's largest producer. In about 18 months, it will have to tackle that problem, or its miserable standard of living will further decline. It is advocated in the House, and it is the wish of many Middle East States, that the Palestine problem must be tackled. But to do so without realising the threat from the North could be disastrous for everyone.
In the same speech, referring to his view of past imperialism, Mr. Brezhnev also stated:
"History is deciding this matter in favour of the freedom of the peoples. Two-thirds of the States in the world of today are countries who have freed themselves from colonial oppression and imperial dependence."
That is again a play for Arab favour. I cynically wonder whether he includes in the remaining one-third the people of Poland and Kampuchea.
We are witnessing the first steps of a Soviet thrust into the Middle East. The split among so many nation States in the area can only increase the danger of conflict. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise the Russian initiative and redouble our efforts to help the Middle East to find peace, as that will benefit the whole world.
7.24 pm
Mr. Russell Johnston: During my speech I shall pick up some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren).
A foreign affairs speech which seeks, as mine has to do, on even terms with Government and Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, but with less time to reflect a general party position, usually ends up as a kind of laundry list commenting on the most pressing international issues of the day. I may not be able to evade that, but I shall deal first with the general principles of Liberal foreign policy. If the opinion polls are any guide, in conjunction with others, after the next election the Liberal Party could directly influence the conduct of foreign affairs, so we should spell out the changes that we should like to see.
A Liberal-influenced Administration would pursue a foreign policy radically different from that of the Government or, indeed, of the previous Administration. Both have adhered firmly to what they describe as the principle of national interest. It is sometimes further refined and called the principle of vital national interest. It is an ill-defined concept, but one about which we hear a great deal, especially, and at boring length, during the regularly staged and repetitive European debates. The principle can be summed up in the classic remark of the late Dan McGarvey of the boilermakers union during the 1975 EEC referendum, when he said:
"If it's a choice between French peasants and Scottish boilermakers, I know whose side I'm on."
The principle rests on the general assumption that foreigners are on the make, but that Britishers are fair and reasonable; hence, to subject Britain to a decision-making process involving foreigners will produce conclusions that lack objectivity—by which is meant conclusions that take

325
account not only of our needs, but of the needs of others. It is most frequently applied to specific situations. For example, failure to agree a fisheries or agricultural policy completely satisfactory to Britain is seen as a more than adequate reason for rejecting the whole idea of seeking to achieve an economically and politically integrated Europe.
In theory, and in the play-acting of political posturing, the Conservative Party is cast as the Gaullist nationalist who will go his own way, irrespective of others. The Labour party is portrayed as outward-looking and internationalist. However, looking beyond the rhetoric, the practical differences are not great.
On Tuesday a large lobby came to Parliament to urge a much more effective response to the Brandt report. It was deeply critical of the Government. The criticisms were more than justified, though in real terms the Government's contribution to overseas aid is 0·3 per cent. of GNP, compared with 0·4 or 0·5 per cent. under the Labour Administration, which is hardly an enormous difference and does not justify the morally superior attitude adopted by many Labour Members.
The Labour Party's opposition to Europe is in essence an opposition to sharing decisions with people in other countries. The Conservative Party pretends that it wants to share decisions, and, indeed, sends the Foreign Secretary to Hamburg to make melodious speeches to that effect, but it does little in practice.
Dr. M. S. Miller: The hon. Gentleman is making a very interesting speech, but does he not agree, first, that it is not about sharing decisions with other countries that Britain is concerned, but about the fact that other countries make decisions that Britain has to follow? Even if one takes the first point of view, does not the history of the Continent of Europe lend credence to the British fear of being dragged in on the heels of other countries?
Mr. Johnston: I think that the history of Europe teaches us that we should try, in a way that has not been tried before, to knit together those countries and to heal the rifts between them. I believe that it teaches us the contrary of the conclusion reached by the hon. Gentleman.
Both Labour and Conservative Parties over the past two decades have failed to take any real lead in strengthening United Nations agencies. I realise that, looking at the United Nations from what might be described as a European pluralist position, the whole concept is clearly flawed by the dominance of non-democratic countries in the General Assembly. Notwithstanding that, however, the achievements have been considerable. I cite the examples of the search for reconciliation in Namibia, where I had the honour to meet Mr. Ahtisaari and very much admired what he was seeking to do, Cyprus, and beleaguered Lebanon, to which I shall return, in seeking to help the refugees of nationalism and imperialism right across the globe.
My political experience is relatively short, but it spans events such as Hola Camp, Cyprus, the early total rejection by both Labour and Conservative Parties of entry into Europe, the clinging by both panes to the concept of an independent nuclear deterrent, and to the east of Suez concept long after it ceased to have any genuine meaning. I believe that all those errors were founded on this mistaken adhesion to the principle of national interest.
326
That principle still dominates Foreign Office thinking and I believe that it is a basic barrier to international understanding.
Peace and economic stability can be achieved only by the pursuit of general equity rather than national advantage. That means an acceptance of, and an urgency to make work, all supranational agencies. The most damning thing about the present official view of the Labour Party towards the Community, looked at from a Liberal point of view, is not its criticism of particular operations of the Community, but the fact that it does not want the Community to work at all. That I simply do not understand.
In a world which, as Brandt has told us, is spawning people well ahead of resources, thereby creating the classic conditions for totalitarianism and repression, surely the democracies must work to preserve what generations have built up.
In essence, therefore, I wish to see a foreign policy firmly committed to building international links and to strengthening them where they already exist. That means abandoning the mirage of independent deterrents and developing genuine NATO integration. That means working for more common policies within the European Community. It means taking a lead in the development of United Nations agencies.
An interesting proposition was made earlier by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) about the United Nations taking over both the Gaza strip and the West Bank, but I believe that that is asking the United Nations to do something that it has not the capacity to do. That is an example of an area in which there is a need for the United Nations to develop such a capacity, but at present it does not have it. This is where Britain should be leading. It also means giving aid more effectively than we do and giving priority to advancement of the North-South dialogue.
In other words, the Government must ultimately be as much concerned with the French peasant—or, indeed, the Ugandan peasant—as with the Scottish boilermaker. One should endeavour to work not just for selfish interests, but for principles of general equity.
I repeat the basic commitment of the Liberal Party, which I set out in the debate on 24 November last, to the Community, to the effective co-operation of the Atlantic Alliance and to the pursuit of peace and arms reduction with the Soviet Union.
I began that speech by referring to the new situation in China. I was interested to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Hastings about his visit there. My right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), the leader of the Liberal Party, also recently visited China as a guest of the Government. I am sure that such contacts are of value, both in building up trade, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, and in developing understanding.
As I said earlier, it is difficult to get away from the laundry list. I shall conclude by referring briefly to five specific issues which I believe especially concern us at the present time.
The first is the Middle East. I shall not go into the whole question dealt with by the hon. Member for Westbury. As has been said before, the Liberal position is not very dissimilar from the Venice declaration. I should like to

327
refer briefly to the Lebanon, where, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) rightly said, the situation is exceptionally grave.
I think that it is fair to say that the Lebanon feels itself to be deserted by the international community and that it is in some danger of total collapse as an independent sovereign State. I believe that there is therefore an obligation upon the international community to try to do something about the situation. The Lebanon has become the fighting ground for others and for the problems of others. In many ways it is a classic example of what can happen to a country that has no significant means of defending itself. The PLO is now there in force, because it was thrown out of Jordan by King Hussein. So the PLO fights the Israelis, the Israelis back Haddad, Syria the Muslims, and there is the continual interplay of forces to which reference has been made. Lebanon is the battleground for others.
I believe that the international community should give every possible assistance to the Lebanese Government to reassert their authority within their own country. I also believe that it is in Israel's interest to stabilise the situation and to give encouragement to the Lebanese President in seeking to defuse it, rather than by escalating the conflict with Syria against the background, which is always difficult in democracies, of a general election. What, if anything, are the Government doing about such contacts as they may have with the Lebanese Government, and what offers of assistance, if any, have they made?
The Minister did not refer to the situation in the Horn of Africa, where we are witnessing the most appalling genocidal conflict. Eritrea, after all, was forcibly and illegally incorporated into Ethiopia by Haile Selassie. That situation has been maintained by force, backed by Eastern arms, by a remarkably vicious, corrupt and tyrannical Administration. I should like the Minister to answer two questions. First, does he believe that there is anything that the international community can effectively do about the situation in the Horn of Africa? Have the Government, for example, had any discussions with the Soviet Union about it? Clearly, the Soviet Union's influence and its arms have an effect upon what is happening. What moves are the Government making?
Secondly, have the Government any view on any way of easing the refugee problem? Incidentally, one wonders in this regard whether even at a very informal level the Government ever discuss this with the OAU. The plain fact is that all over Africa the arbitrary borders left by the European imperialists are an active incitement to an endless succession of wars and depressions. We have left a pattern on the map which in most places bears little relationship to the spread of people in their nations and communities throughout that continent.
Can the Minister say anything about Kampuchea,? I talked last week to a Continental politician who had just returned from Kampuchea who painted a horrifying picture. The British Government have made a considerable aid contribution to Kampuchea, and many British people have given a lot through voluntary agencies. My informant said categorically that all aid was regulated and often siphoned off by the Vietnamese. Furthermore, he added that all Western aid was described as coming from the Soviet Union and that no credit was given to the West for the assistance that it had rendered. Has the Minister any
328
information about that? In particular what happens to the aid that the British Government and people have committed to Kampuchea?
I agree with the stress given to the accelerating urgency of the Namibian situation by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East. I have only one question to ask. The matter has already been developed by a number of hon. Members, and I suspect that it may be further developed by others. If the present South African opposition to settlement is founded on an objection to a United Nations monitoring force because of its commitment to SWAPO, what consideration are the British Government or the other Western countries giving to circumventing this perhaps by proposing an alternative monitoring force either from the EEC or elsewhere? In the end it is essential to get fair and free elections as quickly as possible. In order to achieve that one should not be afraid to reconsider some of the mechanisms, because in the end they are less important than the achievement of fair and free elections.
Like the Lord Privy Seal, I found both crude and offensive the remarks of the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) about the United States President. It is not at all helpful to make such remarks, but that does not mean that I feel easy or confident about the policies that are likely to be pursued by the Reagan Administration. Have the Government expressed any views to their Atlantic partner about continued aid by the United States to the junta in El Salvador? Such a policy is to be condemned. It is fundamentally misguided.
Although this is a long debate, there is no time to deal with many of the other questions about which our foreign policy must be concerned. Many other hon. Members still wish to speak. However, my essential message is that, as a Liberal, I believe that British foreign policy should be founded on a search, through strengthened international agencies for wider equity, rather than upon the pursuit of the chimera of self-interest. That is often quoted in debate, but, in reality, what do we mean by self-interest? Do we mean the car workers' self-interest, the fishermen's self-interest or the Socialists' self-interest? The only genuine self-interest is for Britain to achieve fair trading patterns and political institutions throughout the Community and the world at large.
7.45 pm
Viscount Cranborne: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). His tours d'horizon in foreign affairs debates are always well informed and rather endearing. Like so many Liberal policies, the hon. Gentleman's remarks reminded me of the Irishman who when asked the way replied "I would not start from here if I were you". Although I am superficially attracted to the hon. Gentleman's delightful and idealistic commitment against national interest, I fear that I must range myself solidly against him, because, in my view, the national interest should be one of the primary objectives of British foreign policy. I hope that Ministers in the Foreign Office will not be deviated from that objective by the hon. Gentleman's strictures.
We should be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the opportunity that he has given us to debate foreign affairs. However, it is not over-churlish to say that my gratitude is tempered by a sense of disappointment at the circumstances under which the House has been presented with this debate. After all, we are discussing a vitally important subject on a Thursday

329
evening and on a motion for the Adjournment when certain democratic elections are taking place which have commanded the attention of a disproportionate number of our colleagues.
No one could accuse my right hon. and hon. Friends of underestimating the importance of foreign affairs, but perhaps the elitisms of Foreign Office traditions have dictated that the old idea that the Crown and Crown alone shall hold sway over foreign policy has persisted too long. That is perhaps evidenced by the reluctance to give the House what it undoubtedly needs—a full dress foreign affairs debate. None the less, we should unquestionably be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for allocating time tonight, because no one can doubt the supreme and growing importance to Britain of foreign affairs.
Mr. Hurd: Foreign Office Ministers would like nothing more than a series of magnificent foreign affairs debates, attended by practically all hon. Members, but it never seems to work out that way.
Viscount Cranborne: I accept what my hon. Friend says. Equally, I am sure that he will agree that the circumstances this evening are not such as to encourage maximum attendance and interest.
The importance of foreign affairs has grown rapidly over the last 10 years. For many obvious reasons, it is a vital subject for Britain. After all, we export a higher proportion of our GDP than any other member of the OECD, including West Germany. The world is shrinking and communications make sure that we are increasingly interdependent. Over the last decade the economies of the developed world have grown at an average rate of about 3 per cent., whereas exports have grown nearly twice as fast, thereby ensuring that world interdependence on trade increases constantly and far faster than the economies themselves.
There are other reasons why foreign affairs are important. Hon. Members will not wish me to enumerate them all. However, I should like to mention two of them. First, in the past 30 years the world has never known a more dangerous time than the present. Secondly, and equally importantly, a disaster is overtaking the countries of the Third world. This week, several thousand people attended a mass lobby and drew our attention to the Brandt report's recommendations. They were all conscious of the dramatic nature of that disaster. Those two considerations are inextricably entwined.
Why is the world such a dangerous place? If I understood him correctly, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) tried to decry the Soviet Union's role in this respect. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if my note of what he said is inaccurate. He said that too often the United States of America was dangerously insensitive to local factors affecting stability, as distinct from the factors affecting stability that are influenced by Russian imperialism. I take issue with the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. In the past 30 years there has never been a danger spot or an explosive situation in which the Soviet Union has not played a leading, destructive and aggravating role. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) may shake his head and laugh. I defy him to find an area in the world in which that is not true. I accept that local factors often lead
330
to trouble. However, there is not an area in the world in which the Soviet Union has not seen fit to interfere and make things worse.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the difficulties in Kenya were caused by the Russians?
Viscount Cranborne: I assume that the hon. Gentleman means the Mau Mau troubles. The Soviet Union influenced events in East Africa at that time. There can be no question about that.
Mr. Maxton: What about Northern Ireland?
Viscount Cranborne: Many well-informed people believe that the Soviet Union spends more on subversion in Northern Ireland than any other country in the Western world, with the exception of the United States of America.
There can be no doubt that the Soviet Union's dominating influence has a dramatic effect on our consideration of the developing world. Too often, we forget that Soviet aid is never constructive. The Soviet Union spends vast sums of money on supplying weapons and prestige projects and on supporting regimes that are friendly towards Russia and its ambitions. Contrary to much of Western aid, Soviet aid is not directed towards improving the education and economic capabilities of the countries concerned.
Mr. Maxton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the major problems is that the United States of America—frequently with the support of the British Government and of other Western Governments—has propped up corrupt, militarist, Right-wing regimes against the wishes of the people? On many occasions those who are trying to free themselves from such regimes have been attracted towards Russia for aid. If aid had been given by the West, there would not have been any need for Russian intervention.
Viscount Cranborne: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should suggest that there is ever a need for Russian intervention. I am sure that the phrase "need for Russian intervention" will be held against him and placed on the record.
All hon. Members will be aware of the disaster that is taking place in the poorer countries of the world. Mention has already been made of Africa and, particularly, of parts of Asia. All hon. Members will agree that on humanitarian grounds and on grounds of security it is vital to ensure that proper measures are taken to build up the nations of the Third world and to help them to build their own economies.
Brandt proposed a solution. No one could quarrel with the proposition that three things are needed if we are to avert the disaster overtaking the Third world. First, an adequate level of education is needed. An economically viable managerial and productive class must be created. Secondly, we need, above all, a period of peace and stability which is based on open trade. It is interesting to consider the Labour Party's statements on this subject.
Many Labour Members support the strictures of the Cambridge school of economists. They call for increasing degrees of protectionism in order to protect, understandably, our domestic industries. However, when Labour Members consider Brandt's recommendations they suggest, in another breath, that we should help the countries of the Third world. They ignore the fact that the most effective way of doing that is to encourage the

331
economies of the Western world to show the openness needed if we are to welcome Third world imports. The Western world should not weaken its economies, but strengthen them. Unless we strengthen them in a way consistent with free trade, Third world countries will be condemned to heavy debts which they will not be able to get out of. We should also condemn them to increasing poverty, because they would not be able to find markets for their exports.
I have tried to bracket together two factors, namely, the danger presented by the Soviet Union and the appalling horrors of the increasing poverty of the Third world. I said that the two were inextricably entwined. There are many reasons for that. For example, Russia is willing and able to interfere in Third world countries for its own reasons. In addition, the Soviet threat has an effect on our policies vis-a-vis the Third world. If Russia did not exist as an imperialist power and if it was a peaceful country. dedicated to co-existence—the type of country that the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) spent so much time trying to persuade us that it was—we would be able to devote a higher proportion of our resources not to security but to developing our economies and encouraging free trade. We would be able to spend less on the forces of destruction and would not have to encourage the export of weapons to the Middle East, which the danger posed by the Russians makes inevitable.
In that context it was interesting that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East did not attempt to answer my question when I intervened in his speech about whether the Labour Party would support the sale of the Hawk aircraft to the United Arab Emirates. He said he would answer but he conspicuously failed to do to so. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will attempt to answer that question because I feel that the workers making the Hawk trainer will be deeply interested in what our apparent substitute Government will do their jobs.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that in no circumstances would he seek to trade with a country because of its policies? Does he still give approval to those British companies which did much to arm Nazi Germany's army and air force, knowing the threat and what was happening?
Viscount Cranborne: Nazi Germany represented a considerable threat to our security. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not agree with that, but I suspect that the 50 million dead in the Second World War would, if they were able, support my contention. There are good reasons for not exporting weapons and high technology to a country which poses a threat to our security.
Mr. Hughes rose——
Viscount Cranborne: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. Hughes: Answer my question.
Viscount Cranborne: I want to speak about something else that is tangential to that question.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member's friends did it.
Viscount Cranborne: The hon. Gentleman says that my friends did it. He may have been alive in the 1930s. I am afraid that I am so young that I was not.
Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman is proving that.
Viscount Cranborne: The friends that I knew well who were politically active in the 1930s were conspicuous for their root and branch opposition to any form of appeasement of the Nazis. I have answered the hon. Gentleman about the selling of weapons.
People talk about peace, but it is like being against sin. Everyone is for peace and against sin. It is colossally naive for those who have spoken so much about peace in the debate and in the lobby on the Brandt report to assume that if we spend less on weapons, the Russians will spend less, too. To make such an assumption is comforting to those who make it. However, it represents a misunderstanding of the nature of Soviet imperialist power.
When my right hon. and hon. Friends consider disarmament—I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal lay such emphasis on that word—they should realise that the only way realistically to achieve it is by the nations of the Western world combining against the Russians. We should say to the Russians "If you desist from your aggressive and destabilising policies throughout the world, we will disarm if you disarm. We as an alliance are united." The SALT II negotiations were full of good intentions on our side. I hope that the same is true of the Soviet Union. It seems that the Soviet Union used those negotiations as a stalking horse to lull the West into a false sense of security—I apologise to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston)—while it continued to impinge on our vital interests round the fringes of NATO.
If we say to the Russians "If you want an arms race, we are richer than you"—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) pointed out—"and if we have the will, as we have, we can outbuild and outrace you" that is a sterile option. We do not want to do that as the consequences would be appalling. However, if we have to do so we shall. We should tell the Soviet Union that there is a better alternative. We do not want to enter into an arms race. If the Russians were to desist from their imperialistic ambitions and disarm, we would follow suit. The economic benefits that we could afford the Russians are incalculable. We know that the Russian economy is in dire straits.
Mr. Maxton: So is ours.
Viscount Cranborne: We know that the Russians cannot produce enough fuel for themselves, and that the only part of the Soviet industry that works is its arms industry. A united approach would yield enormous benefits for the Soviet Union.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider that a united approach by the Western allies is the only way to convince the Russians that we mean business. If they are convinced that we mean business—because of the nature of their power—we can ensure that we achieve meaningful disarmament talks which will lead to benefits not only for Russia but a more constructive and helpful approach to the disasters in the Third world.
8.7 pm
Dr. M. S. Miller: There is nothing I should like better than to take a tour round the world calling at the various places mentioned in the debate. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) was excellent. I do not agree with the hon.

333
Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) that the nefarious activities of the Soviet Union are to blame for all the ills of the world. I am not starry-eyed about the Soviet Union—either its aspirations or activities—but to consider that it should be blamed for every evil that goes on in the world is to ascribe to it superhuman powers that it does not have. The Soviets are ordinary people and make the same mistakes as others, only perhaps more often.
I shall confine my remarks to the Middle East. Europe has a preoccupation with safeguarding oil supplies. One appreciates and understands the difficulties faced by many European countries. It would be more honest, however, if European leaders admitted that rather than try to justify their Middle East policies in terms of high moral principles.
Europe, including Britain, has embarked on a policy of pushing hard for a quick solution to the Arab-Israel dispute. It is imagined that the establishing of yet another Arab State—the twenty-third in the area, to accommodate the Palestinian Arabs—would get the oil exporting countries off European backs. Everyone would heave a sigh of relief and we would all settle down to a quiet peaceful life with the threat of strangulation removed.
I accept that every effort would be made to minimise the risk to the State of Israel. I am sure that almost all hon. Members agree that it would be unthinkable that the existence of the only democratic country in the Middle East should be endangered. However, if something went wrong with that nice little plan I suspect that the sacrifice of Israel would be shrugged off, not with joy in the Western world, but as an unfortunate and unhappy parallel with the sacrifice of Czechoslovakia in 1938.
It is doubtful, to say the least, whether even that disastrous outcome would result in more than a temporary respite in the turbulent turmoil of the Middle East because instability in that area is, unfortunately, the norm in the deep-rooted and deep-seated strife between and among the varied factions, groupings, personalities and ideologies that are the constituent parts of the region. At the moment, the bitter hatred of Israel is the only uniting factor, but the absence of Israel would not bring peace to the Middle East. There is a number of excellent analyses of the situation, and I do not intend to dwell on that aspect of the problem.
I wish to concentrate on British policy and the PLO. The Foreign Secretary believes that we must bring the PLO into our deliberations because, whether we like it or not, most Palestinians regard the PLO as representing their views. It is highly debatable to say that most Palestinians take that view because no alternative has been permitted to the Palestinians. Palestinian Arab nationalism has been concentrated in the military disposition, and moderate opinion has been stifled.
Earlier this year, I had several discussions with an American professor who is spending a sabbatical year in Israel. He went there with a feeling that there was something in the argument that the PLO commanded the support of the vast majority of Arabs on the West Bank, but he thought that he should try to test it out. He spent three afternoons a week for three months in the West Bank, not with notebook in hand, but as a tourist and trying to speak to as many people as possible. He said that he was surprised to find that there was not the support for the PLO that those in the West believed.
Of course, the professor did not speak to students, and some other groups. He confined his talks to shopkeepers, small business men and housewives and he guaranteed that
334
he would not publish the information that they gave him. He complied with the guarantee and said that as time went on he received more information from the people there. His mind was changed and he concluded that there was a great deal of support for a more moderate representation on the West Bank, but that the people were afraid of offending the PLO. We know what that means, because we have seen the intimidation that takes place in Northern Ireland.
The Foreign Secretary believes that we should try to influence the policies of the PLO, presumably to soften s line, but the PLO has now had talks with representatives of a number of European Governments and still maintains that its goal is the elimination of Israel. Recent quotations show the bellicosity of the PLO. At the fifteenth session of the Palestine National Council on 15 April, Mr. Yasser Arafat said:
"We are the sole legitimate representatives through the mouth of the gun, the maker of victory for the Palestinian people."
He also said:
"Our rifles will create the realities in the Middle East and we will deal with the whole world on this basis."
The Foreign Secretary also says that the PLO cannot be expected to change overnight, and that we must attempt to influence it in the direction of peace. That is a fair comment.
Mr. Walters: As a parallel, would the hon. Gentleman have suggested at the time when the Zionist movements were fighting for independence in Israel that we should have talked not to the Haganah, but to some of the friendly bodies in London that took a slightly different view?
Dr. Miller: I cannot equate the Haganah with the PLO. Perhaps one or two of the terrorist organisations could be equated with the PLO, but the Haganah was not a terrorist organisation.
The Foreign Secretary's statement that we must attempt to influence the PLO in the direction of peace is a fair comment, but the question is whether recognition is the right way to proceed. Would it not be better to make the PLO's recognition of Israel's right to exist—not an unrealistic proposition—a bargaining counter before we recognised the PLO?
I would not deny the right of any organisation to play its part in negotiations, but I would deny its demand, in the absence of unintimidated evidence, to be the sole representative of the Palestinians and we should be chary of any organisation whose ultimate objective is the physical elimination of its opponents.
The Foreign Secretary does not accept the parallel between the IRA and the PLO. He is right in that even the IRA does not contest Britain's right to exist. In any case, exact parallels are rare, but there are marked similarities between the two organisations. However, in two important respects the PLO has shown itself to be even more extreme than the IRA. Its victims are always "soft" targets—women and children. Reprehensible as the IRA's campaign is, it often attacks "hard" targets—soldiers, the UDR and military installations.
Secondly, the PLO has killed many more Arabs than Israelis. For example, in the Gaza Strip between 1967 and 1972, 49 Israeli soldiers and civilians were killed and 218 were injured. But 312 Arabs were killed and 1,202 injured by the PLO. Among those killed were 50 children.
What should we do about the situation? Postures and polarisation merely produce another deadlock, and slogans

335
are worthless. It is a serious problem and it is correct to treat it with deliberate calmness and care. We are dealing with the rights of two peoples, and I accept that any group that considers itself a people has a right to a home.
However, the equation is not quite equal, because we are dealing with one group that wishes to annihilate another. However hon. Members may regard some of the policies of the Israeli Government—and I am no friend of Mr. Begin—there is a difference between a group that wishes to annihilate another and a group that, with certain qualifications, wants to live in peace.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Westbury, (Mr. Walters), who seems to have softened his previous position. I welcome that, and his solution is worthy of consideration. Indeed, it differs little from the measures that I had noted.
However, it is unfair of the Lord Privy Seal to say that 100 per cent. security for one means 100 per cent. insecurity for another. No one can have 100 per cent. security and Israel is not asking for that. It depends on what a nation means by security. For us, security usually means the ability to deter attack and to defend ourselves if we are attacked.
For Israel it means more than that. It means preventing its annihilation. There are those who think that that is an obsession with the Israelis, but we must accept and admit that their experience has led them to consider that the possibility exists that if they lost a war it would be the last war that they would lose because they would be annihilated.
I must disagree with the hon. Member for Westbury about the question of occupation. Every war ends with the victor occupying the other country. I know of no war in which that did not happen. The victor occupies the country until a peace process has been initiated and a peace treaty has been signed. That is the usual course of events and it is no different in this instance. Why should the Israelis be any different from any other people in this respect?
I shall outline some measures that I suggest are not very different from those advanced by the hon. Member for Westbury. First, the diplomatic deadlock should be ended and there should be instituted a developing peace process. Such negotiations take a long time. For example, how long have the troubles in Northern Ireland been continuing? There are many places in the world where situations similar to those in the Middle East have taken many years to bring to a reasonable conclusion.
Secondly, there should be self-administration and determination on a regional basis for the Palestinian Arabs. That should be on the basis of their own determination free from intimidation by the PLO. I think that that is exactly what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting. There should be a regional area of self-administration and control by the Palestinian Arabs as long as their representatives are elected without intimidation.
Thirdly, the issue of final and complete sovereignty should be left open until another day. We must allow a developing process to take place. I have made innumerable visits to Israel and I have received many indications of the feelings of Israelis towards Arabs. I have never had any great regard for Mr. Begin, the present Prime Minister, but it is significant that he chose to direct his invective against not the Arabs but the Germans. Nearly everyone who visits
336
Israel finds that there is no vindictiveness directed against the Arabs. However, a great deal of vindictiveness is inculcated and developed by the Arabs against the Israelis.
I am convinced that the vast majority of Israelis are not interested in territory. Their interest lies in being allowed to live in peace. Of course, there are some crackpots in Israel, as there are in all societies. I am sure that the moment Israel feels that the threat to its very existence has disappeared—it must feel it and no one can tell it—there will be no problem about the sovereignty of Palestinian Arabs.
8.25 pm
Mr. Richard Body: I am disappointed by the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller). I thought that he was one of the more kindly of our colleagues. It seems that he is totally insensitive to the feelings of hundreds of thousands who have been displaced from their country. My mind was made up on this issue in 1957 when I saw for the first time one of the refugee camps. I find it difficult to reconcile some of the ideas that he has expressed with some of the harder facts that we must all recognise to be true.
The hon. Gentleman gave us two quotations from speeches that were made quite recently. I offer him two back. One is from a speech of Mr. Begin, the Prime Minister of Israel. According to Time magazine of 30 May 1977, he said:
"It is inconceivable"—
this is a moderate as described by the hon. Gentleman——
Dr. M. S. Miller rose——
Mr. Body: The hon. Gentleman spoke of the great majority of the Israelis as being moderate and wanting to live in peace.
Dr. Miller: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is talking of Mr. Begin, who is not a moderate.
Mr. Body: I am glad that that is recognised. He is far from being a moderate. I shall proceed with the quotation, which is in the minds of many Palestinians. Mr. Begin said:
"It is inconceivable to us to allow a Palestinian State".
Those were firm and decisive words.
According to a report in The Sunday Times some years ago Mrs. Golda Meir said:
"There is no such thing as Palestinians"—
as if they were things.
"They did not exist."
In the face of such sentiments, it is not altogether surprising that so many Palestinians feel so frustrated and resort to deeds of violence.
Dr. Miller: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not insensitive. Surely he must realise that the antipathy, venom and enmity of the Arabs towards Israel antedates what he is saying by many years.
Mr. Body: The Israeli attitude continues. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as everyone else in the House that when resolution 242 was passed it had, at that time, the support of Israel. Surely he must agree that the words and the spirit of that resolution have been flouted time and again by Israel, not least with regard to the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories in conflict. It may be that resolution 3236 is more to the point. It was overwhelmingly supported by the United Nations with a

337
vote of 89 to 8. It reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including the right to self-determination and national independence.
More recently there has been the Venice declaration. I hope that the Government will stand firm by the words of that declaration. We have a great opportunity, now that we are to take the chair in the Council of Ministers as from 1 July, to make sure that progress is made on the lines of that declaration. However, most of us are not optimistic about progress, unless Israel is made to realise that the suffering that she has caused to so many people cannot be tolerated much longer.
For that reason, it may be necessary to warn Israel that if she persists in her attitude, other countries who otherwise would wish to be her friends may need to resort to economic sanctions. That, I am sure, would be regreted by everyone. Nevertheless time is passing, and it is not tolerable that hundreds of thousands of people who have been uprooted from their homelands should continue, decade after decade, to live in the conditions in which they do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) spoke about the Brandt report, and I wholeheartedly agree with what he said. The best thing we could do for many Third world countries would be to open our doors to them and allow British people to buy the goods and food that those countries are only too willing to sell us. There was a time in the last century when politicians on both sides of the House used to drink to the toast of "Peace and free trade with all the world". There is a connection between the two. When countries trade freely and to their mutual advantage, the seeds of war cannot germinate. Yet protectionism is gaining ground. Inevitably, it brings friction and ill-feeling between countries that should be friends, because protectionism is a form of economic warfare.
A few weeks ago I was in a country, many of whose sons came to Europe and lost their lives. I speak of Australia. Now there is a different attitude on the part of most Australians to this country. There is a feeling of bitterness. I was saddened to hear disagreeable feelings expressed about this country and the way in which we have caused so many of its people, not least its farmers, to go out of business. In the event of a future conflict, many Australians have been made less willing to come and fight our battles with us.
That is a matter that we must all regret, but it is a result largely of having erected protectionist and unfair barriers against that country. It used to be said that when goods cannot cross frontiers, armies will. There cannot be peace and tranquillity in any true sense, unless there is free trade. History shows that when a country is willing to pursue a policy of free trade, it makes many friends and loses its enemies.
8.34 pm
Mr. David Watkins: As Lebanon is very much the current focus of conflict in the Middle East it has inevitably figured considerably in the speeches of a number of right hon. and hon. Members. I, too, wish to concentrate on the unhappy situation in that country. As was rightly said by a number of right hon. and hon. Members the ramifications of that conflict are a matter of concern to everyone. It is the current reflection of the long-standing situation in the Middle East which is a danger to the peace of the world and a potential flash point.
338
First, I shall clarify some of the numerous misconceptions that exist about Lebanon. Anyone who heard the speech of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) can be under little doubt about the extraordinary misconceptions that exist in his mind and in the minds of other people. The conflict in that country is not simply between Christians and Muslims, as it is so regularly represented in the Western press and as it is regarded in Western thinking generally. It is far more complicated than that, involving complex internal factors arising in no small measure from a semi-feudal society. The position has been worsened, and continues to be worsened deliberately, by the physical and political intervention of foreign Powers anxious only to further their own ends by maintaining instability in the Lebanon The situation is not helped by the bland platitudes of countries which could do much more to end the conflict.
In analysing the situation in the Lebanon, I return to the conflict between Christians and Muslims. It must be remembered that there are three main Christian groupings, which are hostile to one another, and that there is also conflict among Muslims. There are also alliances between Christians and Muslims.
The National Movement, led by Mr. Walid Joumblatt, exists to try to embrace people of all confessions—it succeeds in doing so—and is perhaps the ultimate hope for the Lebanon. The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) said of the current situation that it was at the invitation of Christian factions within the Lebanon in 1976 that Syria originally intervened to protect them against attacks. It is one of the heavy ironies of the present situation, when the Syrians are being accused of deliberately attacking Christian communities, that that should be so.
It was the invitation of the Syrians into the Lebanon in those circumstances in 1976 that resulted in the brutal obliteration by the Syrian Army of the predominantly Muslim-Palestinian township of Tel al Zattar on the outskirts of Beirut. However, against that, since the 1975–76 civil war in the Lebanon, Syria has played the major role in the pan-Arab force which was established by the Arab League to try to maintain order in the country. That has proved a heavy military and economic burden upon Syria and has had its repercussions in the internal politics of Syria.
Syria has received precious little support from either Arab or Western countries and we should not be surprised if it has turned for help to the Soviet Union. That is the only quarter from which help for Syria has been forthcoming.
One of the appalling features in the Lebanon is the existence of private armies. Among the Christian faction, Mr. Bashir Gemayel has emerged as the leader of the main private army, that of the extreme right Phalange Party, which is historically modelled—it originated in the 1930s—upon Mussolini's Fascist movement in Italy. It now has the open and total support of the Israeli intervention in the Lebanon. It was that group's attempt to take military control of the town of Zahle after consultations with the Israeli Chief of Staff, General Eytan, who went to North Lebanon to consult its representatives, that was the direct cause of the present conflict.

339
I was interested in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) about "peaceful Israel", because no country has a record of intervention in the Lebanon to match that of Israel.
It was shortly after the 1967 war, which was launched by Israel, that the Israeli Army landed at Beirut airport—in a country which had never been at war with Israel—and deliberately destroyed the Lebanese civilian airline fleet. The Israelis have been bombing and shelling and making incursions into the Lebanese territory ever since then, by land, by sea and by air, in a campaign of official terrorism designed to control the south of the country in their interests.
In 1978 there was a full-scale Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon. That resulted in Israel leaving its puppet, Major Haddad, to command what are, in effect, its forces of occupation. Those Israeli-backed forces of Major Haddad have been engaged ever since then—quite apart from other activities—in continuous attacks against the international forces of the United Nations which were put there after the 1978 invasion in order to seek to control the position—something that they have had a very little success in doing.
It is astounding that the world community, which has a responsibility for those international forces, is seemingly so prepared to tolerate this position, because it is not an exaggeration to say that Lebanon today is being used as a battlefield by foreign Powers to further their own objectives in the way that Spain was used as a battlefield by foreign Powers in the late 1930s. The central object of Israeli policy is to maintain the destabilisation of the country in pursuance of its own expansionist policies.
I have here a telegram which I received from Beirut, dated 2 May. It is from Mr. Innam Raad, who is the president of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, which is a part of the national movement to which I have already referred—an amalgam of various groupings. I should like to quote the relevant parts of the telegram, because it is significant in drawing attention to the military intervention which has been carried on by the Israelis.
The telegram states:
"Israeli air attacks on Mount Lebanon and some villages in the Boukka district is an escalation in aggression … This new aggression is taking place during negotiations held in the Republican Palace for National Reconciliation with the aid of the Syrian Minister for Foreign Affairs where all Lebanese factions were summoned for preparatory hearing. Israel is trying to destroy all political solutions for the Lebanese crisis".
I make no comment on the telegram, which comes from a man whom I have met in Lebanon, and who has very considerable standing within that country. Whether it is in Lebanon today, or in relation to some moves towards an international settlement involving the Palestinians or others, there is invariably some sort of Israeli action which is designed to prevent negotiations from being carried out.
I join in the welcome given by certain hon. Members on each side on the House to the initiative from Washington seeking to involve the United States with the Soviet Union, Syria and Israel, in trying to settle the problem. Indeed, on this very day action is taking place in that direction. What I find disturbing, however, is that in that bringing together of other Powers there is virtually no mention of Lebanon itself. It would seem that foreign Powers are to decide among themselves what is to be the
340
future of Lebanon. That is on a par with the attitude, which has persisted for 30 years, of trying to settle the Palestinian problem without involving the Palestinians.
Amongst the many complexities perhaps the most fundamental is the presence in Lebanon of 300,000 Palestinians. They are there only because they were driven from their homeland by the establishment and the subsequent expansion of the State fo Israel. I was sorry to hear my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride once again trying to perpetuate the current piece of Zionist mythology that the PLO is not representative of the Palestinian people. Anyone who has met Palestinians in the Middle East, in European countries or elsewhere, knows that they look overwhelmingly to that organisation which they created as the expression of their national aspirations.
The appalling problem of Lebanon is inextricably bound up with the problem of Palestine. Neither of those problems can be settled separately. Until they are both settled there will be endless conflict in the Middle East and endless repercussions world-wide.
I want to suggest some principles upon which courses of action might be based. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) I was somewhat disappointed by the Lord Privy Seal's speech. In the wider context, he said that the Government's policy was to seek to further the relaxation of tension in disputes. He went on to speak at some length about the disputes in the Middle East; but he said nothing positive about any policy in connection with current events. That is disappointing because the United Kingdom historically and currently is exceptionally well placed to play a large role in seeking to relax tension and end bloodshed in the Middle East.
I put it to the Government that the United Kingdom and West European Governments should state plainly that Lebanon, which is the focus of tremendous conflict throughout the region, must be a free and sovereign country in its own right. There can be no talk of partition. The whole history of partition in Palestine, Cyprus and Ireland has proved to be a recipe for disaster rather than for the resolution of problems. Secondly, it should be stated plainly that all countries should desist from military intervention and from policies calculated to maintain a state of destabilisation in that country.
Thirdly, in so far as there is any intervention, it should only be from, and in the name of the United Nations, effectively to seek to sustain the legitimate Government of Lebanon and to allow the country to live in peace within secure borders. It is often said by protagonists of the Israeli case that all that resolution 242 and many other resolutions of the Security Council and General Assembly call for is that Israel alone should be able to live in peace within secure borders, but Israel's policy has been one of constant incursion and expansion into the territory of neighbouring countries.
Of urgent and paramount importance is the need to establish the right of Lebanon to live in peace and security behind secure borders. None of that can be achieved without the self-determination of the Palestinian nation, which is inextricably bound up with the whole conflict in the area. If those two vital issues continue to be sidestepped as they have been for so long there can only be endless conflict and bloodshed and a growing threat to the whole of mankind.
I conclude by hoping that we can see something more positive. A slavish following of United States policy by

341
Western Europe is not a solution because there are grave defects in that policy. Western Europe should be taking a more positive initiative. With this country's experience in the area it is better placed than any other Western European country to give a lead.
8.51 pm
Mr. Guy Barnett: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) will not mind if I do not follow him in talking about the Middle East and the Lebanon in particular. A debate of this kind is bound to be fairly wide in its coverage. I listened with great interest to his speech. I could not possibly speak with his knowledge and experience of the subject.
Both Front Bench spokesmen have referred to the lobby that took place on Tuesday. It seems appropriate that this subject should be dealt with in the debate. A great many Members were lobbied by people from all over Britain about the Brandt report and the Mexico summit in October. There can be few, if any, Members who were not deeply impressed by the efficient organisation of that lobby and by the great sense of concern shown by those who took part. According to The Times report there were up to 10,000 of them, far in excess of the expected number.
It is said from time to time that there are no votes in aid, but the thousands who came on Tuesday were representative of thousands more who could not come. The concern expressed represented a much wider and growing concern in the community as a whole. I trust that the lobby will have demonstrated that there are votes in aid. The fact that 117,000 copies of the Brandt report have been sold shows beyond doubt that there is a growing and informed body of opinion that will continue to demand a positive and constructive stance from the Government at the Mexico summit.
The people who came on Tuesday will not be content if we in Parliament carry on as before. Some people said precisely that to me. A colleague in the House told me that his constituents asked him what he was going to do in the light of the representations that were made. I dare say other Members were asked the same question. We have a right to expect a statement from the Government on what they will do and what extra commitment they will make in response to the lobby.
Many of the people to whom I spoke had studied the report with great care. There are parts of it that I find horrifying. I was interested and surprised—I hope that I heard him correctly—to hear the Minister of State claim at the meeting in Westminster Hall that the consequences of political breakdown and of the wars and revolutions that have taken place over the last decade were more serious than the problems identified in the Brandt report. The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I have quoted him wrongly. I agree with him.
The full horror of the Vietnam war, the Kampuchean disaster, the Uganda crisis, the situation in Ethiopia and Somalia and other conflicts demonstrate that the situation is serious. I do not underrate any of them. Nor would anyone question the importance that the Minister of State attached to the patient negotiation that takes place week after week, month after month, to minimise conflicts of that kind. All hon. Members were relieved when the Zimbabwe situation was resolved. I submit that the world crisis to which the Brandt report draws attention is far more serious. It is a contributory cause of the very
342
instability that occurs in many parts of the Third world. The aftermath of violence, as in Zimbabwe and elsewhere, calls for similar policies to those needed to deal with poverty and distress arising from other causes.
What are the facts? The population of the world, we are told, will increase by 2 billion in the last two decades of this century to over 6 billion. The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) illustrated in a debate last year the enormity of this increase by stating that the total population of the world was about 2 billion at the beginning of the century. The increase means, in short, that there will be 2 billion more mouths to feed. They will need clean water, homes and supplies of energy. Above all, hundreds of millions of extra people will need employment. It is not as though the world as a whole is anywhere near solving the problem associated with the present population of 4·3 billion. According to the chairman of the World Bank, 800 million people are
"below any rational definition of human decency".
Millions of children die every year, many as a consequence of diarrhoea contracted from polluted water. I believe that unless Mexico begins the process, pretty quickly, of tackling those problems we are heading for a major world calamity. Nothing less than a major shift of policy will do. The Government have shown no sign of making such a shift of policy yet. It is vital that they should do so.
What sort of initiative should Britain take? The lobby briefing, produced by the World Development Movement, which deserves the congratulations of the House for the skilful organisation of the lobby, says:
"The Brandt Commission report saw no more important task before the world community than the elimination of hunger and malnutrition in all countries."
Many people are struck by the extravagant expenditure by the world as a whole on weapons of destruction compared with the sums spent on official development aid. As the House knows, $450 billion is spent on arms, compared with the miserable sum of $20 billion spent on official aid. There is no logic in that balance of expenditure. It pays no attention to the dangers that, the world faces. I believe that I am right to ask the Government to make a practical gesture to show that they recognise this situation.
I am calling, in effect, for a unilateral gesture—only a modest one—that will show that we in Britain believe that the balance between expenditure on arms and on aid needs to be changed. I propose that we cut our defence ependiture by a token 1 per cent., making that 1 per cent. available for a crash programme to stimulate food production in developing countries, especially in the poorest food-importing countries.
The sum that Britain would offer by such a gesture would be about £120 million. That is not an enormous sum in relation to the totality of our defence expenditure. It could, however, be a sum of great significance when transplanted into developmental work. In his introduction to the report Herr Willy Brandt indicates what could be done by diverting defence expenditure to developmental purposes. He says:
"One-half of one per cent. of one year's world military expenditure would pay for all the farm equipment needed to increase food production and approach self-sufficiency in food-deficit, low-income countries by 1990".
Herr Brandt also states:
"For the price of one jet fighter (20 million dollars) one could set up about 40,000 village pharmacies."

343
and that
"A modern tank costs about a million dollars: that amount could improve storage facilities for 100,000 tons of rice and thus save 4,000 tons or more annually: one person can live on just over a pound of rice a day".
Such a lead as I am proposing would give the Prime Minister, and the representatives of those developed countries that followed us, the moral authority to ask that developing countries make a suitable response. They will need to devote a much larger part of their development effort to increasing food production, particularly for the poorest groups in those countries. They will need land reform designed to raise productivity and the purchasing power of the very poor. Both developing and developed countries will need to make a significant investment for such policy to have any chance of success.
The Prime Minister is fond of religious quotations, as the House knows. I shall suggest one to her:
"They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
Isaiah.suggests—and I suggest—the title of a worldwide campaign that could start in this country in preparation for the Mexico summit in October—"Swords into Plowshares". There is no doubt that the hundreds of people who came to lobby the House on Tuesday, and many more who could not, would support such a campaign.
Mention of disarmament at the lobby and in the Grand Committee Room was met with applause. The world disarmament campaign, started by Lord Noel-Baker and Lord Brockway, leading up to the special session of the United Nations on disarmament in 1982, is gathering strength. World disarmament and world development are linked. To what end should we have disarmament? It should be so that they shall not learn war any more, but also so that they can develop the resources of the world for the good of all as well.
I have made those suggestions because I believe strongly that that was the message from the lobby last Tuesday. It is the message of thousands of people who came to the House and thousands more who, for one reason or another, could not be at the House as well.
9.3 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: I shall not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) on his topic of overseas aid, not because it is unimportant, but because it has been well covered. I hope to meet some representatives from my constituency on Saturday who wisely decided not to spend the fares of six people to come to London. They decided to save that money as they could see me in my constituency.
The three points that I shall raise are concerned with South Africa. I wish to recall the recent visit of Bishop Desmond Tutu, the general secretary of the South African Council of Churches. He met many people, including Foreign Office Ministers. He is a brave man, speaking for his people inside his country and outside it. Everyone who has met him recognises that he is a man of no bitterness. He is a remarkably moderate and charming man. However, his gentle demeanour should not mislead people. Bishop Tutu is a man of great principle and of resolute character, who will not be silenced.
Immediately after his return to South Africa, Bishop Tutu's passport was withdrawn. It could have been
344
withdrawn by the South African Government only because they were afraid of the message which he was carrying outside South Africa. South Africa likes to pretend that those who oppose the apartheid system from within are either Marxists or extremists, or both, and that they seek only to overthrow the State by violent means. Therefore, they cannot afford to have Bishop Tutu and all that he symbolises outside the country, because that would give the lie to what is happening, in South Africa.
Bishop Tutu is to have an honorary degree conferred on him by Aberdeen university in recognition of his remarkable work as a church leader. I appeal to the Government to intercede so that he may be allowed to come here to receive his degree at the normal graduation ceremony. The Prime Minister takes up the cause of Soviet dissidents and the fact that they cannot travel freely, but if she does not intercede to allow Bishop Tutu to have that high honour conferred on him she will deny the cause of freedom and human rights, which she sometimes espouses with great eloquence.
Secondly, where do the Government stand on the United Nations mandatory arms embargo? In the past week or 10 days there has been evidence of military equipment going from Plessey to South Africa. From photographic and other evidence available to the Anti Apartheid Movement, of which I am chairman, it is clear that the equipment loaded on to the South African aeroplane was Plessey's AR 3D radar system, which is military equipment. The company's document, "Plessey in Air Defence", states:
"the system's AR 3D mobile control and reporting units (MCRU) can be geographically arranged as needed to operate under command of the strategic HQ—the air defence operational centre. Mobile radar stations are also suitable for use as tactical sector operations centres, with capability for autonomous control of individual weapons systems allocated to them from the chief operations centre."
That demonstrates that the system is purely military.
The Plessey contract was licensed in about 1976. In 1979, I raised the matter with the Foreign Secretary, who stated that the system would be used by South Africa for combined civil and military air control. Even so, I would argue that it should not be supplied, but that was a reasonable defence and perhaps in such circumstances the equipment did not fall within the mandatory arms embargo. The Government were concerned about what was happening at Plessey. When we raised the question of the licence, we also pointed out that South African military personnel were being trained at Plessey. A letter from the Foreign Secretary of 3 September to Abdul Minty, the executive secretary of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, stated:
"Though I do not regard the presence of the SADF personnel as having constituted a breach of the Government's policy of non-collaboration with the South African Government on military matters (since they were here as part of a private arrangement directly between the Company and their customer), to remove any possible misunderstanding we have advised the Company that it would be preferable if in future SADF personnel did not come to this country in connection with the contract."
I understand that no more SADF personnel will come here, but now we have clear evidence, which has been submitted to the Foreign Secretary, that the company is possibly misleading the Foreign Office. I see the Lord Privy Seal shakes his head. I hope that there will be a full investigation and explanation of the facts, because other

345
deliveries will be required. We have submitted details not only of the company carrying the equipment but of the specific plane.
I hope that if it is clear—and I believe that it is absolutely clear—that this is purely military equipment, we shall uphold the arms embargo and that if, as is implicit in the Foreign Secretary's letter, the Government intend to uphold the embargo, they will stop all future shipments.
The Government should not underestimate the damage that will be caused if they fail to act in this matter. If Britain decides that it cannot uphold international law, applied unanimously in the Security Council, tremendous damage will be done to the future standing of this country in international affairs. People will say—and who can blame them?—that they saw from the Bingham inquiry that British Governments could not be trusted. People put their hands on their hearts and said that such things would not happen again. But if the Government do not uphold the mandatory arms embargo, it will be said that the word of the British Government is worthless. In no set of negotiations in any part of the world where there are difficulties could the British Government expect to be trusted by anybody who might seek their assistance.
My third point concerns Namibia. I was disappointed by the Lord Privy Seal's speech. On this occasion, in contradistinction to the previous foreign affairs debate, he did not say that he would tell us what is the Government's policy on Namibia. He made a rather anodyne statement that things were much brighter than they had been with regard to negotiations for a settlement. I do not know whom he was trying to fool. He certainly does not fool me. I do not believe that anyone concerned with Southern Africa believes that the future for a negotiated settlement in Namibia is brighter than it was before.
In the context of what is happening in Namibia, it is worth recalling and putting on record the fact that only last month we celebrated the first anniversary of the independence of Zimbabwe. We should also recollect, and be proud of the fact that the many fears expressed about what might happen in Rhodesia after independence have not been borne out. It is instructive and relevant to the debate to recollect and to state clearly that the way in which Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Nkomo have behaved since the country of Rhodesia became an independent Zimbabwe has been exemplary. It has been a lesson to all who believed, that after many years of UDI and of bitterness, there could be only a slaughter of innocents and of whites. That has not happened. The spirit of reconciliation that is abroad in Zimbabwe is a lesson to everyone who believes that one cannot move from a position of domination into one of independence.
It is also worth recalling, because we heard echoes of it today from the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), what Conservative Members were saying during the years of UDI. There were those who came back from that country and told us incessantly that in their experience the people waging war in Rhodesia had no support inside the country. They told us that within the country the Smith Government or the interim Government or whatever it might be called were really on top of the situation. They said that the real popular support of Africans in Rhodesia was for Bishop Muzorewa, Mr. Sithole and Chief Chirau, that they were the real leaders of African opinion in Rhodesia and that we should listen to them and not take into account the views of those whom they described as terrorists and Marxists.
346
Not for the first time, and I dare say not for the last, I remind the House that if successive Governments had only listened to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself and taken our advice, the future of Southern Africa might have been very different. If only they would listen to our advice even now, the future of Southern Africa could be different. There would have been less loss of life, less maiming, less chaos and less difficulty and disruption had they only listened to us instead of listening to the siren voices of the Right which told them everything would be all right.
The Government refused to take our advice on Angola, and the Angolans won freedom from Portugal. They refused to take our advice on Mozambique, and again the force of arms prevailed. They refused to take our advice on Zimbabwe and are still refusing to take our advice on Namibia. Their failure to do so is due in part to the subservience of British Governments to South Africa.
It is now 15 years since the United Nations General Assembly terminated the League of Nations mandate on South Africa. It took ten years before we had resolution 385 on the withdrawal of South Africa and for elections under United Nations supervision. But because things did not seem to be moving, the so-called contact group of the Western Five was established, which launched its initiative in 1977 with the aim of implementing resolution 385.
Those of us who take a special interest in Southern Africa warned even then that that initiative would come to nothing. Indeed, we are now further away than we were in 1977 from achieving a peaceful solution and proper elections in Namibia. Since 1977, South Africa has become even more aggressive against the surrounding countries. I give one example. In 1978, the South African defence forces went into Angola in a raid on Kassinga, when 800 refugees were killed and hundreds left injured. Recently, almost as part of the South African election campaign, there have been further raids into Angola and Mozambique. The soldiers who went into Mozambique attacked an African National Congress house, cut off the ears of the black Africans and took the ears back to prove that they had done their job properly. That is the sort of country which has been given all kinds of support throughout the years. The situation is even more dangerous now because of the activities of the Reagan Administration and the way in which the British Government appear to be following their sway.
Indeed, South Africa has now completely reversed the position it held in 1977. It is worth while quoting from a document called "South Africa: History", which is the official year book of the Republic of South Africa. It is published and compiled by the South African Department of Foreign Affairs and Information, and printed in the Republic of South Africa. It is the authoritative historical document put out by the South African Government. Page 25 states:
"an agreement between South Africa and the five Western powers for a settlement of the South West Africa/Namibia problem was negotiated. It was accepted by South Africa on 25 April, 1978. The agreement provided for free elections in South West Africa/Namibia under United Nations supervision. The purpose of the electoral process was to elect representatives to a Constituent Assembly which would draw up and adopt a constitution for an independent and sovereign Namibia. Authority would then be assumed during 1978 by the Government of South West Africa/Namibia."

347
That clearly states that the object of the electorate was a constituent assembly which would then draw up a constitution. But that is not South Africa's position now. South Africa is now saying that it wants a constitution settled before elections.
There is a further astonishing statement on page 26. After referring to the Security Council's adoption of Resolution 435 on 30 November 1978, it goes on to say:
"Following consultations between the Constituent Assembly,"
South Africa arranged elections for that Constituent Assembly in the interim period. Members were not elected under the supervision of the United Nations but under that of South Africa. The quotation continues:
"and the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, the Secretaary-General was informed on 22 December that South Africa would co-operate in the speedy implementation of Resolution 435. The Special Representative was requested to visit South-West Africa at the earliest opportunity to complete consultation on outstanding matters concerning the implementation of the settlement plan."
The following sentence takes the biscuit:
"With regard to the election date, South Africa declared its absolute commitment to a date which would not be later than 30 September 1979."
The Lord Privy Seal told us that hopes for a negotiated settlement of the Namibian problem were brighter than ever before.
Sir Ian Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman should have listened to what I said. I said that as a result of the veto prospects for a settlement were brighter than they would have been if we had tried to get a settlement through sanctions or through economic or military pressure.
Mr. Hughes: I am sorry that the Lord Privy Seal feels that I have misquoted him. If I did misquote him I withdraw what I said. I accept that he says that he believes that the prospects for a settlement are brighter as a result of the veto. However, that does not make things any better.
He has exposed the weakness and bankruptcy of his thought. Since 1977 there have been intense negotiations and discussions. I hope that I am not misquoting the right hon. Gentleman when I say that he was forced to admit that the recent Geneva discussions failed because South Africa did not want an agreement. Therefore, I do not know how prospects can be brighter.
South Africa has always believed that when the crunch came the British, French and American Governments would put their self-interest first and would not seek a proper solution. Year after year South Africa has become more aggressive and confident in its approach. It rightly recognises the underlying weakness of the Government's position. It knows that Britain would never impose sanctions beyond the mandatory arms embargo. I have received information that has also been reported in the press. I cannot verify it, but apparently the African countries were willing to compromise yet again. They were willing not to have a vote in the Security Council. Until the last minute they were prepared to let hope triumph over experience and to give the Western group of five another last chance to resolve the issue by direct negotiations with a recently elected South African Government.
There is a difference of opinion as to whether resolution 435 was a dead letter or in dead water. However, it comes to the same thing. It is clear that the American assertion
348
that resolution 435 was no longer of importance provoked the Africans to insist on a vote in the Security Council. The way in which the veto was cast demonstrates that the British Government have learnt nothing from and forgotten nothing about their experiences in Africa. All three Governments are obsessed with the idea that Soviet intervention and influence are responsible for the difficulties in Southern Africa. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) is not in the Chamber. He gave us a litany. He said that the Soviet Union was responsible for every trouble spot. I remember reading a book recently which was published in 1919. It said exactly the same thing. Every bit of trouble in China, Ethiopia or anywhere else at that time was caused by Moscow. We still hear the same phrase trotted out now. It is clear that in East-West relations the way in which foreign policy is regarded by British and American Governments means that no sacrifice by the people of Namibia or South Africa will be too great to satisfy American policy. Those countries are paying the price for the delusions concerning the South African Government's serious intention to have proper independence and proper elections in Namibia.
The interests of the indigenous population should be of paramount importance. We have never recognised that in the past. We have always regarded foreign policy either as an arm of defence or an arm of self-interest in economics. For once we must take a different course. The House knows where I stand.
I continue to give my full support to SWAPO, the African National Congress and other liberation movements in their fight for freedom. I gave my support unstintingly in the years of UDI when those groups were forced to fight. I would do the same now. Angola, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau have shown that if the ballot box is not available, freedom will be won by armed revolt despite the odds. People will fight until they win. Zimbabwe has shown that people will fight until the opportunity of the ballot box is available. As soon as it is they will take the opportunity and cease fighting.
Those are the two lessons. First, people will fight until they win if nothing is left for them. Secondly, given the opportunity, they will take the peaceful solution. Zimbabwe has shown that peace and reconciliation are prizes worth achieving. The triple veto in the United Nations Security Council can only be seen as a decisive shift by the Western Powers towards South Africa. That was argued strongly by the right hon. Member for Pavilion.
That veto has set back for a long time the possibility of a peaceful solution in Namibia. South Africa has delayed the possibility of a real change. As the years go by with continued massacring by South African troops, people dying and the refugee problem growing, I hope that the Prime Minister, the President of France—whoever he may be after Sunday—and the President of the United States will recognise their responsibilities. They will be unable to sleep easy in their beds because, as in the past, they will be directly responsible for grievous loss of life. History will not forgive them if they continue along the path which has produced such disasters.
9.27 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I stand somewhere between my right hon. Friend the Member for

349
Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). The South African system is as near the Soviet system as any so-called Western country can be. The vast proportion of the population of South Africa can live only where the Government allow them to live, they work where the Government tell them to work and, in general, they have as small a chance of voting or making political choices as have the population of the Soviet Union.
I was telephoned by a South African newspaper and asked about my reaction to the South African elections. I said that my first reaction was that it was an election in which most of the population played no part. That must change, and it will change. In the meantime, it may follow the lines that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North suggested. I hope that it does not.
Before the last general election in this country and the election leading to independence in Zimbabwe there was a letter in the Washington Post, which ended:
"The election in April"—
that is the election in 1979 in Zimbabwe—
"will not end Rhodesia's escalating war and will not provide the basis for a stable and democratic society. That can only occur when all political and population groups participate freely in elections based on a democratic constitution."
That letter was signed by Bruce Grocott, Lord Avebury and myself. Anyone who suggests that every Conservative Member was arguing dogmatically for recognising Bishop Muzorewa or lifting sanctions is wrong.
It is important that there should be the opportunity in more countries for all political groups to participate and for all the people to vote. That is a common theme for the countries behind the lion Curtain, and in the rest of the world it links the West Bank, El Salvador, Namibia and Angola.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) mentioned the Brandt report. When I talk about the report I always refer to the missing chapter—the fact that most refugees are displaced because they come from countries where it is not possible to change the Government, the political system or the economic system without war or famine. Most refugees are the result not of wars between countries, but of internal conflicts. If we are to give attention to the reasons behind the Brandt report and the talk of trade and aid, dialogue and interdependence, we need to make sure that democracy is not a luxury that only the industrialised West can afford.
A reasonably democratic election in El Salvador in 1972 was overturned by the military Government. We cannot except much help from the Eastern world, but if the West had forced the military Government to allow Napoleon Duarte to become President—and the people of El Salvador had voted for him—the growing distress and misery in El Salvador would have been vastly diminished. Not all the problems would have been solved, but it would have been a great step forward. We should aim to get elections in El Salvador as soon as possible.
I disagree with the Labour Party, which says that Dr. Ungo is the only person to support and the EDR is the only group to support. That is not our choice. We should encourage the de facto Government and the democratic parts of the opposition groups to come together and recognise that whatever happens the extreme Right must not take power and that the only way to dampen down the
350
violence from the extreme Right, the extreme Left and Centre is to give people a choice that is relatively acceptable to all, even if some parties will lose.
Mr. Maxton: How can that solution be achieved without supporting one group at the moment, so that we can get elections? It appears that the Americans are determined to support Duarte and the junta, to the exclusion of everyone else.
Mr. Bottomley: It does not matter too much what we see the Americans as trying to do, because they are occasionally two-faced. I go no further than that. Many groups in the United States believe that it must be seen to be in the interests of the groups in El Salvador for them to come together and hold elections in which each runs the risk of losing.
We must also aim for that process in Namibia. I do not believe that United Nations resolution 435 has all the answers. Both SWAPO and the DTA must recognise that whatever the results of the elections to the constituent assembly neither side can be excluded even if one side manages to get more than 50 per cent. of the vote.
I believe that the South Africans have been doing their best, deliberately or otherwise, to turn every nationalist into a Marxist. That is not because black nationalists want to be Marxists. However, they will receive help from that quarter if they are forced away from democracy and are not given the democratic option.
The change in South Africa will come about from within South Africa, and it will not be helped by the imposition of sanctions. South Africa will regard sanctions as a one-way street. They will say that sanctions will not be lifted whatever changes are made along the road towards independence for all the people of South Africa. Sanctions will be counter-productive, especially at the moment.
I visited South Africa in the autumn of 1980. I was impressed by the number of young white South Africans, both Afrikaaner and English-speaking, who were working with young blacks and helping their education. These are informal groups which should be supported and which show some sign of hope for the future.
I do not want to build too much on the results of the recent elections in South Africa. However, in the next two or three years South Africa will be able to get rid of the Namibia problem by having elections, which SWAPO may win. That requires South Africa to be willing to accept a SWAPO win. There would then follow about 10 years when there would be little outside help for incursions into South Africa by the black nationalist groups of South Africa. The South Africans have everthing to gain and nothing to lose by substantial economic development in Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia and Namibia.
We do not help ourselves by always criticising all South Africans. If the reality is that change will come from within South Africa, and in the main from within the Nationalist Party, we need to maintain contact with its members, provide encouragement and use what influence we have. At the same time we must remember that they are the ones who have the power and that we do not.
There are others who have more expertise in Middle East affairs than myself. However, I shall report on my visit to the West Bank and to the refugee camps in Jordan and the Lebanon. It was clear to me that the Palestine Liberation Organisation represented the political wishes of

351
the Palestinians. I do not say that all Palestinians support armed struggle. I do not think that the PLO stands only for that. However, it must be said that the PLO represents the Palestinians. Until there is time for the Palestinians to participate in elections, when another group may say "We think that we can represent you better than the PLO", we must accept that the PLO is the main group that represents the Palestinian interests, ambitions and points of view.
Britain has enormous influence throughout the world. In part that is because of the successful settlement in Zimbabwe, for which I pay a great tribute not only to the British Foreign Office, but to the neighbouring States which played their part in the resulting conference, which led to a constitution and elections, which in turn have led to a far better situation in Zimbabwe than even I was willing to predict at the time of the elections.
In addition to the Foreign Office, we have the BBC World Service, which conveys a balanced portrait of what is going on in the world. It divides news from comment. I 'hope that it will make its world service audible in most places throughout the world. At present it is often inaudible, whether in Central America, Southern Africa, the Middle East, or the Far East. Many other countries that broadcast world services in English are copying the style, format and pattern of programme of the BBC World Service. They are even copying its voices. It is sad that most of the other world services are far more audible than is the BBC. There is no excuse for any Government to tolerate the low level of transmission power that makes the World Service difficult to find and to hear.
We have an important role to play as a Government and a country throughout the world. It is important that we maintain our traditional role of giving hard information and making informed comment. In that respect we are world leaders. When I go abroad next, I should like to be able to hear the voice of Britain more loudly than I did on recent occasions.
9.40 pm
Mr. Ernie Ross: I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. I shall concentrate on the Middle East and, in particular, on Lebanon and the plight of the Palestinian people. Historically, we have a responsibility to the Palestinians, and our Presidency of the Council of Ministers this year will give us an opportunity to seek to redress some of the wrongs that we have done to those people.
Like many hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in the debate, I have made many trips to the Middle East. With the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley), I visited the Middle East recently. I want to refer to a comment that he made. One thing that becomes glaringly obvious to anyone who visits the West Bank, occupied Palestine, is that the Palestinians there are living under a very harsh occupation by the Israeli forces. Despite that occupation, they support the Palestine Liberation Organisation as their representative. In fact Palestinians throughout the Middle East recognise the PLO as their spokesman.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins), I shall say a few words about Lebanon. We all hope that that country will return to normality. However,
352
once normality returns, difficulties will remain, and it will be for the people and the forces of Lebanon to decide how to deal with them.
One thing is clear, and that is that the Syrian Arab deterrent force is there by invitation of the legally elected, democratic Government of Lebanon. On a number of my visits, I had the privilege of meeting President Sarkis of Lebanon, who emphasised that the Syrian peace-keeping forces are there at his request, and he insists that they stay there. That is why I welcomed the comment of Lord Trefgarne, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade, in answering questions in another place. He made it clear that the Government of Lebanon are urgently seeking a political settlement of the present crisis. He said:
"We believe the role of the international community should be to support them in these endeavours and to uphold the authority of the legitimate Government."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 May 1981; Vol. 420, c. 131.]
Clearly, the Syrian intervention is at the request of the legitimate Government of Lebanon. The British media, in suggesting that the Syrian peace-keeping force is attempting to annihilate a small Christian enclave around the town of Zalhe, are misleading the British people. Gemayel and his Phalangist forces are attempting to draw a curve round Beirut itself and join up with Major Haddad's forces in the south. If the Syrian peace-keeping forces had not intervened, instead of the Christians being pounded, the Lebanese and the Palestinians might have been pounded by the Phalange and the Haddad forces.
The comments of American Secretary of State Haig that there was an urgent need for a force to bring peace to Beirut because of his concern about the fighting between the Phalange and the Syrian peacekeeping force was a serious attempt to mislead people throughout the world. He made no effort to condemn the daily raids by United States Phantoms the Israeli military forces in Southern Lebanon who, with their artillery and air power, were themselves attacking Christian Arabs. Everybody seems to be concerned about the Christian Phalangists but not about the Christian Arabs or the Palestinian and Muslim Lebanese who are being attacked and brutally murdered in Southern Lebanon. It would be dangerous to support the comments by the United States Secretary of State without drawing such points to the attention of the world.
We must distance ourselves from the comments by the United States Secretary of State on his recent visit to the Middle East. Saudi Arabia made it plain that it could not agree with Washington's view on joint security proposals for the region. It made it clear that there can be no direct military co-operation without significant progress towards an Arab-Israeli settlement involving, as it must, Israel's withdrawal from Arab lands and self-determination for the Palestinians. The Saudis argued, rightly, that the Palestinian question must have priority and that the Soviet threat was a remote possibility. On the other hand, they believed that the Israeli occupation of Arab land was a living reality, sustained in no small way by United States military and financial support.
In the last few days we have seen the other side of the sick and distorted mind of Israel's leader. It is distressing that someone with such a sick and distorted mind should be Prime Minister in an area which is so volatile. Premier Begin attacked not only Chancellor Schmidt but the German people, according to media reports. In a radio interview he said:
"I have never forgiven the German people as a whole. I will never forgive them because they bear a collective responsibility."

353
I hope that no hon. Member will suggest that we should agree with that statement. Whether or not all the Nazis have been rounded up, we cannot demand that the German people should keep on paying for something which happened 30 or 40 years ago. The efforts of the German people must be recognised.
People of my age do not expect young Germans born during the war to bear any responsibility for what happened to the Jews under Hitler. Everybody will wish to dissociate himself from Begin's comments. However, they give us some understanding of the mind and thinking of the Zionists in Israel. They are also a warning that if we do not do something soon that area could bring the world into conflict. I am talking not necessarily of nuclear conflict but of a conflict which would not assist people striving to further detente and relations between countries.
I wish to concentrate on the Palestinian people and the initiatives that I hope that Britain will take when we have the Presidency of the Council of Ministers. I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement that he is willing to meet Mr. Yasser Arafat, the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation executive committee. The PLO has responded to that statement and has advised the Foreign Office that it considers that such a meeting will be a useful and constructive step by Britain and the EEC. I hope that such a meeting will take place as soon as possible.
We should be less than honest if we failed to express some reservations which many, including the PLO, have about the trend of the European initiative. We all recognise the Venice declaration as being a first step forward by Europe, which has traditionally supported the Zionists, but we are disappointed that the EEC failed to match the general principles which have been put forward in the United Nations General Assembly with regard to the Palestine question. Nevertheless, we had hoped that the Venice declaration would lead to a more positive position being taken by the EEC. The Palestinians, and those of us who have worked with them, expected that the EEC would formulate some concrete proposals.
The continued failure of the EEC to make a firm commitment to the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, and to recognise the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, can only serve to give heart to the Israelis and to appease their intransigent position.
The Prime Minister's statement in Washington, in which she assured President Reagan that Britain will not recognise the PLO, was not helpful. By her statement she is placing limitations on the EEC initiative. The adoption of the position expressed by the Prime Minister must make us question whether the European initiative is to be genuinely independent of the Americans. That is the point that I wish to stress to the Minister, and I hope that he will deal with it in his reply.
If the EEC initiative is to have any chance of success, it must be seen clearly to be independent of the United States, and certainly independent of the Camp David accord. I should like to express some comments concerning the direction in which the European proposal is developing. Although the contents have not been published, they have been made available to various sources, including the press, and the PLO have been made aware of them.
Part of the EEC proposals centres on holding a referendum of the Palestinians, but I am bound to express
354
certain reservations. The EEC is proposing that a referendum should be held among those Palestinians Living under occupation in the territories seized by Israel in 1967—the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
I should like to make four points in respect of a referendum. First, we are entitled to ask why the EEC feels that it has a right to raise in the referendum such matters as the federation with Israel or Jordan, as options to Palestinian self-determination in an independent sovereign State.
On 2 February King Hussein of Jordan graciously granted an audience to a delegation of hon. Members from each side of the House. He stated specifically to the delegation that the Jordanian option was a non-starter, and that any association or federation with any Palestinian State would first have to be discussed and decided by that independent State, before being raised with the Jordanians or any other State with whom it wishes to form an association. It is not right for the EEC to suggest that that should be part of a referendum.
Secondly, we must be concerned that the EEC is seeking to remove the PLO from the equation. In the EEC plan, the PLO is not to provide the transitional authority from occupation to independence, nor is the PLO to supervise the referendum. Instead the Palestinians are viewed in a colonial fashion as being incapable of making their own referendum or transition.
I do not need to remind the House that the Palestinians are among the elite of the Arab world in terms of high-level manpower and responsibility. Palestinians throughout the Arab world hold some of the most responsible and influential posts, yet the EEC seems to believe that they are incapable of determining their own future.
Thirdly, I question the suggestion from the EEC that the referendum should be supervised by a force which includes the Israelis and the Egyptians. Far from removing the prospect of intimidation, who is more likely to intimidate the Palestinians than the Israelis and the Egyptians? That is certainly not a position that we would have accepted in regard to Zimbabwe. We could play a role in the referendum, and the United Nations would be the most suitable body to conduct it. Certainly the Israelis and the Egyptians could not be allowed to play a leading role in such a referendum.
Fourthly, we must have strong reservations about the proposal to divide the Palestinians. The proposal is that there should be a division between those who live in territories which were occupied in 1967 and those who were exiled from their homeland in 1948. I see this as a move designed to divide the Palestinians. The Palestinians are one people; they have common rights and common problems which unite them. The future of their homeland is of common interest to all Palestinians. The EEC proposal for a referendum for Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza seems to be intended to set Palestinians against Palestinians.
Mr. Hurd: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is erecting a whole argument on the false supposition that there are EEC proposals or an EEC plan covering this matter.
Mr. Ross: I welcome the Minister's intervention. He must be the only person who does not believe that the EEC' had and still has proposals. Whether he is prepared to

355
discuss them during this debate, I do not know. Anyone who has been involved in the Middle East feels that there are proposals and that a document was circulated. If the Minister says that there is no such document, I shall have to accept that he is being honest with the House. Certainly, the Palestinians and those of us who are involved with the Middle East believe that there were proposals. I am trying to suggest that those proposals, if they exist, would in no way assist the settlement of the Palestinian question. I should be happy to know that they did not exist.
Proposals have been put forward by the Palestinians for resolving the question and moving towards a settlement within the West Bank and Gaza. The Palestinians have said that one way of resolving the question would be for Israel to withdraw from all occupied Arab territory, including Jerusalem, and entrust it to the United Nations for six to 12 months. During this period the United Nations would co-ordinate with the PLO to prepare the ground to enable the Palestinians to practise their right to self-determination, which includes the right to establish an independent Palestinian State.
Secondly, the Palestinian people could decide on national independence by establishing their own independent State, and the United Nations could announce its formation and take the necessary steps, in collaboration with the PLO, to establish the State and accept it as a member of the United Nations.
Thirdly, the United Nations could convene an international conference under its supervision and auspices with the following participants: the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union; representatives of the EEC countries; the concerned parties in the Arab-Israeli dispute, including the Government of the Palestinian State. The objectives of the conference could be the resolution of any major problems which were pending and, to ensure no disagreement as to who would take the chair, it has been suggested that the Governments of the United States, the Soviet Union and the EEC countries could take turns at chairing the conference.
The problems which the conference is unable to solve could be referred either to the United Nations General Assembly or the International Court of Justice for a decision binding on all parties. I suggest that those proposals, if pursued by the Foreign Secretary, could be a means towards establishing a Palestinian State which would bring peace and security to the Middle East.
In establishing that State, it also has to be said that there are certain things which are paramount. There are legitimate rights which are usually summed up as follows. There is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to return to the homes and property from which they have been displaced. This principle should not be limited by time. It applies without distinction to the refugees of the 1948 Palestinian war and the 1967 Middle East war. It applies to the thousands of Palestinians deported from their homeland between and after the wars. It applies to their right ——
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Ordered.
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock.—[Mr. Brooke.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]
Mr. Ross: It applies to their right to return to their homes and property, wherever they may be in Palestine. The second right is that of self-determination in a sovereign independent State without external interference. There can be no room for negotiation on matters such as autonomy and what it means. The principle of self-determination and the concept of a sovereign independent State are beyond discussion. There can be no compromise on this. It is the right of a free and democratic Parliament and a Palestinian Government to determine the internal and foreign policies of the independent Palestinian State, not for the United Nations, the EEC or anyone else.
Thirdly, the Palestinian people themselves have the right to choose who will represent them. The Palestine Liberation Organisation is the choice of the overwhelming majority. It has been recognised by the United Nations General Assembly as their sole, legitimate representative. Those hon. Members who have visited the area will confirm that the PLO is supported by the rank and file of the people, whether they live under occupation or in exile. Therefore, the status of the PLO must be recognised, particularly by the EEC.
We also must accept that the EEC and the British Government have placed certain conditions on the Palestinians prior to recognition. The EEC demand, first, that the PLO should recognise Israel and, secondly, that it should recognise the right of the State of Israel to exist in return for Israel's recognition of the right of the Palestinians to self-determination. I am sure that the whole House would agree that the first condition requires that the problem should be put upside down. It requires the Palestinians, who have been the victims of aggression, to recognise their aggressors, Israel. How would PLO recognition of Israel advance the cause of peace when conflict is the result of the Zionists' refusal to recognise the Palestinians' rights in Palestine?
With regard to the second condition, mutual recognition is surely the last step in the solution rather than the first. The relations of a Palestinian State with all the States in the region must be determined by the Palestinian State itself. That is the essence of recognising the sovereignty and independence of a Palestinian State. The subject of mutual recognition should not be the first item on the agenda. Good relations between States can be only the end result following the resolution of all outstanding issues.
All hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, particularly on the Middle East question, will be interested to hear from the Minister that when the Foreign Secretary becomes President of the European Council of Ministers he will meet the chairman of the PLO, Mr. Yasser Arafat. Already the Foreign Ministers of Italy, Austria, Luxembourg, Holland, France, Switzerland, the Vatican and Spain have met the acknowledged Palestinian Foreign Minister, Mr. Farouk Kaddoummi. Mr. Arafat has had official meetings with Heads of State or Foreign Ministers of Luxembourg, Holland and Austria. He met Chancellor Kreisky of Austria two days ago in Saudi Arabia.
I would urge that the meeting between the noble Lord and Chairman Arafat should take place in London. Our historical role in Palestinian affairs means that a meeting anywhere else would be regarded as a meeting of no significance in the sense of a move by Britain towards

357
recognising the Palestine Liberation Organisation. I hope that the Minister will impress upon his noble Friend that any meeting should take place in London.
Any initiative by the EEC must be seen as an independent initiative. We must be seen to be distancing ourselves from the American Camp David accord that has clearly failed. I am sure that the majority of Arab States have made clear that they expect the EEC initiative to be
358
independent and that there will be no need to wait for the United States to make up its mind. The first priority must clearly be a recognition of the Palestinian question and the rights of the Palestinian people.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that there is a commitment to resolve the real problem of the Middle East, which is the Palestinian problem.
10.06 pm
Mr. Ian Lloyd: I am aware that many hon. Members are anxious to be in other places for other purposes. I shall make my speech as brief as possible. I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, who is not at the moment in his place, and to the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) for not attending the opening of the debate. My presence in another part of the building was unavoidable. I had not intended to speak, but I have been provoked to make what I hope will be a constructive intervention on the Brandt report and to reply to what I can only describe as a most provocative speech by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) on the subject of Southern Africa.
Anyone listening to this interesting and broad-ranging debate will realise that all hon. Members operate from different maps of reality. The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) operates from a detailed, almost half-inch ordnance map of the Middle East and Lebanon, a subject on which he is obviously a great expert. My map of that area is very different. It was formed from the cockpit of a Spitfire in 1945. It is obviously out of date. I shall therefore not attempt to challenge the hon. Gentleman's observations or conclusions.
Every hon. Member, I believe, has been lobbied by well-informed, earnest and idealistic people who have expressed the view, heard again in this debate, that we live in a most imperfect and unsatisfactory world in which the developed nations and many others spend a vast and most undesirable proportion of their wealth on armaments and that it would be a better world if that was not the situation. I am sure that this proposition would find unanimous support on all sides of the House. The question that arises is whether it is realistic. I do not think that it is realistic.
All hon. Members who have heard the debate on this subject know that it is one thing to say "Let it be done". It is a very different thing when the world is divided into nation States, all immensely suspicious of each other, or, as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), who made an interesting speech, remarked, so concerned with narrow interests that they wear spectacles that reveal only those narrow interests. As nations, individuals and groups, we have the greatest difficulty in seeing the general interest, the equity and the world interest. For that reason, nations rich and poor, the makers of armaments and the squanderers fo armaments, have the greatest difficulty in saying that they will make 1 per cent. of their armaments budget available for the purposes that Mr. Brandt has so eloquently described.
It seems to me from what I have read in the Brandt report that it relied heavily on a better report—the OECD inter-futures report. Much of Brandt's thinking is derived from that report. I suggest to hon. Members who are interested in that subject, as well as to many others who lobbied us, that they should get hold of that report and read its brilliant, perceptive and profound analysis of the problems of wealth and its distribution. In that report, we see some of the problems which are facing our society and which we are not solving. No Governments, of any party, in virtually any part of the Western world, have satisfactorily solved those problems. That was the conclusion of the OECD report, which was rightly and brilliantly drawn.
360
By a stroke of fortune, I had the opportunity recently to visit one of the world's poorest countries—Nepal. I was the guest of its Government, through the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Nepal is one of the poorest countries in Asia with a per capita income of about £60–£70 per annum. About 97 per cent. of the population is engaged in agriculture. When flying into the country, one looks down on a mountainous region with hills so steep that one would almost imagine that one would have to use mountaineering equipment to go up and down. However, every inch is cultivated and every square foot is terraced. That is how such a country endeavours to feed its population.
Nepal has a university which is obviously desperate for resources. It has one main secondary school in the Khatmandu area which is helped and sustained by British aid. Much British aid is going to Nepal, but, of course, it is nothing like enough.
Nepal's elementary schools are so poverty-stricken and desperate for lack of resources that most of the classrooms have no roofs. A blackboard is a luxury. In a school which I visited with colleagues from the House, there were 500 children and four or five teachers. That is the level of poverty.
Brandt is aware of those facts, and many of those who came to lobby us are aware of them. However, they are not aware of one factor, which I put forward in all seriousness. At the moment, we are giving approximately £9 million to Nepal annually in aid. If we made that sum £900 million, we would not begin to scratch the surface of the problem of taking the standard of living of a nation of about 9 million people to a point remotely comparable to that of even the poorest country in Western Europe. Perhaps even £9,000 million would not be enough.
It is interesting that in Nepal there are hydroelectric resources comparable to those in the whole of the North American continent, because the Himalayas are on its frontier. Who will develop those resources, and what will it cost? One can quantify the sums and one reaches astronomical figures. However, one still does not get anywhere near to a sufficiently practical increase in resources transfer as being likely to be able to be made by the West either to a country such as Nepal or to any other in a similar situation.
We must be realistic when we consider that subject and advise our constituents who say that we must give more. We must be more generous and Christian and accept that their idealism has its worth, but for heaven's sake let us at the same time be practical and realistic and not suggest that we can achieve miracles.
There is great danger and arrogance in suggesting, as we do when we transfer technology and wealth-creating and wealth-distributing institutions largely and inevitably in the Western pattern, that that is what those countries must have and that they must have it in the way in which we give it to them and use it because we give it to them. Many of the recent problems, of which Iran is perhaps an outstanding example, have arisen because the resource transfer mechanism has been operated too intensively to be absorbed by the country concerned.
Mr. Russell Johnston: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He rightly stresses the quality of the aid that the West gives, but that in itself is not an argument against increasing the quantity.
Mr. Lloyd: Quality and quantity are both important, but I believe that the ratio of quality to quantity should be 10:1. As chairman of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) frequently speaks in the House on apartheid. As one would expect, he takes a critical view of all things South and Southern African. I do not know why he has such an avid and strenuous dislike not only of apartheid, which one can understand, but of everything associated with South and Southern Africa.
We make a grave mistake if we follow the hon. Gentleman's line in our relations with South Africa. He appealed to us on the ground that the arms decision was a United Nations decision. Nearly 100 of the member countries of that great authority on moral issues do not know one end of a ballot box from the other. Countries such as Uganda, Tanzania, Cambodia and Kampuchea have the temerity to cast their votes in the United Nations and expect South Africa—I admit that it has many faults—virtually to commit suicide, as the hon. Gentleman would wish. He would like to see 5 million Europeans, many of whose forebears have been in South Africa since the sixteenth century, swept into the sea.
Mr. Robert Hughes: That is a total distortion of my remarks. I do not wish to see 5 million people swept into the sea. I commend the example of Zimbabwe.
Mr. Lloyd: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman intervened because the whole of his speech seemed to imply that he wanted to see 5 million people swept into the sea. He suggested that the South Africans were conducting aggression across their borders. Until about 10 years ago, there were virtually no South African attacks across the border, and I defy the hon. Gentleman to give me chapter and verse to disprove that. There was hardly even an isolated incident.
Let us consider what the South Africans face. There are about 36,000 Cubans in Angola, about 4,000 East Germans in Mozambique and 1,500 trained Marxist terrorists on the Witwatersrand. I am told that one shipload of arms a week comes to Mozambique, including heavy tanks. MiG fighters are being introduced into South Africa by the Russians or their surrogates. If the hon. Gentleman can prove that I am wrong here or on another occasion, I shall be happy, but if what I say is true neither we nor the United Nations have the right to ask South Africans to lie down and let their country be invaded and their system and wealth-creating capacity be destroyed. It is disgraceful for the hon. Gentleman to come here time and again to make attacks that can seldom be answered—but I intend to answer him tonight.
Virtually the whole South African sub-continent, including Botswana, Mozambique and the grand new Zimbabwe, is being sustained through South African aid. That is a fact.
Mr. Hughes indicated dissent.
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but I can prove it. In Mozambique, the port of Lourenco Marques or Maputo as it is now called, would have collapsed if the South Africans had not flown in a Dakota full of technicians every day to operate the port. Does the hon. Gentleman deny that?
Mr. Hughes: Yes.
Mr. Lloyd: He does. Then I do not accept his denial. He could not prove it for one moment. If he denies it, why would it be necessary for them to do that? Why would they have taken the risk? Whom would they be helping?
This is the essence of the argument. We will riot look at reality. Time and again we try to escape from reality because it is fashionable to say that because South Africa is associated with apartheid, which we do not like, we therefore condemn the whole of that country. That condemnation is inequitable and grotesque. I say that and I shall say it again.
The United Nations has asked us to impose an arms embargo. The hon. Gentleman waxed eloquent about the fact that some radar was supplied by Plessey. Even if it is civil and military radar, as I have no doubt it is, I cannot for one moment conceive how civil and military radar can be used to support a repressive regime. Certainly, it can be used to defend South Africa, to defend Southern Africa and to defend those elements in Southern Africa which are constructive and good. Those elements are many and they are necessary, and if they are not defended we in this country shall be the first to feel the effects.
In my humble opinion, radar and a great deal else is justified. I do not give a damn what the United Nations has voted or moved or said. I believe that in this context we must look not only to our own interests but to the interests of the West. I do not believe that the United Nations, as it is presently constructed as an organization—indeed, I would call it again almost a regime—is all that concerned for the interests either of this country or of the West. Possibly it ought so to be. Perhaps in a more ideal world it would so be. At the moment, however, looking at the situation realistically, we can reach only one conclusion—that it is not.
I therefore ask the House to make its own judgment about the real state of affairs in South and Southern Africa, warts and all. I am the first to admit that apartheid is a detestable doctrine and that its practice is often ludicrous in its application and its consequences. I share one thing with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North. The day that it disappears, the happier I shall be. But we shall not bring on that day in the right way or any earlier by following the line of total, dramatic, unfair, critical opposition to every single thing that is done in South Africa.
10.22 pm
Mr. John Maxton: I had not intended to say anything about Southern Africa at all, but having heard the remarkable speech of the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd) I shall say a few words.
I have not been a Member of the House very long, but some of us heard exactly the same speech made about Zimbabwe before the constitutional talks which took place more than 12 months ago. Precisely that type of speech was made, saying that we must defend Ian Smith and his regime. Then it was Bishop Muzorewa, and then it was every other last person who might somehow bring relief to the whites in Zimbabwe. What has happened is that we now have a peaceful settlement. There has been a year of peace in Zimbabwe.
My hon. Friends and I are saying that if the South Africans are not prepared to concede and to give independence to Namibia and eventually—very quickly, I hope—to give votes to all the people of Southern Africa, of course there will be bloodshed. That is the inevitable

363
consequence of the blindness of their actions. It will lead inevitably to bloodshed that we do not wish to see. That is why we urge the Government to find a solution in Namibia by any and all means to prevent that kind of bloodshed and to prevent the divisions between white and black in Southern Africa, which are too deep already, from becoming so deep that the whites inevitable will be washed away in the flood of blood which must follow if they are not prepared to concede anything. We do not want to see that.
My first instinct was to ignore the speech of the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne). It was remarkable in its ignorance and arrogance. As it came from a scion of a family which has produced Foreign Secretaries and Prime Ministers since the age of Elizabeth I, its ignorance was even more remarkable on foreign policy aspects. If that is an example of how that family has ruled the country for about 300 years, it is no wonder that we are in the state that we are in today.
I was frightened by the hon. Gentleman's statement that essentially every international problem and incident for the past 30 years has been caused by the Russians and Communism. If it was only the hon. Gentleman expressing that view, we might not worry too much about it. I appreciate that some Conservative Members do not think in that way but look at foreign policy more rationally. However, the feeling expressed by the hon. Member for Dorset, South lies deep in the psyche of many Conservative Members and lies even deeper in the psyche of many Conservative supporters in our counties and suburbs. It is even more deeply felt by many people in the United States, and it is represented in the present United States Administration.
Such people believe that Communism and what Russia does are not only politically wrong but evil. I have no sympathy for the regime in Russia or for other regimes in Eastern Europe. I believe that they are politically wrong and that they are making political mistakes, both at home and abroad. However, the attitude of some Conservative Members and others is that Communism and Marxism are evil.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: That is absolutely right.
Mr. Maxton: That frightens the life out of me. If that is what Conservative Members believe, there is no hope whatever of finding peaceful solutions to world problems, particularly to the problem of an increasing arms race. If they believe that the Russian regime is evil, there is no way in which they will trust the Russians if they come forward with proposals to reduce arms. They will always think that the Russians are evil men who cannot be trusted. I despair if that sort of attitude is voiced by Conservative Members and others.
I thought that I could exclude the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) from that condemnation. Having listened to his speech, I assumed that he was a more rational and thinking man than that.
Mr. Richard Needham: Why?
Mr. Maxton: I cannot answer that question. The hon. Gentleman must answer it for himself. However, if Conservative Members believe that Communism is evil, we shall find it extremely difficult to work with the Russians to achieve peaceful solutions to world problems.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I believe that the Soviet system is as evil as the system in South Africa in the way in which it deals with most of the population. I am perfectly prepared to deal with the South Africans, and I would be prepared to deal with the Soviet Union. However, I recognise that one of the reasons why the Russians have been crying out for world grain is that their system not only requires spending more on armaments than most other countries but also leaves their population on shorter commons than most of the Right-wing regimes that I detest as well.
Mr. Maxton: I also condemn the Russian build-up of arms. However, I have some understanding of the historical reasons for it. From the beginning, the Russian revolution was threatened by the West. Russia has always felt threatened by the West. The Minister may laugh and smile, but that is a historical fact.
The comments of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West and of the hon. Member for Dorset, South are interesting. Those hon. Members seem to believe that the Russian economy is collapsing and that the Russians cannot feed their own people. They believe that the system cannot work. However, they still feel that the genius of that nation is sufficient to corrupt the world. The hon. Member for Dorset, South certainly believed that Russian influence could spread throughout the world and distort everything. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. No one believes that such an efficient military and propaganda machine can exist if Russia's economy is on the verge of collapse.
In a sense, the American attitude towards Communism has resulted in a frightening build-up in El Salvador. The situation may not yet be on the scale found in Afghanistan. Some months ago I was invited to the American embassy to have lunch with Ambassador Cohen and two—I shall be polite—associates of his. They wanted to discuss American policy in El Salvador. It was a little insulting that they should invite me to that lunch. If they had been prepared to discuss their policy, I would have felt able to argue about it with them. However, that was not what they wanted me for. They wanted to give me an apologia for their actions and ask me how they could best get their message across to the British people.
I am sure that the Minister has met those men and has discussed this issue with them. One of Ambassador Cohen's aides said that America had support in its campaign against Communism and against the Russian and Cuban threat to El Salvador from nearly every Central and South American state. He said that America had the support of Chile, Argentina and Brazil. He then added that it also had the support of Venezuela. One of the ambassadorial staff turned to him and said that if he was the aide he would stick to mentioning Venezuela and would not talk too much about the other regimes.
The American regime strongly believes that it must combat the evils of Communism. As a result, it is prepared to do anything to support the Duarte regime in El Salvador. The Minister may say that there is no threat of American intervention in El Salvador. That was not the impression that I received from Ambassador Cohen and his two aides. They said that they had documents that had been captured in El Salvador which showed that there was a threat of a Russian or Cuban presence in El Salvador. We had a drink before lunch and they promised to give us the documents. However, after lunch they knew where I and another hon.

365
Member stood on this issue and the documents were quietly forgotten. They did not give them to us because they feared that we might investigate too closely their contents and where they had come from. They are using that sort of technique.
As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, it is the classic case of a build-up. It is not dissimilar to the build-up of the Russian intervention in Afghanistan. It is the same type of thing with the inward movement of aid and the propping up of a regime that no longer has popular support. Duarte has no popular support in El Salvador.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, West may say the same as the Americans, that Duarte was elected in 1972 by the people, but he did not come to power by election. He has lost nearly all the civilian members of his Government in the months between taking power and today. Now he is essentially on his own, a civilian supported by the military junta in El Salvador.
The Government must make it clear publicly that they will not support American military intervention in El Salvador because they will lose what credibility they have left in taking moral stances on foreign policy. They condemned the Russians for intervention in Afghanistan not because it was a Russian or Communist intervention but on the ground that they condemn all military intervention. They do not believe that that is the way we should conduct world affairs. I hope that they will make it clear that they will not support the Americans and that if the Americans intervene militarily they will condemn that as strongly and with the same sort of measures—I hope that they will be supported by their Back Benchers—as they condemned the Russians when they intervened in Afghanistan. The situations are remarkably similar. The Government must make clear tonight that that is what they are prepared to do. I hope that the Americans will not intervene, but if they do and are still there when the Olympics are held in 1984 in Los Angeles I hope that British athletes will be told that they should not take part because of American involvement in El Salvador. If that happens, we shall see whether the morality expressed by the Conservatives on Afghanistan is as true as they made it out to be.
My last few points concern the developing world. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo. It is an immensely difficult problem. Even if we pour massive sums of aid into those countries, we shall not suddenly, overnight, lift the conditions of the starving millions around the world to the level of even the poorest Western European country. It will be a slow, gradual process of raising their standard of living by giving a little more income. When such countries have more income to spend, some will be spent in this country, some elsewhere in the Western world and some within developing countries. It will take time, but we must start that process.
I was present at the lobby and, perhaps alone among hon. Members, heard eight out of the 10 speeches made throughout the day in the Grand Committee Room. I chaired five and heard three others. I heard both Ministers trying to defend the Government's attitude towards the aid programme. Like other hon. Members, when I was on the floor I could make my disagreement felt to the Minister, but was unable to do so when the Minister for Overseas Development spoke. The Government have dramatically cut the aid programme to the Third World.
366
The hon. Member for Dorset, South claimed that Russia never gave any assistance to anyone without strings. The Government have made it clear that what aid they give will in future be tied to political considerations. That appeared in the Government paper that was issued before the lobby.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman knows that none of the aid in our programme can be military aid.
Mr. Maxton: If I said military aid, I withdraw that. I meant to refer to aid tied to political considerations—the attitude that the hon. Member for Dorset, South was condemning the Russians for adopting—and aid tied to what one considers the best political regime, regardless of the poverty of the country involved.
The Government have an appalling aid record. They are wrong economically, because unless we raise the level of wealth in the poorest countries it is doubtful whether the West will survive economically in the long run. If we put money into the Third world, we shall become increasingly wealthy. But that should not be the argument.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said that 10 million people have died in developing countries as a result of wars. UNICEF estimates that 15 million children under the age of five die of starvation every year in the developing world and that 800 million people live below the poverty line and suffer from malnutrition. It is not a question whether we depend on them or they depend on us. It is a moral question. If we can save one child by increasing our aid, that is morally right. It is time that we started looking at foreign policy from a moral point of view and not always from a self-interest angle.
10.41 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: We have had a long and full debate, as befits the importance and seriousness of the subject. As has been said, we have seen over the past few years a considerable increase in world tension, particularly between East and West, an increasing polarisation of attitudes and the virtual collapse of attempts at arms limitation and disarmament.
Perhaps we are witnessing, as was suggested in the debate, one of the most dangerous phases for world peace since the end of the Second World War. There are many reasons for the increase in tension, and I am not equipped to present them all, but one can be traced back to the sudden and substantial increase in the price of oil in 1973. The instability created by that upheaval was considerably exacerbated by the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and the election of the new Government of the United States whose main foreign policy objective seems to be a simplistic anti-Communist crusade, which has not contributed to a lessening of tension.
The increase in the price of oil may have been the catalyst which led to the fall of the Shah of Iran and the Islamic revolution in that country. It made the Gulf even more important because it quadrupled the value of its assets. The changes in Poland, though welcome, have created more instability and their catalyst may have been the economic recession in Western Europe caused by the events of 1973.
The position in Western democracies has been made worse. There is greater instability, tension and intolerance because of the lack of growth. The less developed

367
countries, especially those without oil, have found themselves deeper in debt and the prospect of hauling themselves out of grinding poverty has been made even more remote. That has created tension which we see in the attempts at a North-South dialogue, the recommendations of the Brandt report and, we hope, attempts to solve the problems at the conference in Mexico in the autumn.
One of the most profound effects of the oil crisis on the foreign policy of the West may be the realisation forced on the United States that it was no longer self-sufficient in oil and other resources. It realised that it had ceased to be the dominant world economic power that it had been during the first 20 years after the Second World War.
The Pax Americana, if one may so describe it, of that period was to a great extent sustained because the American President was much less constrained than the leaders of most other countries in pursuing a global foreign policy by domestic economic considerations. Under President Carter and President Reagan we have seen more and more that American foreign policy initiatives are now determined largely by the need to secure Congressional support for domestic economic policies. The royal prerogative of the President in foreign policy has become increasingly limited. That is understandable because America is not the economic Power that it was. Foreign policy is being limited by the need to secure domestic programmes. Whatever the merits or demerits of the decision on the sale of wheat to Russia, I do not believe that the issue was raised for foreign policy reasons. The intention was to secure the votes of the farming lobby in Congress and to get the budget through. American policy in the Middle East, and especially towards the Gulf States, seems often to be determined primarily by the price of gasoline in Winnetka, Illinois or Boise, Idaho.
The lesson for Britain and for the Prime Minister, judging by her attitude, remarks and trips around the globe, does not seem to have been learnt. The lesson is that it is not very often right or sensible for us slavishly to follow the foreign policy poses of an American President, especially when his actions are increasingly determined by domestic economic factors, many of which have little relevance to our own position. With our self-sufficiency in oil and in energy we are now in a better position than at any time since the war to pursue a more independent foreign policy throughout the world.
The danger of the present attitude of the Reagan Administration and the support seemingly given to it by the Prime Minister is that it is based on a view of the world as it was in the 1950s and the early 1960s, when American power was bolstered by economic self-sufficiency. During the Prime Minister's visit to Washington she went out of her way to give support to this rather simplistic view of the world, a world which has changed considerably since the 1950s. She accepted quite symbolically something called the Wild Bill Donovan award, which I am told is named after a gunslinging American ambassador in Guatemala in the 1950s. We should remind the Prime Minister—perhaps the Lord Privy Seal will do so—that the world of Wild Bill Donovan has been dead for a long time, even though it seems that for the Prime Minister his prizes go marching on.
The change in the world economy that was caused by the world price rise has meant that the international
368
monetary system and the international financial institutions that were set up after the war are not now adaptable enough to deal with the new problems. This is referred to in the Brandt report. That applies especially to the less developed countries. The Government have made a belated response to the call to try to recommend some of the proposals in the Brandt report. I hope that when the Prime Minister goes to Mexico the Government will make some constructive proposals. I hope that the right hon. Lady will not hector and lecture the poor countries of the world about their PSBRs, their monetary policy and about the need, as she puts it, to put their own houses in order and to cut their cloth according to their means.
The one area in which we can put forward constructive proposals is that of the structures, the statutes and the accountability of the International Monetary Fund and of the World Bank. Whatever contribution they may have made in the first 20 years after the war, they are now not relevant to the problems of the 1980s. I hope that the Government will try to advance some constructive proposals. The world of Wild Bill Donovan is dead and so is the world of Bretton Woods. Unless the countries of the South are given a greater say in the organisation of the international financial institutions, they will become increasingly alienated from the industrialised northern countries. The best guarantee that the countries of the developing world will remain non-aligned, both economically and ideologically, is if the Western democracies are not only sympathetic to their problems but are genuinely and sincerely prepared to share some of our economic and financial power with them and give them a stake in international economic order.
The second reason for the increase in tension has been the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. That invasion has cast severe doubts on the intentions of the Soviet Union. I do not know the reason for the invasion—perhaps even the Kremlin is not quite sure—but, whatever it was, there is no justification for it. Afghanistan may be a feudal country and large sections of its population may be illiterate, but that does not justify the invasion of a small country by the might of the Soviet Union when the Soviet Union was not threatened in any way.
Many reasons have been given—or guesses made—for the invasion. Some suggested that it was an attempt by Russia to secure bases close to the Iranian border in case the Americans invaded Iran. Some say that it was because the Government of Afghanistan had lost control at the time and was deeply unpopular. Some said that it was the fear of Islamic revolution. Some believed—I think, not many—that it was part of a deeply-thought-out plot to take over the oilfields of the Gulf. Whatever the reasons—and they may be more than one—the invasion shows that Russia is prepared to act with total ruthlessness in what it considers to be its own interest, even though that action may appear to the rest of the world to be morally reprehensible. Despite that invasion, I still believe, as, I think, do most hon. Members, that it is in the interests of Britain and the West to maintain a dialogue with the Soviet leaders.
I understand from press reports that when the NATO Foreign Ministers met this week the American Secretary of State, General Haig, gave the impression that the United States Government might, some time this year, have preliminary discussions with the Soviet Government about a form of arms limitation. That was the impression that was given, and that is the impression one gets from

369
reading the British newspapers. If that is so, we welcome that small movement. However, one gets a different impression from the New York Times yesterday. Its headline read:
"NATO hardens view on Soviet activities. Questions detente. Allies move towards Reagan".
The article said:
"The North Atlantic Alliance moved today towards a harder view of East-West relations presenting an analysis that de-emphasised detente and cast the Soviet Union as a force increasingly lacking in restraint or responsibility".
I realise that, for political reasons, there are lobby briefings of one kind in the United States and another kind in Europe, but that is not what I understood from reading the newspapers. I hope that the Minister of State will tell us whether the British accounts are closer to reality than the account that I have just quoted from the New York Times.
There is also the problem that the American Administration do not always speak with one voice. The Secretary of Defence, Mr. Caspar Weinberger, does not always seem to be entirely in accord with General Haig, although I was pleased to read in the newspapers that there has been a peace offering between the two whereby Mr. Weinberger presented General Haig with a signed and autographed copy of the United States constitution. We do not have a constitution, but perhaps the Prime Minister could present the Lord Privy Seal with a signed and autographed copy of the complete works of Milton Friedman, and the Lord Privy Seal could reciprocate with a signed copy of his Cambridge weekend speeches. The possibilities are limitless, especially for this Cabinet.
There is another reason for having a dialogue with the Soviet Union. I do not accept, as was suggested by one or two Conservative Members, that the Soviet Union is completely evil and is entirely bent on world domination, and that it is such a powerful force in the world that it cannot be resisted and will march on to world domination. That is not a correct analysis of the situation. If our foreign policy were based on that analysis, there would be serious repercussions for world peace.
The Soviet Union, with a gross national product of only 65 per cent. of that of the United States, spends 12 per cent. of its GNP on defence whereas the United States spends 5 per cent. of its GNP on defence. Despite the Soviet Union's virtual self-sufficiency in oil and raw materials, its economy must have suffered in the world recession. Its agriculture is in a mess. Its satellite States are also suffering economically. It is worried about the security in Eastern Europe and on the Chinese border. It has 80,000 troops in Afghanistan. Its attempts to extend its influence in developing countries have not been successful, despite the panics. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said, there is bound to be a change in leadership in the Kremlin. Despite the highly centralised and undemocratic nature of the Soviet Union. The Russian leaders must be worried about their domestic economy and their external security. We should negotiate with them on that basis and try to reduce international tension.
Out of the invasion of Afghanistan was born the rapid deployment force. The Prime Minister has endorsed that force with, perhaps, too rapid a deployment of thought—although other members of the Government do not appear to have done so. One of these days, because apparently there will be a British contribution, however small, we should be told the thinking behind the
370
establishment of that force. We should be told what it is about. We have not had arty answers. Is the intention to stop a conventional Russian attack on the Gulf or to rescue a national Government who are under internal threat? Alternatively, is it intended to revive the old Dr. Kissinger idea of an intervention to secure the Gulf oilfields? The House should be given an answer to such questions because we are to contribute to the force.
Another question is perhaps even more important: what is the basis on which the force will be used? I assume that it will not enter another country unless it is invited. However, the Russians, who know a thing or two about rapid deployment forces, have said that their rapid deployment force entered Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan at the invitation of the internal Government. Who in a country where there is no parliamentary democracy decides to call in the rapid deployment force? Will the force go in at the invitation of a corrupt, crumbling regime which has lost the people's confidence? Will British troops enter another country at the invitation of a regime whose popular base has disappeared? We need answers to such questions.
Tension between East and West has not been lessened by the statements and attitudes of the new American Administration. The main policy of the United States seems to be anti-Communist throughout the world with little regard for human rights and dignity. Apparently, if a Government or country is anti-communist it is on our side, despite its being oppressive, corrupt and showing little regard for human dignity and the rule of law.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick, the new United States ambassador to the United Nations, proclaimed her support the other day for "moderately repressive autocratic Governments" which are friendly to the United States. She did not define "moderate" in that bizarre context.
The Spectator of 28 March reported a United States State Department spokesman as saying that United States policy was to frown on the violations of human rights which were committed by what he described as "totalitarian regimes" because they were committed in secret, while similar crimes committed by what he described as "authoritarian regimes" such as those in Latin America were less unacceptable because they murdered their citizens in the open.
That is the type of tortuous reasoning or rubbish that results from basing policy not on the principles of the rule of law and human rights but on trying to provide a spurious justification for supporting regimes which we in the Western democracies should not support.
I am sorry to say that President Reagan, in an interview on television with Mr. Walter Cronkite on 3 March, when asked about South Africa, said rhetorically:
"Can we abandon a country that has stood beside us in every war that we have ever fought?"
Mr. Amery: Hear, hear.
Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman shouts "Hear, hear". That quotation was from a transcript provided by the United States embassy. Perhaps I may remind President Reagan and the right hon. Gentleman that the present lot in charge in South Africa would have been very happy if they had been allowed to stand shoulder to shoulder with Adolf Hitler in the last war and not in the defence of Western democracy.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: That is a gross libel of the situation in South Africa during the Second World War. Those who wished to stand shoulder to shoulder with Hitler were interned. Those who fought with us fought with us.
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman should listen more carefully. I said "if they had been allowed". The heirs and successors of those people are now the party running South Africa. That is the point I was making.
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman was not born then.
Mr. Davies: If the security of the West, of Western civilisation, is dependent on this racialist regime in South Africa, we are in a very bad way.
Whatever the policy of America outside the NATO area, it is very likely, in the world in which we are living, to affect our NATO allies. Therefore, we have a right to look at American policy in other parts of the world, because it might have repercussions in the NATO area.
It is not possible to treat Poland, Afghanistan and Berlin today in isolation from South Africa, Namibia and El Salvador. The differences in the attitudes of the United States and the European nations can be clearly seen in many cases. For example, there is some discrepancy between the American attitude to the Middle East—which appears to be based on anti-Communism and on using Saudi Arabia, especially, as the bulwark against Communism in the Middle East—and the European initiative, which seems to be based on the need to secure justice and rights for the Palestinians.
It is not a difference of emphasis, for if policy is based on anti-Communism the Americans have to arm the Saudi Arabians and are arming them to the teeth, with British support—doing exactly the same as was done in Iran. But the arming of Saudi Arabia, in pursuit of that policy, is not likely to inspire confidence in the Israelis to get them to move in favour of recognising the rights of the Palestinians. So there is some discrepancy between the two policies.
Perhaps the Minister of State will tell us what is the main priority of the British Government. Do we subscribe to the view that the first priority is to stop Communist expansion in the Gulf, and to use Saudi Arabia especially and other countries to do so? Or do we subscribe to the view that the real problem in the Middle East, the real cause of the instability, is the Arab-Israeli conflict and the need to secure rights for the Palestinians?
We saw recently—and this is not likely to convince the Israelis—a British Prime Minister quite unnecessarily hawking weapons of destruction around the Gulf, selling more and more arms in an area where enough arms have been sold already. I wonder what the Israelis thought of that, especially when over the next six months the Foreign Secretary will seek to convince them that they should subscribe to the European initiative.
Viscount Cranborne: Am I right in thinking that if the Labour Party were now in power it would not have sold Hawk aeroplanes to the United Arab Emirates?
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman raised that question in his speech and it is very flattering that he should ask me, at this Dispatch Box, to tell him what a Labour Government would do. But certainly, from our experience in Iran, one would think that it is not a very sound basis for our industry. We traded with Iran and sold equipmemt to Iran. It is not a very sound basis for our industry to be
372
seeking to sell arms in large quantities in unstable parts of the world. I should have thought that our first aim should be to bolster our domestic manufacturing industry, instead of trying to save our economy by selling arms all over the world.
Viscount Cranborne: So the right hon. Gentleman's party would not have sold the Hawk aeroplanes.
Mr. Davies: The third area in which there has been this conflict is El Salvador. That the United States should have chosen El Salvador as the place "to teach the Commies a lesson", as it is elegantly put, has appalled many of its friends in this country. I find it extraordinary that the United States, with all its history of domestic tolerance and sense of justice and its respect for human rights at home, should have failed to recognise that the real problems of that small country lie not in Communism but in poverty, injustice and the ruthless suppression of human rights. The United States should leave it alone to solve its problems, as Nicaragua is doing successfully.
In regard to Southern Africa and especially Namibia, last week or the week before the British Government joined four other Western nations, known as the contact group, in vetoing at the Security Council African resolutions calling for sanctions against South Africa for its illegal occupation of Namibia. The Government should not have vetoed those proposals. By doing so they badly misjudged the mood of the African nations. We and the other Western countries have lost a considerable amount of credibility in black Africa.
The Government have failed to understand that, while most African countries abhor extreme political ideologies, especially ideologies born far from the continent of Africa, they abhor much more racialism and apartheid. Who are we in this House to say that they are wrong? So the Government have badly misjudged the mood of the Africans. Countries like Zambia are prepared once again to suffer the consequences on them of sanctions. The Minister of State should talk to some of these people. They are prepared to suffer as they suffered before because their first priority is to get rid of racialism and apartheid in South Africa.
As a result of the veto, it has been said apparently that the Western nations will always be soft on South Africa when it comes to Namibia. It has been said that, because of our mining interests in Namibia, there will never be enough pressure put upon South Africa to solve the problem. This may be wrong and unfair, but it is being said as a consequence of the action taken by the five Western countries.
What is also disturbing is that apparently Mr. Crocker, the United States assistant secretary for African affairs, has said that United Nations resolution 435 is a dead letter or dead in the water. Perhaps the Minister of State will confirm or deny this. May we be told by the Minister of State whether that is the view of the British Government? Also, is it the case that the Western nations are working on a plan to impose a solution in defiance of the United Nations resolution and that that plan would have to be policed in some way by forces from the five contact nations? If that plan is to be put into effect, and if it is contrary to resolution 435, clearly the United Nations will not be prepared to police it. Are we then to see British troops as part of a force in Namibia trying to provide a solution which is contrary to the United Nations resolution and to the views of the African States?

373
We can only hope that over the next 10 years there will not be similar upheavals to those of the last 10 years and that the world economy and world affairs will be more stable. No doubt there will be crises, but we shall be more able to withstand them if we reject the view which seems to be prevalent that the world is a simple place and that problems are always capable of instantaneous solutions. Just as the economic debate between the Keynesians and the monetarists is today sterile and irrelevant, so is the view of the world as a battleground between two conflicting ideologies.
The foreign policy of Britain and the Western democracies should be based on the principle of human rights and respect for human dignity. It is not in our interest or that of the Western countries to support tyranny, whether totalitarian or authoritarian, or whatever other rubbish one uses to describe it, in any part of the world. If we believe that the traditions and values of our society are worth preserving, then the only real safeguard for their preservation is that we should practise what we preach not only at home but abroad.
11.10 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): This has been a long and wide-ranging debate. It has not, on the whole, been well attended, although many of the speeches have been interesting. I think personally that the debate calls into question the manner in which the House debates foreign affairs. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne). It might be better to have brisk debates, lasting three or four hours, from time to time on the Middle East, Southern Africa or arms control. That approach might produce a better debate to which more attention would be paid.
The Minister replying to today's type of debate is placed in a difficult position. To attempt to answer all the points, or even the more important points, would require a speech lasting longer than the House would support. My task, however, has been eased by the number of hon. Members who have sent me a courteous note explaining, for one reason or another, that they are not able to remain to hear my reply. It would be discourteous if I replied in their absence to the points they made.
Much of the debate has rightly centred around issues of defence and arms control. A statement was rather reluctantly drawn from the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) that he supports NATO's strategy of deterrence. The right hon. Gentleman, I believe, was not present when the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), also speaking for the Labour Party, spoke of the merits of unilateralism.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East, as he developed his theme, raised an interesting point about the policy of the new United States Administration. He criticised that Administration for slowness in working out policies.
I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman's criticism is entirely just. There is some merit, if one is running the most powerful country in the world, in deciding to wait a bit, to listen a bit and to consult a bit. It is too early to become impatient for lack of a precise policy. I believe that the friends and allies of the United States have welcomed a period during which we have been asked for our advice. From time to time our advice has been taken.
374
A prime example, perhaps the most important so far, is the Rome decision of the NATO Ministers. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) questioned that. It is a statement of fact, not interpretation, that NATO Ministers welcomed the announcement by the American Secretary of State that the United States intended to resume negotiations with the Soviet Union on theatre nuclear forces by the end of this year. That is a definite statement. It is the statement for which the European allies have been asking. It is what we got. I think it is satisfactory from the point of view of the natural anxieties and concerns expressed.
That was a commitment by the United States taken after listening carefully to the views of its European allies. It is a satisfactory outcome that puts into better perspective some of the criticisms developed by the right hon. Member for Llanelli about United States policy.
Hon. Members, if they are in touch with their constituents—I am sure that that is the case with all hon. Members who are present—will feel a certain anxiety about arms control and the appetite of people for disarmament that is taking shape in this country. It seems to me natural that people should feel anxiety about nuclear weapons. It is natural that they should feel strongly. It is, however, important that they should think straight. I agree with the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) that the forming of committees, the signing of petitions and the holding of meetings will not themselves bring about disarmament and arms control. It would be a pity if the Labour Party gave an opposite impression.
Arms control and then disarmament, if they happen, will be brought about through hard, tough negotiations, resulting in balanced and verifiable agreements. That is the only way. If it is not done that way, it will not happen. Anything that re-creates the soft, intellectual mood of the 1930s and makes one feel that disarmament will be achieved if enough nice people in the West sign petitions is a trap that should be avoided.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) has left the Chamber, so I need not deal with the speculative structure on defence policy which he erected. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence referred to that matter yesterday. He will be saying more about it to the House when the Government have completed their decisions.
There has not been such discussions about Europe, but one point has come out of the debate. Much expectation is being placed in Europe by the Labour Party and in other parts of the world on the influence which European countries will exercise on the United States. That theme has run through the debate in connection with El Salvador, South Africa and so on. It has been said that it is up to Britain and the Europeans to make this and that point to the United States.
We accept that that is part of the role, and we believe that the United States is ready to listen. However, we should be much more effective in doing that if we did it through political co-operation and co-operation among the Ten. The point which I wish to make was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) in an earlier intervention. It is no good expecting Europe to exercise together that political weight with the rest of the world and at the same time propose that we should go hammer and tongs for the Community to which we belong.

375
There are many things which we need to do, such as restructuring the budget and refashioning the CAP, as was mentioned in the debate.
However, it is no good supposing that we can play the part written for us as 10 countries of Europe acting together in a dangerous world if in Britain we are at the same time doing the same things which could bring about the disintegration of the Community. One cannot have effective political co-operation in Europe without coping successfully with the problems of the Community. The two things go together and cannot be separated.
There has been much discussion of the Middle East. I listened with care—as I always do—to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and all the other hon. Members who discussed the matter. My right hon. Friend was unfair to say that we were lukewarm about the reconciliation of Israel and Egypt. This has been a major step in the history of that area. We did not believe—we have been proved right in the matter—that the Camp David agreement by itself would lead to a general settlement. It was clear to us that something more was needed. That simple thought was the basis of the Venice declaration.
I was glad that during the debate the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, the right hon. Member for Devonport and the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), speaking in slightly different terms on behalf of their three parties, all endorsed the balance which was struck in the Venice declaration. I hope that that is noticed in Israel, in the Arab countries by the PLO and elsewhere.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion concentrated, as he usually and refreshingly does, on the military analysis. He is right to draw attention to the Soviet threat, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South. It is refreshing that the United States, the French and ourselves are considering the matter in a realistic frame of mind. However, a military response is not much good if politically the atmosphere and the conditions are wrong.
One fact that Secretary of State Haig found during his visit to the area, and which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister certainly found, was that many of those on whom one must rely if there is to be a successful counter to Soviet influence in and penetration of the Middle East say in private as well as in public that such successful countering of Soviet penetration is impossible in the absence of progress on the Palestinian question. That is a familiar point. I shall not labour it, except to say that I believe that it is true. It is not a question of giving priority to one over the other. The two are linked. One will not get anywhere on the strategic side unless there is perceived progress. That is one reason why we believe that it is important to press ahead with what we have started.
Changes are needed in the PLO and the Israeli attitude. The point is made by both sides, but those who say that Israel must change her attitude do not accept that the PLO should change, and vice versa. Only when both are brought to make the necessary concessions will negotiations have a chance of success. The problem should not be put on the back burner. It will not be solved quickly, and a solution cannot be imposed. It can only be negotiated. However, as the matter splutters on unresolved
376
and as tensions rise—for example, as a result of the Israeli settlements policy—it becomes more dangerous and difficult.
There is an opportunity—not over the six months of the British Presidency, which is too short a time, but over, say, the lifetime of the American Administration—to push the peace process to a stage where it will progress to final settlement. If we Europeans and the Americans miss the opportunity, it may not recur on anything like such satisfactory terms. For strategic reasons and reasons of justice and because of our natural concern for stability in the area, we are right to push ahead and to assess later in the year, after the Israeli elections and after the United States has defined its policy more clearly, how we Europeans can pursue the start that we have made.
The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) analysed the situation in the Lebanon. We must not forget the Lebanese Government or the Lebanese people. Jostling between super-Powers must not take place without regard for the Government or the people of the Lebanon.
We are in close touch with them and with the other parties involved. Many people are taking a hand, but if we see an opportunity to take a hand we shall do our best.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East mentioned the Gulf. I saw the visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at first hand, and the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman about the visit were a little ungenerous. My right hon. Friend was wrestling with the belief in the Gulf that has grown up since the right hon. Gentleman said "Out"—and I have seen it in the past two years—that Britain has not been taking a friendly and intelligent interest in that part of the world. We have let it slip. Commercially, others have come in and snapped up the big opportunities. Politically, we have taken it for granted. We have not kept in close touch with the rulers, who have done a remarkable job in difficult circumstances. My right hon. Friend wrestled with great success to correct the feeling. She was received with enthusiasm. I do not doubt that the effect of the visit on those to whom she spoke will be substantial. It is an example of a timely and successful visit to a part of the world that is enormously important to us
A good deal of discussion has concentrated on South Africa and Nambia. The Labour Party's policy on sanctions which was rather dragged out of the right hon. Gentleman, is difficult to understand—"Yes" to sanctions on Namibia but not on apartheid.
So there could be a situation in which sanctions were first on and then off, and so forth. I do not see how anyone could suppose that that approach to sanctions is in the least bit fruitful. It seems to have been mooted simply in an attempt to avoid giving offence to African countries, but one really must look at the matter a little more deeply. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman looking back over his historical knowledge and his recent experience of sanctions in Spain, China, Rhodesia and so on, really believes that the answer that he gave me a few hours ago is a sensible definition of the policy of an Opposition.
Mr. Healey: I understand the hon. Gentleman's questions, but he might just as well put them to himself and to his right hon. Friend. They asked the House to adopt sanctions against Iran, not in order to bring the Ayotollah down but to produce changes in Iranian policy related to the single problem of the hostages. He also supported sanctions against the Soviet Union in the Olympic Games,

377
not against the Soviet system as a whole but, as he thought, to get the Soviet Union to leave Afghanistan. The Foreign Secretary himself made it clear the other day that he was quite prepared to contemplate sanctions against South Africa. We questioned the right hon. Gentleman many times on the Foreign Secretary's statement, so he clearly envisaged the possibility of sanctions for a certain purpose, but not against apartheid as such.
Mr. Hurd: But the right hon. Gentleman has not defined that purpose. We are in the middle of a diplomatic situation, about which I shall say something in a moment. I cannot think that it would have been sensible at this particular moment for Britain, France and the United States to go along with a resolution of that kind. I cannot think that, on reflection, the Labour Party would really feel that a major decision of that kind for economic sanctions against South Africa could be taken in that way.
A good many questions have been put on the subject of Namibia, to which I shall briefly reply. The United Nations plan, resolution 435—I think that the right hon. Gentleman said 235—remains the only agreed basis for a settlement. The Foreign Ministers of the Five—the contact group—agreed in Rome last week that resolution 435 provided a solid basis for a Namibian settlement. As the United States was associated with that, there is no reason to suggest that the United States has abandoned resolution 435. The Five went on to agree that resolution 435 needed to be strengthened if agreement was to be reached.
That is, therefore, a negotiating position. We have not abandoned the efforts that we have been making for a long time with the other four. We have not abandoned resolution 435 as a solid basis for possible agreement. It means that we are still in a diplomatic effort and that we have not abandoned hopes of reaching a settlement through diplomacy, through agreement with the South African Government, on the basis that I have described. We have made it clear to the South African Government that they should not take what happened in the Security Council as meaning that we have abandoned the effort and the pressure to achieve a settlement on Namibia.
The questions put by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) I shall deal with in correspondence.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about Cuban troops in Angola. Our estimate is 18,000, a figure which we believe has remained reasonably steady in the past 12 months.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) asked a number of questions, three of them important ones, relating to Ireland and Northern Ireland. I am sorry that I was not present when he spoke, but his speech has been reported to me and I hope that I have it right.
The first question related to the terms of reference of Father Magee on his visit. Our dealings with Father Magee were on the basis that his visit from the Vatican, at the request of the Pope, was a purely spiritual and humanitarian undertaking on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church, which was naturally concerned for members of its faith. We do not believe that the Vatican considered the visit to be political. Father Magee met Mr. Sands, other hunger strikers and other members of the Roman Catholic community. He expressed the Pope's concern for peace in Northern Ireland, but he did not negotiate between Her Majesty's Government and the hunger strikers. We welcomed the Pope's appeal to the hunger strikers to end the hunger strike and we regret that that appeal was not heeded.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Did Monsignor Magee inform those concerned that they were in deadly sin?
Mr. Hurd: That is certainly not a matter for me.
The second question of the hon. Member for Antrim, South related to the European Parliament's debate on Northern Ireland. Under its rules of procedure, the European Parliament can decide what it will debate. As I understand it, it is not breaking any article of the treaties or any part of its constitutional framework by holding that debate. However, its resolutions or opinions on These matters are not binding, either on the Council or on individual member States.
We would rather the debate did not take place, but, as the efforts of some British Members to resist it were not successful, we hope that all British Members of the European Parliament will take the opportunity that has been forced upon them to convey an accurate understanding of what has occurred and to dispel the misunderstandings and misrepresentations that are all too rife.
I was sorry to have the hon. Gentleman's third point reported to me. He suggested that in some way the Foreign Office and the Diplomatic Service were reluctant to clear up the misunderstandings and misrepresentations on the Government's Northern Ireland policy. That is not so. At present, an important part of our general effort is the need to put across to the world an accurate and favourable impression of Britain. It is important that our friends—and, indeed, our enemies—should clearly understand our Northern Ireland policy and why it is that way. In many posts throughout the world, particularly in the last few days, our representatives have done just that. The hon. Gentleman need have no fears on that score.
There has been much discussion on El Salvador and a good deal of criticism directed at the United States Administration. I need not reply to that in any detail. We wish to see a political solution to the conflict in. El Salvador. The amount of killing and suffering taking place must distress everyone with any sensibility. We are willing to support any realistic initiative that may bring that solution about. We have no direct information about mediation efforts by Venezuela and Mexico, but if those efforts were acceptable to the parties concerned, we would naturally wish them well.
The hon. Member for Inverness asked a number of questions. Perhaps he will forgive me if in the interests of brevity I do not deal with them at any length. They were important questions about aid to Cambodia and the situation in the Horn of Africa. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on those points.
I was in agreement with the right hon. Member for Devonport until the last few minutes of his speech. Up to then, he had not picked a quarrel with the Government. Obviously, he thought that his speech would not be complete until he had done so, and he chose the Brandt report. However, in his wish to be angry with us he allowed himself to go beyond the bounds of accuracy.
It is inaccurate to say that Britain was threatened with not being invited to the Mexico summit. That suggestion was never made. It was always clear that we would be asked.
The right hon. Gentleman made a more important mistake, which was followed by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett). I do not think it is true that our

379
standing with the Third world depends as narrowly as they supposed on the amount of official aid that we give. The Third world knows that although that is part of the story, it is only part and not the most important part. Our recycling of surpluses and the future course of international financial institutions are more important. The developing countries understand that we have made cuts. They would obviously like more official aid. It is inaccurate to suppose that, because of that situation, our reputation has dwindled or our influence has diminished. They understand the situation perfectly well.
I agree with what has been said about the lobby on Tuesday and the people who came to see us. I was very glad of this occasion because it gave us an opportunity which we have not had as a Government. It enabled us to put across directly to thousands of people who are personally concerned about this just what is happening—which is very different from what many of them had been led to suppose.
I had the impression, listening to them on several occasions, that those people were not, on the whole, partisan. They had not come representing one political party or another. They were not interested in partisan treatment of the issue. They were not interested in people who used this issue as a stick with which to beat the Government. Nor were they particularly impressed by people who came before them with a great many fancy promises about what would be done, stating what percentage would be reached within a particular period. I did not feel that that approach was going down well. Of course these people would like us to do more. Of course they are anxious. The occasion provided us with an opportunity to show them that a great deal is going on in all these areas of activity, much more than some of the more simplistic pamphlets had supposed.
The right hon. Members for Leeds, East and for Llanelli were scornful about the international financial institutions. The World Bank decided to double its capital last year. Is that negligible? Is that why the right hon. Member for Leeds, East is muttering and saying that nothing is being done? The lending of the IMF is now three times what it was in 1979. Is this the sign of an unresponsive and stagnant institution?
Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman must be aware of the facts. The increase in IMF lending is due to the increase in quotas that I helped to negotiate as chairman of the interim committee in 1979. This is the fact and the hon. Gentleman should know it. If he does not, let him consult the Treasury and he will find that it is so. On the question of the International Bank, he should be aware that his Government, the Government on whose behalf he was speaking to the Brandt lobby on Tuesday, were criticised in terms and explicitly singled out by Mr. McNamara, the president of the International Bank, for making cuts in aid which Mr. McNamara regarded as profoundly damaging.
It is no good the hon. Gentleman trying to ride off on the recycling argument when the poorer countries, the non-oil developing countries, are carrying 90 per cent. of the burden of the deficit counterpart of the OPEC surplus this year because no initiative has been taken by the Government or, I agree, any other Western Government for the last two years to make proper provision for this problem.
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is riding off on a completely different point. I was making the point that the international financial institutions had moved a long way in the past two years. I am not saying that this Government were responsible for that progress. I am not denying the right hon. Gentleman's part in that. I am saying that it is wrong to accuse the institutions of being stagnant and unresponsive, because they have moved a substantial amount. There is a lot more change in the pipeline, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, because he studies these matters carefully. The Brandt report has acted as a spur to this change. No doubt the Mexico summit will do the same. To say, for partisan reasons, that nothing is happening and that these institutions are unresponsive and static is inaccurate.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to hark back to the point about our official aid programme, which has been endlessly discussed in the House. I was making the point that it was wrong to suppose that our reputation in the Third world has suffered, because people see perfectly clearly that we have made certain limited cuts, that we still maintain a substantial aid programme and that, if we consider trade, investment and aid, our record in these matters is pretty good. That is widely understood.
I am sorry to have spoken for so long. However, we are entering a period of intense activity in foreign policy. The burden will fall on this country because of the six-month Presidency of the European Community in the second half of this year. That will coincide with the different strands of American policy coming to a head. That process is not yet complete, but I believe that in the next six months it will reach completion step by step. As has been constantly pointed out, it is also a period of great danger for Africa and the Middle East and of major problems inside the EEC. As the debate has illustrated, we live in an increasingly disorderly world, where the dangers and the turbulence are great and where man's inhumanity to man represents just as great a threat to the happiness of individuals as the problems of underdevelopment.
During this period of opportunity for Britain and of danger for the world, we must concentrate on strengthening and defending our interests and on building up and reinforcing the defences—political, economic and military—of the West against Soviet subversion. However, the debate has also shown that it is our job as a British Government to what we can, where we can, to help to forge a settlement of as many of the poisonous disputes as we can which prevent us from attaining a saner and more orderly world.
Mr. Alastair Goodlad: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Petition

  Freetown, Sierra Leone (British Community)
  11.41 pm
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I beg to leave to present a petition on behalf of the British community of Freetown, Sierra Leone.
  The petition has been signed by 43 Britons, all of whom were born in the United Kingdom. They appeal to the

  381
  House on behalf of their 70 children, all of whom were born abroad. Under the terms of the British Nationality Bill, now before a Standing Committee, those children will lose the right to pass their nationality on to their children, if also born abroad. The petition refers to the Government's amendment to the Bill, whereby other persons born abroad, who subsequently become Britons by naturalisation, have the right to pass their British nationality on to their children born abroad. The petitioners ask that the same right be allowed to their children, who are Britons of indigenous stock.
  With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall read the petition. It states:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House amend the British Nationality Bill to provide that relief from this disability to be given to our children and other British citizens by descent so as to match the relief the House has already by amendment to the Bill as first presented granted in respect of those children also born outside the United Kingdom to parents one or both of whom is a British citizen by registration or naturalisation and furthermore that the Honourable House provide that we their parents on behalf of our children themselves being of due age be permitted on whatever clement terms the House sees fit to impose to register all such children as British citizens so as to fortify their claim by descent against any impediment to their assumption of their full duties and rights as British citizens.
  And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

Oxfordshire Area Health Authority
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
11.44 pm
Mr. Tom Benyon: I welcome this opportunity to speak on the shortfall of funding for the Oxfordshire area health authority. I am pleased to be able to raise an Adjournment debate in the presence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Health and Social Security, who I understand is just starting his second half century of replies to Adjournment debates. I wish him as much luck in defending his wicket in his second half century as he has had in his first.
We on this side of the House understand the importance of combating inflation and fighting against waste in all forms of public expenditure. I fully understand the economic climate in which we live. I am especially concerned that the fight against waste should take place in areas where there is expenditure surplus to the requirements of the services on which our community depends. I am concerned that in Oxfordshire there is Little waste to hack away, and that any further reductions will fall on the fabric of the service which is so important to Oxfordshire and my constituency.
I am also aware that the Government have given a pledge that, despite what other savings are made, the standards of the National Health Service will not drop, and that the standards of health care will remain. That pledge is on record. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has said many times in the Chamber that the promise made at the time of election will be honoured.
I am aware that unless the money spent on the National Health Service grows by 2 per cent. a year to cover the additional numbers of people who need care from the NHS the service will go into decline. The reasons for that are obvious. The standards of health are steadily on the increase and people grow older. The barriers of scientific research are explored by our doctors and scientists, preventive medicine gets better and thus the health of our people, thank God, continually improves. Consequently, unless our National Health Service grows, the standard of health will go into decline.
I am fully aware that since May 1979 1,000 doctors and 8,000 nurses have been employed and there are 100,000 fewer people on our waiting lists. The Government are to be commended.
Oxfordshire used to have one of the best health services in the country. I emphasise "used to". It benefits from having a teaching hospital which has attracted some of the best doctors. Local interests have been well served by maintaining the cottage hospitals and developing them into community hospitals. There are many good health centres. Acute psychiatric services, linked to the teaching centres, are also good.
Unfortunately, there are long-standing deficiencies in mental handicap services for the elderly mentally infirm. Plans to improve those services are well advanced as a result of co-operation between the area health authority and the community health council, following extensive public consultation. But what was good is deteriorating. Plans for improvements of services for the mentally handicapped and elderly mentally infirm are but a pipe-dream. The Oxfordshire area health authority, which has

383
suffered years of financial restraints, starts this financial year with an actual reduction in revenue. It is believed to be the only health authority to do so.
I emphasise the serious position in which the authority finds itself. I said earlier that in order to maintain services all areas must spend at least 2 per cent. more, but not only has the Oxfordshire authority to find savings from areas of waste but there is no allowance for growth in its budget from the regional authority. The reductions are falling most sorely on Oxfordshire and on my constituents.
I received a letter on 23 April from the Regius professor of medicine at Oxford, Professor Henry Harris, outlining the plight of the clinical training and teaching schools in the county. He said:
"The position is this. The clinical facilities for teaching the 85 clinical students whom we already take at Oxford are inadequate. The essential problem is the shortage of acute medical and surgical beds which form the centre of the clinical medical curriculum. This shortage is generated partly by fewer such beds being available in the new John Radcliffe Hospital than were at our disposal at the old Radcliffe Infirmary and partly by the fact that many of these beds are occupied by geriatric patients who are unsuitable for teaching purposes. The hope of the clinical teachers was that funds would become available to alleviate these acute difficulties in the near future, but, as things look at present, quite the contrary appears imminent.
It is the agreed aim of the Medical School to admit 100 clinical students, but, despite considerable pressure from the University, we have not, due to lack of clinical facilities, so far been able to do this. At a recent visit of the Medical Subcommittee of the University Grants Committee assurances were given by the Regional Officers which induced the Medical Subcommittee to press the Clinical School to admit 100 at the next admission, and, in the light of the Regions's assurances, the Clinical School provisionally agreed. However, in its current proposals for the allocation of funds, the Region has not committed any significant part of its growth money to the Oxford Area, so that the clinical teachers see themselves faced with the prospect of admitting 100 students with facilities inadequate for 85, and with no obvious hope of immediate relief. The position is extremely serious and is viewed with the greatest concern by the Clinical Board.
University funds are, as you no doubt know, under severe pressure. A number of clinical posts supported by the University are at present frozen and more still will be frozen in the coming year. It is not clear to us how we can cope with the intake of 100 students in the present circumstances unless there is some change in the Region's policy or unless some funds can be made available from another source to alleviate the crisis."
It may be useful if I discuss later from where those other funds might come.
I wish to discuss first the revenue allocation formula in the area. I understand that allocation of revenue by population served, modified to take account of age structure and general states of health, is the right principle. we are all agreed on that, but it is a principle which must be applied by people who know what they are doing. It must be applied sensitively and it must meet the frequent undertakings that the Health Serice would not be cut. The population of Oxfordshire has to wait at least two years for the appropriate credit while elsewhere the' Department makes adjustments to the formula with little apparent recognition of the validity of what it is doing.
Oxfordshire has suffered a reduction in revenue while four regions have received more than 10 per cent. additional revenue between 1977–78 and 1981–82. Some London regions which, on a strict application of the formula, would have had no increase in revenue have been protected. There is some sensitivity, but it is arbitrarily applied or at least no explanation can be obtained of the
384
thought processes involved and Oxfordshire's revenue has been cut despite every expectation that that would not happen.
The health authority has been asked to cut management costs. It has done so every year since 1976. It has met all the targets set for it by the Government. It has reduced management costs to 4½ per cent. of total expenditure. That is about the lowest percentage in the country, in spite of a considerable extra management burden that is carried by a teaching area.
During the past year it has been possible to reduce the standard working week for all nurses from 40 hours to 37½ hours. All health authorities had to increase the numbers of nursing staff as a result, but in Oxfordshire the equivalent of 153 more nurses was needed. Between February 1980 and February 1981 the total increase in numbers of staff employed in Oxfordshire's health services was 134. If it were not for the well-deserved shorter working week for nurses, the number of staff providing Oxfordshire's health services would have decreased, despite its being the fastest growing region in Britain. The staff of all other authorities in the Oxford region increased by over 400 employees. That pattern was common throughout the country except for Oxfordshire. Even regional health authorities, which themselves provide no clinical services, increased their number of employees, Oxford regional health authority being no exception.
"Care in Action", which the Secretary of State published a couple of months ago, identified priority groups and services. The elderly, the mentally ill, and the mentally and physically handicapped are the groups for which the Secretary of State expects authorities to develop services further according to local assessment of need.
A modest programme costing £300,000, had been planned, following extensive consultation, to house mentally handicapped patients better, increase places for old people and provide more community psychiatric nursing services. The plan was as modest as were the revenue resource assumptions given by Government.
The Secretary of State also seeks further development of maternity services, services for newly born and premature babies, of primary care services and services for young children. A modest programme, costing £400,000, had been planned to increase numbers of midwives, provide three more special care baby unit places, open a few more community hospital beds and increase screening services for children. The plan had been agreed. Again the plan was as modest as the revenue resource assumptions.
As these resource assumptions have not been realised, it is almost certain that the plans will not be either. Worse still, some existing services, once known for their excellence, are beginning to deteriorate. More and more intensive use of beds in acute hospitals has been practised in Oxfordshire in the attempt to satisfy all demands within limited resources.
Bed occupancy throughput of the Oxford hospitals is one of the highest in the country and durations of stay amongst the shortest. To a point this makes for the most efficient and effective use of very expensive beds. Too early discharge because of pressure on beds can reduce effectiveness. That is what is happening now. That point has been reached and more acute beds are needed to treat and care for acutely ill people without undue stress and strain. There is no prospect of more beds being provided, not with less money available to pay for staff to run them.

385
For several years the authority's management has been making savings by increasing efficiency in use of staff, equipment and buildings. Savings resulting from these measures have been used towards financing the opening of new hospitals, including the John Radcliffe hospital, or departments and to employ extra patient care staff. But much of this effort has had to go to offset overspendings and under-fundings for price rises and pay increases, the subject of national agreements over which local management has no control. Savings plans are always selected to have the least effect on the quality and quantity of patient care.
In 1980 the medical staff in Oxford reviewed the hospital services in the city and proposed reductions in activity and therefore expenditure and redeployments of effort and finance while maintaining the service to patients despite the financial limitations. Another medical staff committee reviewed supplies expenditure.
Thus to managerial proposals for July 1980 designed to save £400,000 a year have been added savings plans prepared by the medical staff designed to save £1½ million and £200,000 a year respectively. Many savings plans take some time to achieve their full potential and some plans need financial pump-priming before they can be carried out. Savings plans are not without their pitfalls and meet with all manner of opposition and resistance of which the Oxfordshire area health authority has had more than its fair share. Nevertheless, significant savings have been made.
Many immediate problems, and opportunities, are within and closely affect the population of Abingdon. No doubt all parts of the country have anomalies in Health Service provision left over from the last reorganisation but the Vale of White Horse, previously in Berkshire and now in Oxfordshire, has many of them, all relating to priority groups and services.
There is now, as a result of careful public relations exercises, a good understanding of the authority's policy of developing community hospitals in small market towns to replace isolated geriatric hospitals, largely financed by the sale of these redundant properties. At Didcot, in my constituency, the little 16-bed hospital is being developed to a 30-bed one to provide continuing care beds for the local population locally. However, unless additional money is supplied, those beds may not be available for use. Faringdon—another town in my constituency, and the one town in Oxfordshire without a local hospital—is to get one as a result of a very generous donation from a local citizen. However, it may not be possible for Faringdon new hospital to open all its facilities unless further money is forthcoming.
This is only part of the story. Mental handicap services and services for the elderly mentally infirm in the vale are largely provided by Berkshire area health authority which, in the face of its own financial problems, will find it difficult to pay further moneys. Worse, there are very advanced plans in Oxfordshire for major improvement to mental handicap services, aimed at bringing them up to at least regional average cost services. Those plans will have to be reprogrammed over a much longer time scale in the face of cuts in the authority's revenue allocation.
When an authority has spent seven years preparing and implementing savings plans, opening a major teaching hospital with a fraction of the additional revenue needed, and trying against all odds to improve its priority services, it is most unfair that it should be faced with a cut in its revenue and see little prospect of things getting better.
386
Much though co-operation with the private sector is welcomed, and generous as people are in making gifts to improve local services, this must be set against a sound financial base provided by the Government.
Where is the extra £200,000 to come from? Since 1976 the regional health authority has received substantial sums of money to provide regional secure units, which it did not do, nor did it provide plans for so doing. In the first three years, it received £246,000. In 1979, it was revalued, and about £330,000 was received. In 1980–81, it was £445,000, and in 1981–82 it was £480,000. As it has produced no plans to provide regional secure units, apart from one which I understand has now been shelved, I hope that the Minister will bring to bear as much pressure as he can to enable at least £200,000 this year to be given to the area health authority to meet its responsibilities in the area.
11.59 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) has, with eloquence and sincerity, raised a matter which is obviously of great importance to his constituents. The issues involved in the allocation of resources to health authorities are very complex—they are not easy to grasp or to explain. My hon. Friend made his case with admirable clarity, and I am grateful to him for allowing me the opportunity to explain, from the Government's point of view, exactly how resources are distributed in the NHS and how their use is monitored.
My hon. Friend raised many issues, and I am sorry that I shall be unable to deal with them all, but I shall write to him about those that I shall not have time to mention. I endorse his kind words about the Government's determination to protect and, where possible, to improve standards within the National Health Service. He said that a 2 per cent. growth was necessary to cope with demographic changes. I am not sure that my Department would accept that figure. The figure I have in mind is nearer 0·7 per cent. However, I shall write to my hon. Friend about the matter.
My hon. Friend's main concern is with the allocation of funds to the Oxfordshire area health authority. But I am sure he will understand if I say that my own emphasis must be on the national picture and on the relationship between that national picture for the NHS and Government policies as a whole. Having devoted some time to this theme, I shall then try to indicate how Oxfordshire fits into this picture.
Allocations to regional health authorities in England are determined in accordance with the methods recommended by the Resource Allocation Working Party, more commonly known as RAWP. Its report was published in 1976. The working party saw as its objective the bringing about of a fairer distribution of resources across the country. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that that is what we all want. It has been accepted by this Government, as well as the previous one, that there is need to tackle the lack of equality of access to health care, that is, that for the purposed of obtaining health care and treatment one is infinitely better off living within reach of London than, for instance, in the North-West.
A RAWP formula was designed to assess the relative needs of each region for health care resources. It is a complicated formula, based on population, weighted to assess relative health care need. In this way revenue

387
targets are calculated, and when these targets are compared with the current levels of allocation it can be seen that some regions, such as Trent, are significantly deprived while other regions, in particularly the Thames regions, have allocations significantly greater than their target share.
Of course, at any given time some regions are below their target and some are above it—they are referred to as RAWP "gaining" and RAWP "losing" authorities. Attempts to redistribute funds from one to another are inevitably resisted by RAWP losing regions. RAWP recommended that these disparities should be reduced gradually, by making larger increases to the more deprived regions each year. The present Government support that policy, with the emphasis on bringing the more deprived regions up to the level of the better provided regions while allowing some growth to all. The result so far is a gradual but nevertheless significant reduction in disparities between regions.
We come now to the position of Oxford regional helath authority. The region is fairly close to its revenue target under the RAWP formula. In the current financial year its allocation is about 1 per cent. below the target, which has increased with the region's population growth. In the last three years the region has had rates of growth in its allocation slightly below the national average—1·75 per cent. in 1979–80 when the average was 20 per cent., 0·5 per cent. in 1980–81 when the planned rate of growth was only 0·5 per cent., and 1·4 per cent. in 1981–82 as against 1·6 per cent. But, in addition, the Oxford region has for the past four years received a special revenue allocation for the development of services in new towns. That amounts to £784,000 in 1981–82.
The RAWP formula applied to capital allocations takes account of the population in each region, of relative need for health care and of the approximate size and age of the existing capital stock. The population of the Oxford region is relatively younger and healthier than that of most other regions, and the region had a high level of expenditure on hospital construction in the early 1970s.
My hon. Friend is particularly concerned about the allocation of resources to area health authorities. I must make an important point. The Government's job is to allocate funds to regional health authorities. This is self-evident and it is right that if hon. Members have reservations about the way we are doing that job they should challenge us. However, it is entirely the responsibility of regional health authorities to decide how those funds should be spent sub-regionally. It is their job and probably the most important function which they are charged with.
I do not need to labour at this time, the principles which are embodied in the forthcoming restructuring of the NHS. Suffice to say that paramount among these is the maximum delegation of responsibility and decision-taking to those who are close enough to the service, to local circumstances and to the job in hand to make those decisions. That principle is widely accepted and welcomed both inside and outside the NHS.
It is often argued that the better-off regions—or areas, as in the case of Oxfordshire—are pre-empting the funds which rightly belong to the other regions or areas that are below their RAWP targets. Although the Oxford RHA is
388
fairly close to its RAWP target, the same cannot be said of its constituent areas. At the extremes the difference can be large.
In 1980–81, Oxfordshire AHA was 5·04 per cent. above target, whilst Northamptonshire AHA was 3·97 per cent. below target. The aim of the Oxford RHA is to bring all its areas within a 2½ per cent. band above or below target, but the rate of progress towards target is for the RHA to determine, taking into account all the factors which affect the allocation of resources in the region.
The region has been faced with limited growth money in recent years and this has resulted in rather slow progress towards its aim.
Although my hon. Friend is concerned about the position of Oxfordshire, many people within the region would argue—and have already done so in the House—that Oxfordshire's movements towards the target have been far too slow. Only a few weeks ago the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Homewood), supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), expressed particular concern over Northamptonshire's progress towards the RAWP target. Neither of them pulled any punches and they made it clear to the House that in their view this was a direct result of the preferential treatment being meted out to Oxfordshire by the regional health authority. I think that there are other hon. Members within the region who would share the view that the region has been over-sympathetic towards Oxfordshire over the years.
The regional health authority has a very difficult job in tackling these competing views. It has been faced with the problem of trying to move Oxfordshire towards the target without having to make drastic cuts in its existing services. At the same time, it has been faced particularly with the problem of commissioning the John Radcliffe hospital in the city of Oxford. This it has achieved, but not without a great deal of criticism. A level transfer of services—with additional revenue costs of £¾ million—enabled the hospital to open in 1979, but a very large part of the region's growth money was committed towards that in the process.
The use of so much of the region's growth money to benefit one area that was already over-provided in RAWP terms was received less than enthusiastically in other parts of the region. It would, however, be unfair to criticise the RHA for this. The hospital concerned was planned and construction was started before the introduction of the RAWP system, because of a change in the way that revenue consequences were funded. The regional health authority suddenly found that it had to find the necessary revenue to fund the new hospital from within its own normal allocation. The fact that the region was able to do so and has still been able to move its other areas to the position they are in today should not be underestimated as an achievement.
Although my hon. Friend would dispute this vigorously, Oxfordshire AHA has been comparatively over-privileged and always well above target. Despite this, it has consistently failed to live within its budgets and has appeared to some eyes in other areas to have "got away with it".
This combination of circumstances has drawn inevitable complaints from the areas which are under target and feel that they have made real efforts and taken hard decisions in order to live within their means. In their steady attempt to adjust the areas' relative relationships

389
with their targets, the regional health authority has just taken steps this year which appear to Oxfordshire AHA—and to my hon. Friend—to penalise it excessively.
After the allocation of growth money in 1981–82, Northamptonshire is only 0·64 per cent. below its RAWP target and Berkshire and Buckinghamshire are both within the 2½ per cent. band above or below target. I am sure that these three areas still consider Oxfordshire to be in a privileged position. Oxfordshire in 1981–82 is still 4·06 per cent. above target, although I understand that the regional health authority intends that by 1985–86 it will be only 2·3 per cent. above.
My hon. Friend expressed disquiet over the way in which the RHA has planned to allocate its growth money for 1981–82. As I have explained, the allocation of resources to the AHAs is a matter for the RHAs to determine. My hon. Friend can, of course, pursue this matter directly with the Oxford RHA.
The AHA, as my hon. Friend says, feels that its lack of growth money for the current year places an impossible burden on it as it has been asked by the region to find efficiency savings of £324,000. This is part of the £25 million that my right hon. Gentleman undertook to find in 1981–82. The Oxford RHA has been asked to make efficiency savings of £1,184,000, and the Oxfordshire AHA's share of this is £324,000.
390
The Oxfordshire AHA has tackled the problems of meeting this budget vigorously and positively. It has made tough decisions in an effort to find savings and live within its budget. It finds the prospect of achieving a further £324,000 daunting indeed. I understand that the RHA has given some recognition to the problems facing the areas this year and has agreed to help them by funding £200,000 of the money on a non-recurring basis.
I realise that this will still leave the AHA to find savings of £124,000, but that is considerably less than its original fears. I have already said that it will not be easy for the AHA to find savings through a better use of resources and increased efficiency. That is not to say that it is impossible. I am sure that many other health authorities are finding themselves confronted with an equally daunting task.
My hon. Friend mentioned a number of specific services for the elderly, the severely mentally infirm and the mentally handicapped. I should like to pick up a point that he made about the generosity of the people of Oxfordshire in the voluntary donations that they have made. It is very encouraging for us to see the extent——
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at fourteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Trades Union Congress
  Trades Union Congress
  Factory Closures
  Factory Closures
ENERGY
  Electricity Consumption
  Electricity Consumption
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
WALES
  Housing Finance
  Housing Finance
  Roads (Local Authority and Departmental Liaison)
  Roads (Local Authority and Departmental Liaison)
  European Regional Development Fund (Road Schemes)
  European Regional Development Fund (Road Schemes)
  Railways Act (Grant Aid)
  Railways Act (Grant Aid)
  "Roads in Wales 1980"
  "Roads in Wales 1980"
TRADE
  Beer
  Beer
  Open Channel Radio
  Open Channel Radio
  Overseas Package Tour Holidays
  Overseas Package Tour Holidays
  Dan-Air Boeing Crash (Tenerife)
  Dan-Air Boeing Crash (Tenerife)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Greater Dacca Power Generation Project
  Greater Dacca Power Generation Project
CIVIL SERVICE
  Salary Scales
  Salary Scales
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Fleet Street (Tax Amnesty)
  Fleet Street (Tax Amnesty)
  Mr. Yang Tzu Kune
  Mr. Yang Tzu Kune
  Gas (Frigg Field)
  Gas (Frigg Field)
  Halifax Building Society (Directors)
  Halifax Building Society (Directors)
  714 Tax Certificates
  714 Tax Certificates
  Profit-sharing Schemes
  Profit-sharing Schemes
  Government Broker (Costs)
  Government Broker (Costs)
  Business Start-up Scheme
  Business Start-up Scheme
  Black Economy (Special Report)
  Black Economy (Special Report)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Norton School (Art Exhibition)
  Norton School (Art Exhibition)
  State Schools (Modern Languages)
  State Schools (Modern Languages)
  Teachers (Annual Cost)
  Teachers (Annual Cost)
DEFENCE
  Armed Forces (Pay)
  Armed Forces (Pay)
  Trident Missile
  Trident Missile
  Defence Committee
  Defence Committee
  Armed Forces (Pay)
  Armed Forces (Pay)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Prison Sentences (Conditional Release)
  Prison Sentences (Conditional Release)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  District Medical Committees
  District Medical Committees
  Community Health Physicians
  Community Health Physicians
  Moss Side and Park Lane Hospitals
  Moss Side and Park Lane Hospitals
  Health Authorities (Purchasing Policy)
  Health Authorities (Purchasing Policy)
  Medical Staff (Non-replacement)
  Medical Staff (Non-replacement)
  Senior Registrars
  Senior Registrars
  Measles
  Measles
  Communal Eating Places (Hygiene)
  Communal Eating Places (Hygiene)
  Energy-Saving Hospital
  Energy-Saving Hospital
  Health Service Expenditure
  Health Service Expenditure
  Doctors and Dentists (Salaries)
  Doctors and Dentists (Salaries)
SCOTLAND
  Edinburgh (Company Closures)
  Edinburgh (Company Closures)
  Private Housing Starts
  Private Housing Starts
  Building Land
  Building Land
  Deer Legislation
  Deer Legislation
  Vehicle Speeds (Radar Devices)
  Vehicle Speeds (Radar Devices)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Departmental Integration
  Departmental Integration
  Arms Control
  Arms Control
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Spain (Membership)
  Spain (Membership)
  Agriculture (Treaty Contravention)
  Agriculture (Treaty Contravention)
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployed Persons (London)
  Unemployed Persons (London)
  Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
  Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
  Redundancy fund
  Redundancy fund
  Zoos
  Zoos
  Careers Service
  Careers Service
  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Capital Jobmate Project
  Capital Jobmate Project
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Disablement Resettlement Officers
  Disablement Resettlement Officers
  Disabled Persons (Northern Region)
  Disabled Persons (Northern Region)
  Unemployed Persons (Northern Region)
  Unemployed Persons (Northern Region)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Complaints Procedure
  Police Complaints Procedure
  Immigrants (Voluntary Repatriation)
  Immigrants (Voluntary Repatriation)
  Television Licences (Pensioners and Disabled Persons)
  Television Licences (Pensioners and Disabled Persons)
  Pre-trial Prisoners
  Pre-trial Prisoners
  Town and Country Planning Act 1971
  Town and Country Planning Act 1971
  Diplomatic Immunity
  Diplomatic Immunity
  Public Order
  Public Order
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  Police Complaints Procedure (Departmental Report)
  Police Complaints Procedure (Departmental Report)
  Taxi Trade
  Taxi Trade
  Citizenship
  Citizenship
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Charities
  Charities
  Race Relations Act 1976
  Race Relations Act 1976
  Overseas Visitors (Entry Refusal)
  Overseas Visitors (Entry Refusal)
  Open Channel Radio
  Open Channel Radio
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
  Fire Service (Pay)
  Fire Service (Pay)
  Criminal Procedure (Royal Commission Report)
  Criminal Procedure (Royal Commission Report)
  Sex Shops
  Sex Shops
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Vehicle Speeds (Radar Devices)
  Vehicle Speeds (Radar Devices)
TRANSPORT
  Motorway Service Areas
  Motorway Service Areas
  Member's Correspondence
  Member's Correspondence
  Seat Belts (Publicity)
  Seat Belts (Publicity)
  Drinking and Driving (Publicity)
  Drinking and Driving (Publicity)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Industrial Modernisation (Loans)
  Industrial Modernisation (Loans)
  Department of Commerce (Shareholdings)
  Department of Commerce (Shareholdings)
  Gas Industry (Financial Support)
  Gas Industry (Financial Support)
  Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone
  Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone
INDUSTRY
  Coal Utilisation (Budget Proposals)
  Coal Utilisation (Budget Proposals)
  Open Channel Radio
  Open Channel Radio
ENVIRONMENT
  Maintenance (Direct Labour)
  Maintenance (Direct Labour)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Bacon Curing
  Bacon Curing
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Lime Subsidy
  Lime Subsidy
  Wildlife and Countryside Bill (Bulls)
  Wildlife and Countryside Bill (Bulls)
  Fertilisers and Weedkillers (Prices)
  Fertilisers and Weedkillers (Prices)
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwark): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Population Increase and Overseas Aid
Lord Vernon: 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 noted the 1981 Indian census figures showing that the population of India, now 683 million, has grown by 135 million within the last decade; and whether they will take this, and similar increases in other third world countries into account when determining the proportion of overseas aid which they allocate to family planning and population education.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade (Lord Trefgarne): Yes, my Lords. We continue to provide our share of support to the international bodies concerned with population work. We are also very ready to respond to the priorities expressed by recipient countries in the allocation of our bilateral aid. In India, for example, we are financing a family welfare project in the State of Orissa which includes family planning and population education elements.
Lord Vernon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that on 13th April in another place the Minister for Overseas Development stated that the percentage of aid going on population activities fell from 1 per cent. in 1980 to 0·76 per cent. in 1981? Does he not think that the seriousness of the situation hardly justifies that reduction?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there are two points that I should like to make to the noble Lord because there are two aspects to this matter. The first is that as a percentage of our total aid programme the funds available are, of course, under considerable pressure, as the noble Lord will be aware. However, as regards the relative importance of these matters within our total aid budget, that is very much a matter for the recipient countries themselves because we would not wish to dictate to them how they spend the money that we are able to provide.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in each of the last two years the world population increased by at least 2 per cent. whereas the world production of wheat actually fell in each of those last two years? Will he bear in mind that we are really pouring money into a bottomless pit if we do not take into account the population factor in many countries when providing aid?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we would certainly seek to provide our aid funds to those countries who are the poorest and who can make the best use of them. But I say again that the way in which they spend the funds that we are able to provide are, in the first instance anyway, a matter for them.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Minister on his reply as regards this issue. We are put in a very invidious position when we get up and lecture other countries, and particularly third world countries, on reducing their populations. It is all wrong.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am always glad to take the good words of the noble Baroness but, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, does put his finger on a very important point in this matter, which is that some of the least developed countries of the world are increasing their populations at the greatest rates.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, I do not want to spoil the noble Lord's clay, but he does not receive congratulations from these Benches on the reduction in the overall aid.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Gowrie wonders if there is another split in the party opposite—I rather doubt it. I am, of course, well aware of the views of the party opposite with regard to our total aid budget.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the clinics which are being established in India and other countries by the family planning organisation and the Marie Stopes Centenary Appeal? Can he tell us what aid the Government are giving to those organisations which are doing the practical work?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords. To the multilateral bodies, that is to say to those bodies who are concerned with this matter other than within the framework of our bilateral aid programme, we expect to contribute £4·5 million for the year 1981–82.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise just how serious this situation is becoming? Within the million or so years' story of homo sapiens, most of them are my contemporaries and I am only just over 70. Two-thirds of the urban land today was open fields when I was born. This "runaway" has only happened within a single lifetime.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord, not for the first time, makes a very profound point, but not one, perhaps, that I would feel able to develop at this moment.
Lord Vernon: My Lords, the Minister has just referred to the amount of multilateral aid that is to be given and he quoted the figure of, I think, £4·5 million. Is it not a fact that the figure for the year previous was £5·5 million? Could he not give an assurance that at least the amount of aid given to the multilateral agencies, such as the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and the IPPF, who do such

211
tremendous work in this field, will be stepped up to its previous level?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, while it is true that our contribution to the multilateral agencies in this connection did decrease by £1 million over the two-year period to which the noble Lord referred, our contribution to bilateral programmes for population matters increased by £1·5 million.
Lord Glenkinglas: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that if the problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, has said, has been caused by people of his generation and of mine, then there should not be too much problem about the birth rate?

Domestic Violence Protection
3.7 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in view of opinions expressed to them by responsible bodies such as the Church of Ireland Social and Family Welfare Association they will now extend the scope of the Domestic Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 so as to include within that order's provisions relating to domestic violence protection men and women who are living together in a stable relationship outside marriage.
The Parliamentary-Under Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the Government are considering the representations to which the noble Lord has drawn attention on this matter. A decision on whether to publish a proposal for a draft Order in Council to widen the scope of the Domestic Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 will be taken in the light of representations received and of the prevailing circumstances.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his quite encouraging reply, I should like to ask him whether he would not agree that, if he has not yet received what he considers to be sufficient positive reaction from elected representatives, the probable reason is that those representatives are apprehensive that their constituents might interpret such reaction as indicating their approval of cohabitation of couples outside of marriage? Would he further agree that the social workers, who do not have constituents but who are dealing with these problems every day, in making such a recommendation are in no way trying to condemn, condone or judge, but rather are trying to avoid violence, as indeed our Lord succeeded in doing when he neither condemned nor expressed approval of the woman taken in adultery?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we are now assessing all the views which have been expressed on this particular
212
subject and the Government hope soon to be able to announce their conclusions on these matters.

The Civil Service Dispute
3.9 p.m.
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 what progress has been made since their Statement to Parliament on 15th April in resolving the Civil Service dispute.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Soames): My Lords, I met representatives of the Council of Civil Service Unions on Thursday, 23rd April. At that meeting I repeated yet again that the cash limit which the Government have set for 1981 was final, and I reminded them that 2 million others who work in the public services had already accepted that fact. For the future, I told them that the Government would be ready to set up an independent inquiry to advise us on fresh arrangements for determining Civil Service pay. I also told them that for next year—1982—we would be ready to enter into genuine negotiations without a predetermined cash limit.
These proposals, for 1982 and for the longer term, offer important assurances on matters of particular concern to the Civil Service generally. I told the unions that we saw the proposals as a fair and reasonable basis for a settlement of the dispute and that I was ready to discuss the details with them at once. I regret to say that the unions did not respond to my invitation to discuss these ideas, beyond sending a letter that was, to say the least, unconstructive and got us alas! no further along the road.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is it not true that the last comprehensive consideration of the structure of the Civil Service and its pay was made by Sir Raymond Priestley's Commission, set up in November 1953, reporting in November 1955? Therefore, is it not desirable—if a committee is to be set up—that its terms of reference and membership should be considered by the unions and the Government at the earliest possible moment, so that we can get on with finding a solution which will make for the smooth working of the Civil Service in this country?
Lord Soames: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. In answer to the first part of his question, that is true. The methods of arranging Civil Service pay have not been looked at since the Priestley Commission report, which is now over 25 years ago, and which was in a totally different time and economic circumstances from those appertaining today. I think that we all agree that it is time to have a fresh look at this, and we think that an independent inquiry would be the best way in which to approach it.
In answer to the second part of my noble friend's question, the answer is "yes" in both instances: I told the unions that we were, of course, ready to discuss with them both the terms of reference and the membership of any such inquiry.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is widespread admiration for the firm stand that he has been taking in this matter and in the protection of the public interest? Will he bear in mind that if, in any future discussions and arrangements, he continues to protect the public interest, he will have the support of everybody?
Lord Soames: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. It is absolutely necessary that we should take the stand that we have on this. I think that it would be a great mistake if people got it into their heads that all that was necessary was to indulge in industrial disruption in order to get a pay offer reviewed. But, equally, at the same time I must say that I should dearly like to be able to discuss with the unions how best to bring this dispute to an end. I think that what I have put forward to them should be seen as a basis for just that. I cannot believe that the great majority of civil servants, whatever may be their views about the dispute, can be at all happy that their unions continue to refuse even to discuss possible ways forward for the future and appear content to maintain, apparently indefinitely, their disruptive actions, with all the inconvenience and costs that that imposes upon the public.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether these strikers are in receipt of their pay for the hours when they vacate their posts?
Lord Soames: Yes, I can, my Lords. They are not.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, as one of the surviving members of the Priestley Commission, may I ask the Minister whether it is necessary to have quite such a formal body as a Royal Commission to make these inquiries? Can he say whether he is considering, with the unions, something which would be more flexible and perhaps quicker?
Lord Soames: My Lords, I did not mention the Priestley Commission; it was my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing who drew attention to it. This is not to say that we foresee a repeat of Priestley. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for asking the question so that I can put this right. We seek to have an impartial inquiry. The main reason for this, given the experience that we have had over the past years, would be to advise us on fresh arrangements in order to arrive at decisions on pay for the Civil Service, in the same way, I agree, as the Priestley Commission did 28 years ago.
Lord Glenkinglas: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that when the civil servants started this operation they assured the public that they would do everything they could to avoid disrupting the public? Although I fully appreciate everything that my noble friend is trying to do, is there not some way in which the Civil Service could be brought round the table, to discuss these problems in the very constructive manner that he has suggested?
Lord Soames: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and I hope that the Civil Service unions will read the question that he has posed me. Certainly
214
his idea falls in very much with mine. I hope that this will be possible.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Civil Service has had 50 per cent. pay increases over the last two years? This is a sign that the Government have wished to treat it fairly and equably. Can he say what Government areas are now suffering most from the unions calling on their members to strike in limited numbers? Can he assure the House that everything possible will be done to shelter the needy and the old if their social security payments are delayed or denied to them?
Lord Soames: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the question, yes, it is true that over the last two years the pay increases have been of the order of 50 per cent. But in all fairness, I must point out to the House that that came after two years of incomes policy during which their increases were very small. However, the figure which my noble friend gives is correct.
As to the departments where most of the action is taking place, the unions have concentrated largely upon the Inland Revenue and upon certain areas of defence. As to the benefits, so far these have not been affected to any marked degree. If any noble Lord knows of any instance where they have been affected, and he will let me know, I shall of course look into the matter. But, generally speaking, they have not been affected, and my hope is that matters will remain this way.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, would the Minister like to take this opportunity of assuring the House that the continuing action, which everybody deplores—whatever may be the reason for it—is not holding up payments in cash to beneficiaries, many of whom depend from week to week on prompt payments of their benefits? Secondly, will he also assure the House that the security of the country is in no way being jeopardised?
Lord Soames: My Lords, I think that I replied to the noble Lord's question before he asked it, or at least the first part of it, in my previous answer. The dispute is not holding up benefits, and I hope that that will remain the case. As to the defences of the country, I think that the House can be assured that, until now at least, there have been no ill-effects upon the main defence structure for the country. That is not to say that we do not suffer from some strikes, because we do; the whole country suffers and there is no way round that. But I think that I can safely say that our defences have not been damaged.

Teachers: Assaults by Pupils
3.17 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Qusetion was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action is being taken to prevent assaults by pupils on their teachers in state schools.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Young): My Lords, responsibility for action lies with local education authorities and schools.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Will she confirm that it has now been found necessary to place a price on the life of a teacher, who, on death from assault in any of our schools, is to receive a minimum payment of compensation of £23,000; for loss of hearing £9,400; and for the loss of the lower jaw £7,400, et cetera? Will my noble friend not agree that the necessity for these provisions, which I do not challenge, causes widespread anxiety? Can they really be left in the hands of the local authority and unions, and should not some attempt be made to resolve them by the Department of Education and Science?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the agreement to which my noble friend refers, and which was part of an article in The Times Educational Supplement, is in fact the revision of an existing agreement between the associations of local authorities and the teachers, and the Government are not a party to such agreements. We find assaults on teachers deplorable, but I do not think we ought to exaggerate the position. The Inspectorate carried out a survey of secondary schools, and of the whole sample of schools, 384 schools, only seven schools reported hostility to teachers to be considerable and not one school said that its situation was serious.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, while agreeing with the Minister that this is a deplorable state of affairs, is it not due to the low morale about education in general, the shortage of books, the quality of the teachers, and the general atmosphere, as I say, of low morale in education due to all the cuts that have been made against education?
Baroness Young: No, my Lords, it is not that. That is not the reason. Unfortunately this problem has been with us for a number of years. We have no evidence that it is actually getting worse at the present time. I think it has a lot of deep-seated causes which it would require much longer than Question Time to go into.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that some of us who have spent our lives in various branches either of teaching or of lecturing want to draw attention to the fact that teaching is more of a calling than it is anything else and that it is too simple to say that the onus should be upon the local education authorities? The destiny of this country is imperilled if our children are not brought up in an environment which encourages a discipline. The whole of society seems askew—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord Davies of Leek: And the eccentric activity of children and violence of five to eight year-olds is bewildering the educational world, and I think imperilling the future and destiny of this country.
Several Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Davies of Leek: Every sentence had a question at the beginning.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think we would all agree that the responsibility for this action does not exclusively rest with schools, it rests very largely with parents as well. It is important that society should recognise that the upbringing of children and the responsibility for them is first a matter for parents and that the schools and the parents need to support one another.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister satisfied that there is a positive and constructive relationship at local level between the social services, the educational authority, and the Health Service?
Baroness Young: My Lords, this of course would vary with different local authorities, but it is I think essential that there should be co-operation between the education and the social services departments, particularly with children who clearly have behavioural problems.

The Whitsun Recess
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that, subject to the progress of business, this House will adjourn for the Whitsun Recess on Thursday, 21st May, and return on Monday, 1st June.
Barnsley Borough Council Bill
Read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons with an amendment.

British Telecommunications Bill: Committee Stage Instruction
3.24 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the British Telecommunications Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:—

Clause 1

Schedule 1

Clauses 2 to 10

Schedule 2

Clauses 11 to 87

Schedule 3

Clause 88

Schedules 4 and 5

Clause 89

Schedule 6

Clause 90

—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
Lord Morris Lord Morris had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out

("Clauses 2 to 10

Schedule 2

Clauses 11 to 87")

and insert

("Clauses 12 to 15

Clause 3

Clause 2

Clauses 4 to 10

Schedule 2

Clause 11

Clauses 16 to 87").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope your Lordships have not felt that I acted lightly in putting down the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper. The main reason why I put down this Motion was to assist your Lordships' consideration in Committee and at Report stage. If the Committee stage is taken in the order which Her Majesty's Government suggest, it is going to make life very difficult for your Lordships, for it will in effect mean that the powers of the corporation will have to be considered before the duties of the corporation, and indeed before the monopolies provisions and the powers of the Secretary of State contained in Clause 12 to 15.
However, although I was convinced that the Motion would only produce orderly debate in Committee but would also bring the House yet again into very good repute, for it would be seen in the country to be considering this Bill in a logical order, I am ashamed to admit that I did not consider properly one very important issue, and that is very simply that this Bill is not my Bill. It is the Government's Bill, and I believe that for anyone to suggest or to prescribe, let alone administer, the medicine for somebody else's baby is, however good the intention, at best impertinent and at worst bad manners. In the light of this, I feel it is very important that I withdraw this Motion.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I understand that the amendment is not moved. The Question therefore is that this Motion be agreed to.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transport Bill
3.26 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. This is the second Transport Bill that I have had the pleasure of bringing before your Lordships. Like last year's Bill, this is a major piece of legislation, containing important reforms, and reducing once again the public sector domination and State interference in the transport industries of this country. I have no doubt that, as in the Second Reading debate on last year's Bill, there will be a stimulating debate today on the privatisation measures in the Bill. But unlike last year's Bill, this one also contains important reforms to the motoring laws and to road safety legislation.
218
These measures too will, I think, give rise to lively debate this afternoon.
This is a large Bill, and it is a diverse Bill, but I make no apology for that. The Government have a right to bring forward their privatisation measures—in this case, the privatisation of the British Rail subsidiaries and the British Transport Docks Board. We know these are politically controversial, but we also attach great importance to the other measures of the Bill, which are less controversial politically. It is, we believe, a balanced Bill. There may be some who argue this afternoon that we should have put the road safety provisions in a separate Bill, but I think it is right that we should find room, even in a crowded legislative programme, for these long overdue reforms. It is the first time a Government have brought forward such major reforms in the road safety field since the 1967 Road Traffic Act.
It may be helpful if I begin this speech with a brief description of the Bill as a whole. There are five distinct parts. Parts I and II contain provisions which will enable private capital to be introduced into the British Railways Board subsidiaries, and into the British Transport Docks Board. Part III is concerned mainly with the abolition of the National Ports Council. It also contains important changes to harbours legislation. These measures will reduce ministerial and other statutory interference in the ports and place more responsibility on the ports themselves.
Part IV of the Bill contains the road safety measures. First, it reforms the so-called "totting-up" procedure for disqualification following conviction for repeated driving offences. Second, it contains measures to deal with the extremely worrying problem of the high number of deaths and injuries suffered by motorcyclists. And third, it tackles the problem of drink and driving. An additional provision added to this part of the Bill in another place is the very important clause on promoting the safety of children in motor cars. Part V of the Bill contains measures to reform the basis of lorry taxation, and to remove restrictions on the powers of certain authorities to recover the full cost of licensing taxis and taxi drivers. It also contains the clause which was added to the Bill in another place relating to the construction of road humps.
Let me turn now, in more detail, to the different parts of the Bill and explain the thinking underlying the provisions in them. The Government believe that businesses, like individuals, should have the maximum freedom to take decisions on the matters of most importance to them. Managers should be able to make commercial decisions free from state intervention, and to face the full implication of those decisions in the market place. Nationalised industries are inevitably subject to Government restraints and Government controls and this has been so under Governments of either political persuasion. But why should those restraints and controls be applied to shipping and port operations, to a hotel chain, or a property business? These are businesses which the state does not need to control, and should not control.
We see no advantage in keeping businesses in the public sector which can do better outside with access to private capital and with freedom from controls and Government interference.
Part I of the Bill will enable the British Railways

219
Board to transfer their subsidiary businesses from the public sector to the private sector. The Secretary of State for Transport announced on 14th July last year that the Government and the Railways Board had identified four businesses in which they could see an immediate prospect for the introduction of private capital. These were Sealink, hotels, hovercraft and non-operational property. These businesses have grown up alongside the railway as services complementary to the main railway business. But circumstances have changed. The ferry services and hotels are no longer the only ones available to the rail traveller, since similar services are now widely provided by the private sector. The businesses themselves, while retaining links with the railway, have developed in other directions, and most of their turnover no longer comes through the railway business. As to the board's non-operational property holdings, these are self-evidently no longer closely connected with the railway. They should, without difficulty, be separately managed or sold and indeed the board currently has a large disposal programme. So these businesses are no longer an integral part of the railway; they no longer serve the same markets and they no longer have the same interests.
Noble Lords opposite may ask why, nevertheless, it is necessary to change the status of the businesses. Why not allow the present situation to continue? The answer is clear. The board's subsidiaries have suffered from being part of the public sector. They are required to behave commercially, yet they are shackled by public sector restraints. They have lacked management attention. They have lacked investment in the past and, quite understandably, the board have decided that in the future a yet higher proportion of their investment resources must be channelled into the railway. Without access to other sources of capital, the subsidiaries will wither from lack of investment. The Government and the board have agreed that we cannot accept such a situation and that the only sensible answer is the introduction of private capital into the businesses. We have jointly developed our ideas and the proposals embodied in this part of the Bill have the full support of the board.
Clause 1 gives the board powers to sell shares in its subsidiaries or to dispose of any part of the undertaking or property of their subsidiaries. These powers will apply to all the board's subsidiaries, not just the four subsidiaries I have already mentioned. The Government and the board have no firm plans at present to introduce private capital into these other subsidiaries. But there may be a role for private investment here, especially perhaps in British Rail Engineering Ltd., and this is something the Government are discussing with the board. Clause 1 also gives the board the power to establish share schemes for employees of its subsidiaries.
Clause 2 provides for Sealink to establish a new subsidiary company and to transfer to it its harbour undertaking. This is necessary because of the extensive statutory powers and duties under local enactments which attach to the harbour undertaking and need to be concentrated in a readily identifiable body. There are also commercial reasons for reorganising the distinct shipping and harbour activities of Sealink, in
220
separate bur related companies. I should stress that it is most unlikely that the board would wish to sell off the harbours separately from the shipping side; it would be strongly in Sealink's commercial interests to retain ownership of the harbour company.
Clause 3 provides powers of direction for the Secretary of State to ensure that the policy is implemented. These are reserve powers. We would not expect to use them, but the Government believe that having agreed that the board should take the lead in implementing the policy, they must protect its position by taking clear and workable reserve powers. Using their existing powers, the board have already set up a holding company, British Rail Investments Limited, to which ownership of the three existing subsidiaries and of the property assets will be transferred. I should further stress that the holding company has been set up by the Railways Board, and it is the Railways Board, acting through BRIL which, if the Bill is approved by Parliament, will be free to find the best solution for each business in consultation with the Government. Before these businesses will be able to escape public sector controls, the board must first surrender effective control to private sector investors. That is, they must dispose of a controlling interest in the businesses to the private sector. These proposals will bring fresh opportunities to the businesses and their staff, the railway itself will benefit, and so will the taxpayer.
I turn to Part II of the Bill. Clauses 5 to 14 and Schedules 2 to 4 deal with the restructuring of the British Transport Docks Board. We have worked closely with the BTDB in developing these proposals, which adopt a rather different approach for the introduction of private capital to that followed in Part I of the Bill. We are not seeking to impose a uniform policy and we have deliberately chosen different ways of introducing private capital into the British Railways Board subsidiaries, as compared with the British Transport Docks Board, or indeed with the measures in last year's Bill dealing with the National Freight Corporation. We have sought solutions geared to the particular needs of the various businesses.
The BTDB are among the more successful public enterprises. Their last audited accounts show a profit in 1979 of £27 million before tax and interest on a turnover of £131 million. They operate 19 ports, including Southampton and Hull, and are responsible for handling about one-quarter of the country's sea-borne trade. Our proposals provide for a Companies Act holding company to take control of a reconstituted BTDB to be known as Associated British Ports, as if it were a wholly-owned subsidiary. This two-tier organisation will ensure that BTDB's business continues within the statutory framework appropriate to the management of the very extensive network of statutory powers and duties needed to run its 19 ports. At the same time, the new structure will offer the business the maximum opportunity to expand and diversify through the holding company, in which investors will be invited to buy shares.
I would make two important general points about these proposals. First, the Government propose to take a 51 per cent. shareholding in the holding company when shares are sold to private investors. This stake will be maintained for the foreseeable future, but not necessarily forever. However, there is no

221
question of the Government using their substantial shareholding to influence the commercial policies of the holding company or its subsidiary, Associated British Ports. The holding company will therefore be placed firmly in the private sector, where full commercial freedom will enable management and workforce to be fully responsible for their own future, without public sector constraints on investment or other matters. Secondly, I would take the opportunity to emphasise that the Government's proposals keep the BTDB's 19 ports together. This will ensure the business continues to draw strength from its happy mix of ports, good management and sound industrial relations. These factors have made a very important contribution to BTDB's successful track record.
Clause 5 provides that from the appointed day the BTDB shall be known as Associated British Ports. On the same day, a holding company registered under the Companies Acts, and which is owned and nominated by the Secretary of State, will be given powers in relation to Associated British Ports corresponding to those of a holding company in relation to a wholly-owned subsidiary. Clause 6 provides for BTDB's existing financial structure to be replaced by a new one, suitable for the launch of the business into the private sector. As from the appointed day, the BTDB's debts to the Secretary of State will be cancelled, and on that day Associated British Ports will issue securities to the holding company and the holding company will issue shares and perhaps securities to the Secretary of State in accordance with his directions. Following the appointed day, the Secretary of State will then own all the shares and securities in the holding company, instead of the existing £81 million nominal value of debt. As your Lordships will appreciate, the cancellation of debts in these circumstances does not represent a write-off without return, but is, in fact, an integral part of the creation of a new financial structure which will enable the Secretary of State to sell shares to investors.
Clause 7 and Schedule 2 provide for the constitution of Associated British Ports, and related matters. The holding company is given powers to appoint and dismiss directors of its subsidiary, like any other holding company in the private sector. The Bill provides that, initially, the directors of Associated British Ports will be those persons who were members of the British Transport Docks Board, immediately before the appointed day. The first directors of the holding company will be appointed by the Secretary of State, as sole shareholder, and he has made it known that those first directors will, in fact, be the same people as the directors of Associated British Ports. Once shares in the holding company have been sold, control over the appointment and dismissal of directors will be in the hands of private investors.
Clause 8 and Schedule 3 give Associated British Ports the powers that it requires for its business. These include the power to operate harbours, provide port facilities, consign and store goods, start or acquire other harbour undertakings, develop land and borrow money. Clause 9 places a general duty on Associated British Ports to provide port facilities at its harbours. This replaces the duty placed on British Transport Docks Board by Section 9 of the Transport Act 1962, and it will mean that, in line with nearly all major
222
commercial ports, Associated British Ports will have a general statement of powers and duties laid down in its legislation. Clauses 10 to 14 and Schedule 4 contain supplementary provisions.
We believe that British Transport Docks Board will do even better in the future in the private sector. We hope to encourage employees to take a stake in that future, through an employee share scheme, when shares in the holding company are sold. No legislative provision is required to achieve this, since the Secretary of State will have the power to sell his shares in the holding company as he sees fit.
I turn now to Part III of the Bill. Clause 15 and Part I of Schedule 5 provide for the abolition of the National Ports Council. The Government's view is that the NPC has played an important role in bringing about a major improvement in the organisation and efficiency of the port industry since 1964, when the council was set up. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, for his personal contribution to this improvement, not only in the analysis of the problems of the ports, which he and his committee of inquiry prepared, but in his chairmanship of the council in its formative years. But we believe the time is now right for responsibility for the future development of the ports to be placed firmly on the industry itself. Noble Lords opposite might argue that there is a need for a central body to oversee the organisation and operation of the industry, but we cannot accept that view. The ports industry themselves have welcomed our proposal, and the British Ports Association is already organising itself to meet the challenge.
Naturally, the decision to abolish the NCP represents a major upheaval in the lives of the council's 60 staff, and the Government are anxious that they are treated fairly. A compensation scheme for staff who are made redundant is already in existence, and Schedule 5 will make the Secretary of State responsible for seeing that compensation and pension payments continue after the winding up of the NPC. As the costs of the NPC have been largely met over the years by the ports, Clauses 16 and 17 and Part II of Schedule 5 provide for the Secretary of State to levy contributions from harbour authorities towards the costs resulting from the winding up of the NPC. But the Government have decided to make a contribution of £1·5 million, spread over a short period of years, towards these costs.
We have also taken this opportunity to review ministerial functions in relation to ports, as well as those of the NPC, and we have decided on a number of changes. First, a very limited number of the NPC functions will be taken over by the Secretary of State. These are to decide appeals by users against certain port dues, to collect port statistics and to monitor the financial progress of two ports, Forth and Tyne, which have not yet repaid the bridging loans which were made to them from the National Loans Fund. These new responsibilities will not be onerous, and the small additional staffing requirement will be met within existing manpower limits.
Secondly, on the other hand, Clause 18 and Schedule 6 repeal or reduce a number of ministerial functions relating to the ports. They also streamline the pro

223
cedure by which port authorities obtain powers to regulate their ports, and revise a number of maximum penalties under the Harbours Act 1964. A provision added in another place clarifies the powers of harbour authorities to levy combined port charges and the right of port users to appeal against port dues.
In framing these provisions we have recognised that some oversight of the ports industry will continue to be necessary. But where possible, we are returning responsibility to those directly involved in running the individual ports.
Part IV deals with the second main theme of the Bill: the reform of road safety and traffic laws. Clause 19 and Schedule 7 reform the "totting-up" procedure, which is widely felt to be unsatisfactory and unfair. We believe that the new system will be more effective, and encourage a responsible attitude from road users, because it will be seen to be a rational, up-to-date system. The proposal is based on some of the recommendations of the working group, which the Secretary of State for Transport and the Home Secretary set up in November 1979. It is clear that the present system is a blunt instrument, and would be greatly improved by reform.
At present a motorist who commits three endorsable offences within three years is liable for disqualification for at least six months. This system does not distinguish between a bad case of careless driving and a minor speeding offence. A driver who commits three speeding offences is liable for the same penalty as one who commits three potentially more dangerous offences, such as reckless driving. Although magistrates may take into account the seriousness of the offences in considering a plea for mitigation, this itself leads to unfairness and unevenness in sentencing. Motorists justifiably feel aggrieved by this. We propose, therefore, that each of the current endorsable offences should be graded according to their seriousness by the number of points listed in Schedule 7. When 12 points have been accumulated within a 3-year period, disqualification for at least six months will almost always follow.
The points values for the offences have been determined by reference to the average level of fines, considered as a proportion of the average fines imposed for offences carrying mandatory disqualification. Although it may be thought that the logical conclusion of the points system is to give magistrates discretion in the number of points, this would result in many disputes about the relative fairness of the number of points imposed in any particular case, adding a severe burden on the courts. When the Bill was in another place, however, some measure of discretion was considered appropriate for offences under Section 25 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. The nature of these offences of failing to stop or to report an accident can vary very considerably, depending on the nature of the accident. The spectrum ranges from a slight bump or scratched paintwork, to a case where someone has been seriously injured. Schedule 7, therefore, now provides for a band of points, from four or five to nine, so that the minor cases can be treated on a par with, for example, speeding offences, and the most serious ones would be just below the fixed value for reckless driving.
The position of the motorist will be further improved by our proposals, because once any period of disqualification
224
has been served, his slate will be wiped clean of points. Twelve more points would have to be accumulated before a further points disqualification followed, hut, because our aim is to discourage repeated offences, further disqualification within the three years would be for progressively longer periods.
There will be a transitional period of three years during which offenders will come before the courts with endorsements on their licences ordered under the present system. It would be unduly complicated to expect the courts to translate such endorsements into points. The Bill therefore proposes that such endorsements would be treated as equivalent to three points. Previous offenders would therefore gain slightly from this during the transitional period.
Clause 23 deals with the extremely worrying problem of deaths and injuries on the road suffered by motorcyclists. In 1979 over 1,000 people died on Britain's roads; over half of them were teenagers. A further 67,000 were injured. The present casualty rates are quite unacceptable, and it is the young and inexperienced who are the most vulnerable. At present an inexperienced 17-year old can ride a machine up to 250cc, which can he capable of over 100 miles per hour. He need not take a test; he can just apply for a series of provisional licences indefinitely.
Clause 23 does three things. First, it restricts learner drivers to less powerful machines. Secondly, it provides for a two-part test. The second part of the test will be carried out by the Department of Transport's examiners and will be very similar to the present test. However, the first part of the test will be an examination—off the road—of machine handling. It will be carried out by both Department of Transport and training organisations authorised by the Secretary of State for Transport.
Thirdly, the clause limits the duration of motor-cycle provisional licences. This will provide a substantial incentive for motor-cyclists to train and take the test. The clause also introduces "til 70" provisional licences for the ordinary motorist. These proposals are based on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Motor-cycle Rider Training set up with representatives from the motor-cycle trade and industry, local authorities, training organisations and the police, and with subsequent consultations with more than 30 organisations concerned with motor-cycling. There is nothing in these proposals that discriminates against motor-cyclists. Indeed, we have taken very careful account of their views, but in view of the appalling statistics I have quoted I believe noble Lords will agree that these measures are long overdue.
Clause 25 and Schedule 8 of the Bill contain new measures to combat drinking and driving, which is the largest single factor leading to death and injury on our roads. Our aim has been to make the law much more effective without the need to increase the powers of the police; we believe the crucial question is the enforcement of the law. The most important change we are proposing—one that will greatly assist in the ability of the police to enforce the law—is to provide for the introduction of evidential breath analysis in this country. Breath analysis will largely replace the present system of analysing blood or urine samples in determining the amount of alcohol in the body.
As noble Lords will know, we already use breath

225
testing devices at the roadside as a means of checking whether or not a driver has been drinking. We are already familiar with the tube and bag device, but the machines that would be used in police stations will be electronic and therefore very much more sophisticated and effective. Forensic scientists in the Home Office have conducted extensive trials of suitable breath testing machines. These trials have shown that the machines are both highly accurate and reliable as a means of determining the amount of alcohol in the body.
Breath analysis will be a better system for the motorist because he will not normally have to provide a blood or urine specimen and will know his fate straight away. This system will also result in considerable savings in police time. Because this is a new approach we have provided several safeguards for suspects. The most important of these will he the right to request a blood test to replace the result of a breath analysis if this has not exceeded 50 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath, which is equivalent to 115 milligrammes for blood. The Bill also closes loopholes which have enabled drivers to escape conviction on technicalities. The Bill breaks the link between the offence and the procedures which have to be carried out to prove the offence. It removes the necessity for an arrest; a person will be able to proceed voluntarily to the police station and give an evidential specimen, although the police will still have the power to arrest and to require an evidential specimen if necessary.
We have also extended the power of the police to require breath tests, so that they may test people who have been driving, or who are or were in charge of a motor vehicle. However, we have not extended the powers of the police to enable them to carry out random tests. There has been some pressure for this but it was firmly rejected in another place as being an unwise and unnecessary extension of police powers which would damage relationships between the police and the public. I am sure noble Lords will agree that we have adopted the right approach in this Bill, by aiming to improve the operation of the drinking and driving laws without recourse to draconian powers.
One further important provision linked to drinking and driving is in Clause 26. This increases the penalty for hit and run driving from a maximum of £100 to a maximum of £1,000. This is an offence which is often committed deliberately, arising from a desire to avoid a breath test. This offence is on the increase and the new level of fines will enable courts to deal with the problem.
As I have already mentioned, an important addition—namely Clause 27—was made to the Bill in another place. The Government were pleased to accept the principle that children should not be allowed to sit in the front of a car unless they are restrained. This follows from advice contained in a report published last autumn by the Child Accident Prevention Committee. However, there are a number of defects in the wording of Clause 27 which we shall seek to put right by tabling a new clause during Committee here. Another addition to the Bill made in another place is the provisions contained in Clause 30 and Schedule10 which will legalise the construction of road humps.
226
We believe this will make a small but significant contribution to road safety, particularly in residential areas.
Clause 31 and Schedule 11 of the Bill contain further measures to make the application of the law fairer, this time in the context of lorry taxation. It is widely accepted that all classes of lorries should at least cover their fair share of public road costs in the motoring taxation they pay. The present basis of vehicle excise duty on goods vehicles is too blunt an instrument for achieving this aim. Our proposals provide for a change in the structure of vehicle excise duty on heavier goods vehicles from the present unladen weight basis to one based on gross weight or train weight and, additionally for lorries over 12 metric tonnes, on the number of axles. This change, which was endorsed by the Armitage Inquiry Report, will enable us to get a much closer relationship between the road cost for different classes of vehicles and the taxation paid. In the long term it will help to reduce road maintenance cost by encouraging the use of less damaging vehicles. The proposed new structure and the tax rates on the new basis will be brought into effect by a future Finance Bill. In revenue terms, restructuring will be, in itself, neutral.
Finally, Clause 33 concerns fees payable for taxi licences in London and certain provincial towns and for taxi drivers. Because of statutory restrictions dating from the middle of the last century these figures cannot be set at a level sufficient to cover the costs of issuing them. The actual cost of these licensing procedures is now more than £600,000 in London alone, but the statutory restrictions on the fees at present limit the amount that can be collected to about £1,500 a year. Clearly this situation cannot continue. The Bill enables the licensing authority to recover, through their licence fees, the full cost of issuing licences. This will lead to a small increase in taxi fares, but in London this is unlikely to amount to more than one-third of a penny a mile.
This is a thoroughly worthwhile and constructive Bill. The privatisation measures are controversial but we believe they present a balanced approach. In framing our proposals on Part I of the Bill we have recognised the continuing link which the subsidiaries will have with the railways and we have secured agreement with the Railways Board on the best way to proceed. In Part II of the Bill we are not seeking to break up the successful British Transport Docks Board; the reconstituted structure we are creating will enable it to be even more successful in the private sector. In this Bill we are simply attempting to ensure the success of these businesses in the future. Finally, we have also adopted a constructive approach with our road safety proposals which we believe will command wide support in the country and will lead to valuable savings in lives and injuries. My Lords, I submit that this is an excellent Bill and I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Bellwin.)
3.59 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am certain that your Lordships will wish me in the first instance to thank the noble Lord the Minister for the very clear and concise way in which he has explained the many

227
detailed provisions in this Bill. As he said, it is regrettable that the road safety provisions are not dealt with in a separate Bill, but from these Benches I would like first to express appreciation for the fact that the Government have brought forward a number of new provisions directed towards road safety.
There are so many vital statistics and valuable reports on aspects of road accidents and road safety that I will not unduly prolong my speech by referring to them; but should there be anyone who may have doubts about the need for action, such doubts would surely have been removed by the repeat on BBCI on 28th April of the "Man Alive" special programme on road accidents, described as "The Biggest Epidemic of our Times" There may be differences of opinions on the details of the road safety provisions, but I want to stress that although there will be a Front Bench view, nevertheless noble Lords on this side of the House will have a free vote on all the various issues on road safety. In all probability it may be some years before there is another Bill on road safety. Therefore, it is essential that we should get this Bill absolutely right.
My Lords, perhaps I may refer to some of the safety proposals in the Bill. In general, I welcome the proposals for the points system. However, we must ensure that this procedure does not act unfairly. Let me give one or two examples. There should be some variation, I think, between the points for a technical infringement of the speed limit in circumstances where there is no danger whatever to anyone and those where the offence did cause danger to other road users. Another example is that there can be so many degrees of careless driving but each will have five points—precisely the same number as for the most serious offence of driving while uninsured. Therefore, some of these points issues will need to be looked at very carefully.
There are doubts also as to the wisdom of the proposal that the slate be wiped clean following a disqualification. As the Minister has rightly said, the intention of the system must be to deter the habitual offender. I would suggest that any points in excess of those required for a disqualification should be carried over to be added to any other offence which may be committed within a specified time after a disqualification. Consideration may need to be given also to the position of drivers of heavy goods vehicles in relation to the powers of their licensing authority following a disqualification.
There will be unanimity among your Lordships on the need for action to deal with drinking and driving. The statistics, I think everybody will agree, are absolutely alarming. However, there must not be a reliance solely upon the new breath-testing apparatus. A driver should have the option of providing a blood or urine test according to the circumstances in all cases, and not the limited one referred to in the Bill. It is also absolutely essential that the procedure should be uniform throughout the country. The Secretary of State is to have power to bring forward regulations that would change the prescribed limit of alcohol if he considers it necessary. That would appear to be wise; but before any change is brought before Parlia
228
ment there should be the widest possible consultation with representative organisations, and that should be written specifically into the Bill.
The new provisions relating to motor-cyclists are generally welcome, and I echo the assurance that there is no desire to prevent young persons taking to motorcycling. My own two sons and daughter, when they were young, all rode motor-cycles, but I must say that they did so responsibly. But the figures of motorcycling accidents are appalling, and surveys show that some half of all such accidents involve young persons. Government Ministers have rightly emphasised the importance of training, and the impression may have been given that this is part of the new provisions. However, that is not so, and it would seem that there is to be reliance upon publicity for voluntary schemes.
A complete novice may obtain a provisional licence and go straight on to the road. This is different from the position of a learner-motorist, who must always he accompanied by a competent and responsible person. Either something concerning training must be written into the Bill or the Minister, in the course of our Committee stage, must be able to satisfy your Lordships that arrangements to be made for training are fully adequate. This is a matter which might well be considered in detail in Committee. I welcome the proposal for road humps, particularly as the clause is an improvement on the Private Member's Bill initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, to which your Lordships gave approval at the tail end of the last Session.
There is one important omission from the road safety provisions. So far as I am concerned, I deeply regret that there is no provision for the general wearing of seat belts. A Private Member's Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, received a substantial majority from your Lordships. It is unfortunate that an amendment which covered those principles was not reached in another place, and it is hoped that this will be remedied during the Committee stage in this House. In fact, I hope the Government will give their approval to such an amendment, particularly as the principle involved is accepted by the inclusion of Clause 27.
The Sunday Times article on the wearing of seat belts by children may have caused some concern in relation to the provision in that clause, but—and the Minister mentioned this matter—I was impressed by the research carried out by the Child Accident Prevention Committee and the information in its report, which was published in July of last year. We shall await with interest the report of a survey on this matter which, it is understood, is being carried out by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory; and, of course, we shall await a further statement from the Minister on an amendment which he suggests will be brought forward in Committee.
There will be opportunity for the matters raised on this clause to be considered before the Secretary of State introduces an order designating when this provision is to come into force, and I trust that before then the department will have meaningful consultations with manufacturers regarding the supply of suitable restraints for children of various ages, including when riding in rear seats. In fact, there is considerable pressure that children should ride only in rear seats,

229
but that, of course, would need to be linked to the question of the supply of suitable restraints at a price which most people can afford.
Reference has been made to the taxation of goods vehicles, and, in general, we agree with the principle. But, again, there could be some unfairness in relating the weight estimates to the goods actually carried, and we shall seek to have this matter discussed during Committee.
We now turn to those other parts of the Bill which reflect the Government's unfortunate doctrinaire attitude in their relation to the public sector. Bill after Bill has been brought forward in this Parliament to dismantle or drastically to intervene in public industries. Noble Lords have before them at the moment the Forestry Bill, with provision for the disposal of Forestry Commission land; and also the Bill to interfere similarly with telecommunications and the Post Office. Now we have this Transport Bill, which seeks to deal similarly with the subsidiaries of British Rail and also with the British Transport Docks Board. As far as the British Rail subsidiaries are concerned, it is not just a question of introducing private finance, because power is given to the Rail Board not only to dispose of shares in any of its subsidiaries but also to dispose of the whole or part of any of them. Although the Bill states that this power is to be exercised
"in such manner as they think fit",
any disposal of shares will require the consent of the Secretary of State. But the same consent is not required for the disposal of the whole or part of any subsidiary. From my reading of the Bill, parliamentary approval will not be required for the disposal of any particular subsidiary.
Then, in Clause 3 there is repeated the same authoritarian power as in other Bills brought forward by this Government. The Secretary of State is given power to give directions to the Railways Board for the establishment of subsidiaries, and also for the sale of shares in or the disposal of a subsidiary. Really, it is not sufficient to say that this is a reserve power. It is a power that will be in the Bill for any Secretary of State to use. Moreover, there is no provision that any such direction shall be subject to parliamentary approval. If the Secretary of State says that a subsidiary must go, then that will be it; and British Rail, under the Bill, must follow any direction given to it.
There is nothing in the Bill which limits the subsidiaries to which these provisions relate. As the noble Lord said, the present intention is that it will be confined to the four subsidiaries: the hotels, Sealink, the Railway Property Board and the hovercraft. I should like to look at two of these. Sealink, with which I had the pleasure of travelling during the Easter Recess, operates 48 ferries and 11 harbours and last year had an operating surplus in its shipping services of £2·6 million compared with £9·7 million in 1979, but the harbours maintain a surplus of about £4 million.
In 1979 there was a combined surplus of 13·5 per cent. on the capital employed, which I do not think is a bad return compared with many other concerns. Despite what the Minister has said, I would say that Sealink, in particular, is closely related with the present activities of British Rail, and I would query
230
the reason behind the direction in Clause 2 that Sealink must set up a separate subsidiary company for its harbours. There is no assurance in the Bill that the harbours will not be transferred, maybe to the new company, which will take over from the British Transport Docks Board; neither is there any assurance that Sealink's shipping subsidiary could not be disposed of.
Why is there this provision in the Bill to dispose of shares in the British Rail Property Board and even, possibly, for its full disposal? In 1980, there was a net surplus of £34 million on lettings of property and this was no less than 20 per cent. up on the previous year. From all its operations during 1980, the Property Board contributed £67 million to the Rail Board's corporate finances. In fact, over the last four years no less than £155 million has been contributed to British Rail from the property operations. It is sheer madness to dispose of any part of this undertaking. It is so successful that surely it is sensible economics to retain this subsidiary in the hands of British Rail. Sir Robert Lawrence, chairman of the Property Board as recently as 7th April, said:
"But it should not be forgotten that once land is sold its income or its potential income is lost to the railways for ever. We have sold property which in a different climate we might have retained for its growth potential."
The powers of disposal in the Bill are not confined to these four subsidiaries. In fact in another place, on 13th January, the Secretary of State said (col. 1245):
"The use of these powers is not confined to the businesses I have mentioned. The powers are equally applicable to the Board's other subsidiary activities. We have at present no plans to introduce private capital into these other businesses. However, there may be a role for private investment here especially perhaps in British Rail Engineering and this is an issue which I shall want to consider with the Board at a later stage."
In view of that, we should look very carefully at the engineering subsidiary. This operates 13 workshops which construct and maintain British Rail rolling stock and equipment. In 1980, its output reached a new record level and productivity rose by 5·7 per cent. No less than £220 million of its supplies were obtained from the private sector outside British Rail. Why should we consider this subsidiary for the sale of shares or for eventual disposal? The other subsidiaries, to which I will not make further reference, are Freightliners Limited and the British Transport Advertising Limited; and the very successful Transmark, the consultancy body, is also doing well.
The 1980 report of British Rail in referring to this Bill said:
"…the guiding principle in the legislation is that there will he new freedom for investment outside PSBR, if the level of BR shareholding is below 50 per cent. We must face the fact that we cannot continue to control these subsidiaries and also attract private capital."
That statement can hardly be said to be an enthusiastic welcome for the proposal. It is more like a shotgun wedding. It has been made absolutely clear—and the Minister referred to it today—that should BR have at least 51 per cent. holding in a subsidiary, any investment will come from within the external financing limit. When BR has a minority holding, generally they will be free to go to the market for finance without this being part of PSBR. But even that is not certain; for Ministers have stated in another place that this will

231
depend on the distribution of other shareholdings and trading relationships as the board in such circumstances might still be able to exercise de facto control over the company; it would then still be classified as public sector and borrowing and investment would still be controlled by the external financing limits with borrowing still counting against PSBR. If there is any doubt, the Secretary of State put it clearly in column 1245 of the Standing Committee:
"…if these businesses are to escape public sector borrowing requirements, the Board must surrender control of the businesses."
To many of your Lordships it must seem incomprehensible that the external financing limit and PSBR can act in this way.
I would ask this. If the provisions in this Bill are approved, will BR retain all the monies accruing from the sale of shares in the various subsidiaries. The Government have given no undertaking that such receipts will not be taken into consideration when fixing the external financing limits for the subsequent years. The Government, in fact, seem to have given warning that they will take this into consideration.
With regard to Part II of the Bill, which relates to the British Transport Docks Board, the Secretary of State said:
"We are not seeking to break up the business."—
and that was confirmed by the Minister this afternoon—
"We are not seeking to sell off the most profitable assets. We are offering the opportunity for the business, as one company, to thrive in the private sector and to be free of public sector constraints."
Just what are those public sector constraints? As has been said, the BTDB operates 19 ports, important ones, and according to the 1979 report (the latest available to me) there was a profit of £27 million, before tax, as against £30 million in 1978 despite the oncoming recession. The return on capital was 15·1 per cent. Again, that would be agreed to be a favourable return. Over a period of 10 years the board has had total profits of £168 million and has built its reserves from £8 million to £86 million. Since 1972 it has generated from its operations sufficient finance to meet an investment programme of £108 million. It raised over £13 million for this purpose in 1979. Therefore, the powers in the Bill can have little to do with enabling the Docks Board to develop efficiency and profitability. Its record justifies what I have said.
The Secretary of State said at Second Reading in another place:
"I should like to pay tribute to the management and workforce for the successes over recent years."
He added that the board has a strong management team and generally sound industrial relations. Why, then, should we interfere with this very successful public sector undertaking? The Minister has explained that the new concern, Associated British Docks, is to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of a new holding company. The Government have said (and it was repeated this afternoon) that they will retain a 51 per cent. interest in the holding company; but that is not written into the Bill. If this is the intention of the Government, then this is something which should be put into the Bill during the Committee stage.
Then the Government have stated that even if they
232
retain a 51 per cent. interest they will not exercise policy in any way. I ask: Why not? The Government's attitude really would mean that a minority private sector holding would in effect have control of the holding company which would have a majority public stake. I cannot see any sense or reason in that. On re-reading the Committee stage in another place, I find that the initial sale of up to 49 per cent. of the shares in the holding company will not benefit that company or the new Associated Docks Board. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, on 3rd March, after stating that the present Docks Board's debts to the Government would be extinguished, said (at col. 733 of the Commons Hansard):
"Thereafter, the Minister will be able to sell 49 per cent. of those shares and securities, and the proceeds of the sale will go to the Treasury or to the Consolidated Fund, and will return to the taxpayer".
They will not go to the holding company or to the new Associated Docks Board.
Then there is the strange situation that the holding company is to act as a Company Act company. Its docks subsidiary is to also act similarly; but at the same time the subsidiary must operate as a statutory body in accordance with powers given by Parliament to the various ports authorities which make up the board. I have read all the lengthy debates in the Standing Committee in another place on this issue and I am not satisfied with this particular and peculiar two-tier contradictory set up. Although the Secretary of State has given an assurance that the new Associated Docks Board will not be broken up, we find that paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 states that the board may develop any of its land:
"with a view to the disposal of any right or interest in the land or, as the case may be, the buildings or any part of the buildings after the development is carried out".
That means that there is to be no power to develop unless there is to be a disposal. I would ask the noble Minister to correct me if I am wrong.
There is another anomaly: the new Associated Docks Board is to have additional powers for the carriage of goods by road, to act as ship's agent, to develop land and to construct and operate pipelines. These extended powers were denied to the present public sector board despite its commercial success, as I have outlined.
The last part of the Bill with which I wish to deal is Part III. As the noble Lord the Minister said, this provides for the abolition of the National Ports Council. This was set up in 1964 as an independent body to advise the Government, and it arises from the recommendation of the Rochdale Committee which carried out an inquiry into the ports industry. I have looked through the latest available report of the council for 1979. This gives an indication of the wide scope of the work which has been of immense value to successive Governments since 1964 and to the ports industry. Under the Bill, this work now becomes the responsibility of the Secretary of State.
It has been stated that this work must in future be undertaken by the British Ports Association, which is the organisation of port users. I consider that to be an unwise and undesirable set-up. Unless there is something hidden in the schedules which I have missed,

233
I cannot see that this transfer of the responsibility from the Secretary of State is mentioned in the Bill. It has been reported that the Ports Association became responsible as from the 1st April for research and training, which are at present two of the responsibilities of the Ports Council. If that is correct I question why this has taken place before your Lordships have even considered the provisions of the Bill and of that part.
At present, port users have the opportunity for appeal to the Ports Council against charges levied by the various ports authorities. That procedure will end and appeal will be to the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State will have the shares of the holding company vested in his name. Charges levied may affect the profitability of the company, yet the same Secretary of State is to be the authority to consider appeals against charges.
In this connection, there is a monopoly situation arising with some ports authorities concerning charges for other services to those which are mentioned in the particular part to which I have referred against which there is no right of appeal. The British Waterways Board and their private sector users are concerned with arbitrary charging by some authorities. We shall seek to have this clarified during the Committee stage.
As the Minister said, in our view the proposed abolition of the National Ports Council presents an opportunity to establish a statutory National Ports Authority. Today I would suggest that in view of the position of our ports that is more than ever necessary. It was a recommendation of the Rochdale Committee which the Conservative Government at that time decided not to implement. I hope that we can move the Government from their doctrinaire intervention in publicly-owned bodies covered by the Bill. I hope also that the provisions in the Bill for road safety will be given adequate time in this House, because I am certain that these provisions—welcome as they are—will deserve the utmost consideration. I hope that your Lordships will be given that opportunity.
4.26 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, from these Benches I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for his explanation of this Bill in his usual clear way. I confess that I am still considerably confused about Part II of the Bill. I hope that as the Bill proceeds through the House I shall have a little more light thrown upon that subject. As the noble Lord said—and as is obvious—the Bill deals with a number of quite separate matters of varying importance. As there are a great many names on the list of speakers, and we have other business to follow, I do not propose to deal with all the matters and I shall only speak about some which seem to me to be of considerable importance.
May I begin with Part I. Here I must say that I am taking a different view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. When the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill was going through your Lordships' House in the last Parliament we said from these Benches that we thought that the proportion of industrial investment in the private sector, the proportion of the total investment, was too high and that it should not be increased. Of course, when that Bill became the
234
Act of 1977 it was substantially increased so we take the view that the total proportion of industrial investment in this country in the public sector is definitely too high. For those reasons, we would not object to some adjustment in the opposite direction if it can be done without damage—let us say in the case of British Rail—to the main business of the railway.
I think that Clauses Nos. 1 to 3 are drawn extraordinarily wide. I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that I do not like Clause 3 at all. It seems to me that British Rail should dispose of their interests in their subsidiaries if they want to. I certainly do not think that a Secretary of State of any party—even the Liberal Party when the time comes—should be allowed to tell British Rail that they have to sell this, that or the other. I hope that we can do something about Clause 3 in Committee.
There is another point which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, did not mention and which the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, rather skated over when he was presenting the Bill. It is not only a question, as I read this Bill, of the board being able to dispose of the whole or parts of the present subsidiaries, but there is a curious clause—it is subsection (3)—which says that they can create new subsidiaries of any part of their undertaking. Then, of course, if the noble Lord the Minister has not given way on Clause 3 it will mean that the Secretary of State can require them to make new subsidiaries and to dispose of them. It seems to me from the present wording that if the Secretary of State were so minded—I am sure the present Secretary of State would not be—he could say: "What about the London-Edinburgh line of British Rail? Let us make that a subsidiary and then dispose of it". He would not do that with regard to the London commuter services because those services would be impossible to dispose of; but it is so widely drawn that I should have thought it needed to be looked at again.
To return to the narrower issue of the existing subsidiaries, it seems to me there should be no disposal unless that is agreed by the board of British Rail. The noble Lord said that discussions with British Rail had gone on and that they had seemed to be in agreement with these ideas. I should like to ask the noble Minister whether he could put his hand on his heart—because I know his heart is in the right place—and say there has been no pressure on British Rail to agree and that there has been nothing said along the lines of, "If you do this, we shall be able to do this, that and the other." This is a terribly easy thing and I an afraid that Governments of all parties have been a little bit apt from time to time to "lean" on the nationalised industries. I do hope that that can be cleared up.
I also hope that the Minister will be able to confirm a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill—that the proceeds of sale will be freely available to British Rail to spend as they like and that they will not count against the cash limit. Otherwise it seems to me to be a very poor deal indeed for British Rail. I recognise that they need capital desperately for the development of the railway service and, if the result of selling subsidiaries at a favourable price will enable them to get ahead quicker with the necessary capital investment for the railways, I would not myself see any objection.

235
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, spoke of the profitability of some of these subsidiaries. Of course, if they are so profitable it should be possible to sell them at a very good price. To my mind, the only question really is if they are making a profit on the sale price—not on the present investment—of so much, is that more or less than the railways would have to pay if they wanted to borrow the money afresh? But, again, the issue is a little more complicated than that because their borrowing is limited by this famous public sector borrowing requirement. So, provided they get a good price for anything they sell, it does not seem to me that this is really doing any harm to British Rail, always assuming that it is the board of British Rail which decides whether a thing is worth doing.
As regards the particular subsidiaries that have been mentioned, I would wish to refer only to Sealink. I have a good deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said. I wonder whether the British Rail Board sincerely believe they should dispose of their interest in Sealink and, above all, whether they should do that at the present time, because the cross-Channel ferries have been going through a very difficult period. Sealink's profits were considerably less in 1979 than they were in 1978 and I suspect they will be less still in 1980 than they were in 1979. So in the exercise of their own discretion I very much doubt whether this is the moment at which British Rail would want to dispose of Sealink, even if in the long run they wanted to do so. The timing of any such sale is of enormous importance and that applies especially, though not only, to Sealink at the present time.
I do not see the purpose of setting up this separate port company and, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, I certainly hope there will be provisions which will ensure that the shipping interests of Sealink and the harbour interests part are kept together, because there is no doubt that in operating a service of this kind, as is done by Sealink, having control of the harbour as well is enormously important for the efficient running of the system.
Finally, on Sealink I would just say this. It would be a great pity if at the end of the day we found it was no longer possible for people to book a rail-sea-rail journey, co-ordinated together from England to the Continent or to Ireland, as the case may be. It seems to me a great pity to separate from the railway company things which were built up naturally by the railway company in order to secure plenty of rail traffic. I know that now a great many people going to the Continent go by car and use other ferries apart from Sealink, but I hope British Rail would still want to maintain the valuable railway services between London and other parts of the country and the Channel ports to connect with ships. Also I should have thought that it would be a great pity if by any chance the disposal of Sealink were to lead to a breakdown in the co-ordination of those services.
If I may now turn briefly to Part II, I confess I find the financial arrangements extraordinarily complicated. I half understood, when the Minister spoke, what the Government are getting at but I do not see why it is necessary to create this holding company and then another company. That seems quite unduly
236
complicated. There is another very peculiar provision, which is that the holding company can in certain circumstances—this is Clause 13—substitute for itself another holding company. I cannot understand what on earth the purpose of that can be and perhaps when the Minister comes to wind up he will be able to throw a little more light on it. Incidentally, there is a curious discrepancy there because the Bill says in, I think, Clause 13(5) that the substituted company which is nominated to take over from the holding company
"may not be nominated…unless it is controlled by the company designated under section 5(3);"—
that is to say, it has to be controlled by the original company. This is no doubt some very complicated financial provision and I do not understand the reason for it; but, while the Bill says that it must be controlled by the original holding company, the Explanatory Memorandum says that it must be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the original company, which is not the same thing. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough also to clarify that point, although it may well be a Committee point rather than one to be pursued now.
The other question I wanted to ask the noble Lord is this: Associated British Ports is the operating company and I should like him to confirm, if he will, that that company will still be subject to Section 9, I think it is, of the Harbours Act 1964: that is, control of its investments in development over a certain figure by the Secretary of State. I ask the question because in another place, on Tuesday, 14th April, Mr. Clarke, the Parliamentary Secretary, was asked about this difficult question of the 51 per cent. held by the Government. He said:
"It will be a private sector company, free from ministerial controls and from Treasury restraints". [Official Report, Commons; col. 212.]
I only want to confirm that it will not be free from the ministerial controls which apply to all other ports, under Section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964.
If I may leave Associated British Ports and come to Part III, I am very sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, is not here today. I know that he would have liked to take part in this discussion. I have a very obsolete interest to declare, because for a very short time I was a member of the National Ports Council and I felt that it did—and does now—a very valuable job. The noble Viscount recommended in his report something with teeth in it, as he used to say—a national ports authority. On that, I think at the time I differed from the noble Viscount.
But it is certainly true that, in spite of not having any teeth, the National Ports Council has been a very useful body indeed, although in my view it failed to do one thing during all the time it has been in existence; that is, to produce—which was one of the original ideas—a national plan to look at the ports of the country as a whole. I know that many noble Lords, many people in the country and, I think, many of my noble friends are very suspicious about plans. But I think that that is partly a misunderstanding of what is meant, because what I, at any rate, mean is what I think is sometimes called in these discussions an indicative plan. It is not a plan which everybody is expected slavishly to abide by, but merely a target plan so that people, in developing their own ideas, see them working

237
within the plan. It always seemed to me that the National Ports Council should have tried to produce some kind of plan of that nature.
It is now proposed to abolish it. Its work is to be carried out, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, partly by the Secretary of State and partly by the British Ports Association, which is not—if I may humbly correct the noble Lord, Lord Underhill—an association of port users; it is an association of port owners and operators. I do not know how well it will do the job as compared with how it was done by the National Ports Council. We shall see. I doubt whether it will be any less expensive. Indeed, if the object of abolishing the National Ports Council is to save the Government money, it will certainly work in the opposite direction, because the National Ports Council was financed by levies on the ports and, so far as I know, cost the Government nothing at all. The Government will now have to increase the part of the Department of Transport which deals with these matters, to perform the functions which were performed by the National Ports Council.
So far as Parts IV and V are concerned I do not want to say very much. These are matters which we shall want to examine very carefully in Committee, and I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said. But I hope that we shall have long enough in Committee to deal with these matters. I agree with him that this should be dealt with on an entirely nonparty basis. The Government will, no doubt, secure some support from noble Lords who sit behind them. But I hope that they, too, will see that this is a matter on which many people hold views one way or the other, and that a liberal assembly like this ought to decide things on their merits, and not because they emanate from a particular party. I hope that my noble friends, and the noble friends of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will take the same view when decisions come to be made. I do not want to speak any longer, because I have spoken long enough. We shall, of course, be giving this Bill a Second Reading so there is no point in prolonging this debate. I have mentioned some matters on which I think we should have a discussion in Committee. With that, I bring my remarks to an end.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord. Lord Bellwin, on setting out this Bill with great clarity at some length, which was quite justified. My only complaint is about his use of the word "privatisation", which I am horrified to see coming into the ordinary bureaucratic speech. I wish to protest very strongly against it. Otherwise, I thought that it was an admirable speech. I should also like to congratulate my quondam friend Lord Underhill on a very fine discussion and a very serious argument of a Bill, with a lot of which he agreed and with some of which he did not. I thought it was admirably done.
From what my noble friend Lord Ashby the other day called "our perch up here", it is very important, if we are given the courtesy of an early place in the speakers' list, that we should not think it necessary to make a major speech dealing with the whole Bill, and I shall follow the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, in not
238
doing so. I want to refer to only one or two aspects of the Bill, and I hope quite shortly.
There are one or two surprising omissions to which I shall come, but just to summarise I strongly support the new regulations for motor-cycles in Clause 23; and the safety provision for children in cars is extremely sensible, as are the new safety regulations in general. I am glad that the Government have refrained from enforcing random tests. I am also glad that they have increased the hit-and-run penalty from £100 to £1,000; and I should not mind if they made it £10,000. I have spent long enough being driven about in Northern Ireland to realise that humps are a good thing, so I am glad that they are in. With those approvals, I shall now turn to one or two other points.
I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, about the BTDB and about the National Ports Council, but I shall not discuss these at this stage. We up here do not take a doctrinaire view about any public enterprise disposing of certain of its assets for business reasons. I follow the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, in that. But we do object to such a course if it is on purely doctrinaire grounds, and we suspect that to be the case in this Bill. We know that British Rail needs large sums to bring itself into the 'eighties and has impressive plans for doing so. We also know that British Rail has precious little chance of getting the necessary development money out of this Government. So what could be more businesslike than selling off certain peripheral businesses which do not make vast profits, but which are highly capitalised, and using the sale money to develop and make more efficient their major business?
But as has been suggested by the previous Opposition speakers, dealing with the Treasury is not at all like that. It was never clearly stated on Second Reading in another place and was not made quite clear by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, today, but it seems clear to me that British Rail's borrowing powers will be reduced by the amount of any capital sales that it makes. I wish to repeat the direct question which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, put to the Government: Is this the case, or is it not? If so, evidently, the sales cannot be justified on ordinary business grounds. As the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, will remember only too well, the Treasury did this to him over museum charges. His argument originally was that museum charges would raise £2 million for the museums, but it soon became clear that the Treasury would scoff the lot and the museums would not benefit in any way. I think we have an exactly parallel situation over this and I wish to make it absolutely clear that we demand an answer, with no equivocation.
So much for the profitability of sales. My next point concerns heavy lorries. The Armitage Report came down firmly in favour of heavier axle rates and recommended increases almost as great as those recommended by the EEC. Also, the Armitage Report in Chapter 10, which is extremely hard to believe, stated that the environmental effects of heavier lorries would be less serious than the environmental effects of existing sized lorries because there would be more weight carried in fewer vehicles and, therefore, fewer vehicles would be going through narrow roads. It is a very impressive argument. I find it extremely hard to believe but it may be true. In any case, I

239
welcome the fact that the Government are going to equalise, or attempt to equalise, the taxation as between lighter and heavier lorries and not have the light ones paying for the heavy ones, which is the position at the moment.
This brings me to a point which worries me. At the moment, the Armitage Report tells us that British Rail carries 69 per cent. of the coal and coke in this country and that road haulage carries 31 per cent. This is already a fall for British Rail of 3 per cent. over the last 10 years. I believe in railways, having run military traffic on other people's railways in France, Germany, Italy, Iraq, Iran and Egypt during the war. I have a love of railways. I have an understanding of what they are good at and some understanding of what they are bad at. What they are good at is long distance heavy haulage. What they are bad at is distribution. The point about coal and coke is that it does not require distribution because invariably the recipients have sidings. So the trucks can go into the sidings. It is perfectly clear that over the next 10 years there is going to be an increase in coal haulage. There is no doubt from the energy point of view that there will be greater use of coal by industry, and I assume that there will be greater use of coal by power stations.
The main point that I want to make today is that if we are going to allow heavier lorries on our roads we must make it absolutely certain that they do not seize this increase in coal transport, which is one of' the things that may make the whole future of British Rail very much more stable than it has been recently. I am worried about the environmental effects, apart from anything else. Even though there were no difference in costs, there is no doubt that the movement of coal by rail is environmentally far more innocent than the movement of coal by heavy lorries.
Here we may come up against the new Cobden and Bright school in the Conservative Party who, so far as I can see, believe in absolute freedom for everybody to do anything. What business decides is right. I am very worried that the existing Government will not have the determination to intervene in a case of this kind and see that the proper thing is done: that coal is diverted, either on financial or other grounds, to rail and is not picked up by the heavy lorries. I do not expect the noble Lord to tell me what are the Government's views on this. I am afraid that they would be quite different from the views of those of us up here. We are interventionists. We believe that in certain circumstances you have got to see that the right thing is done. We believe that it will not be done if you do not intervene.
Those are my major points. Regarding Part I of the Bill, we cannot support the Labour spokesman's threat which was made in another place to revoke such legislation if that party is returned to power. One of the reasons for such popular success as our associates on this Bench and outside have had is that from the beginning we have set our face against the humiliating and ridiculous see-sawing of policy resulting from the present two-party system. We shall have no part in any such nonsense.
I spoke of two omissions. The first is seat belts, about which both noble Lords spoke. I hope that
240
there will be an amendment concerning seat belts. We shall certainly support it. The arguments are absolutely unanswerable. Secondly, it is very odd to have a Transport Bill which does not refer to the major problem of transport in all civilised countries; namely, the gradual seizing up of the towns by cars. I shall not develop this point. We all know that it will take a number of years to put right. First, you have to stop cars being parked on the side of the road; secondly, you have to build car parks; thirdly, you have to persuade local authorities who have control over much of this to do what you want; fourthly, you have to try to stop single driving and the rest. It is a very difficult problem. However, any Transport Bill which does not mention it at all is to me a disappointment.
Having said that, we shall of course not oppose the Second Reading. I agree with the noble Lords who spoke before me: we shall try to tidy up a number of things in Committee.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, who made such an interesting speech and who raised a number of interesting points in a most stimulating way, with most of which I agree. In the interests of brevity, in my own speech I must resist the temptation to follow him. Instead I must stick to the few remarks I want to make.
Before I start my own little speech, I should like to congratulate my noble friend, as did the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, on the speed and lucidity of his excellent speech which covered this vast range of topics. Those of us who are interested in motoring would award him a free certificate as an advanced motorist for the skill with which he whizzed round the bends—not literally, but metaphorically.
The major points in the first part of the Bill have my support in principle but I shall resist discussing them now. My speech will be directed entirely to Part IV of the Bill which deals with road safety. I should declare my interest as President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I warmly congratulate my noble friend and his colleagues on fitting road safety legislation into the programme. We all know how intensely the pressure bears on the legislative programme and how difficult it is to fit road safety into it. I congratulate my noble friend on getting it in. Even if it is rather like a slice of ham between two slabs of bread, nevertheless, he has got it there. The fact is that road accidents are still appalling in their number. There are still about 6.000 deaths per annum, and there are still about a quarter of a million injuries per annum. This carnage on the roads is so awful that all of us must be continually concerned about it.
My three points will be on the wearing of seat belts, drink and driving and motor-cyclists. I say a warm welcome to all three because each one of them will make a valuable contribution to reducing the loss of life and limb. With regard to the compulsory wearing of seat belts, I welcome Clause 27 which makes compulsory the wearing of seat belts by children up to the age of 13 if sitting in the front seat. Indeed. I welcome the principle of the compulsory wearing of seat belts in any form. I hope this indicates that my noble friend,

241
having accepted the principle, may be willing to go a little further with an amendment which would protect the whole of the adult population, not just children under 13. Here I must thank most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for their robust support of this cause. I hope and believe that noble Lords generally may feel that the time has come when this should be put on the statute book.
As noble Lords may know, in another place a new clause which would have made the wearing of seat belts compulsory was tabled for the Report stage but it was a casualty under the timetable Motion and so failed to be considered; but as there are now majorities in both Houses in favour of this important measure, I trust that noble Lords generally will feel that the time has come, first, that we should debate it on Committee stage—and I will table a new clause so that we can—and I hope very much that your Lordships will feel that this is such a tremendous saver of life and limb that we really should put it on the statute book. I will resist the temptation to go further into that field now and will wait to adduce the arguments (which are pretty familiar) on Committee stage.
Returning briefly to Clause 27, I am of course aware of the anxieties which were aroused by the Sunday Times article with regard to the wearing of seat belts by children in the front seat, but I understand that the child accident prevention committee, who have given a good deal of expert study to this, feel confident that the wearing of any seat belt by a child in the front seat is a valuable protection, even if it is not perfection. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who said that the right solution is for the children to sit in the rear seat and to be belted there, but not many cars could provide for that, and so maybe we have to accept what is a practical solution. I am informed—and this will perhaps console him—that what my noble friend is proposing to introduce is the norm in Australia and New Zealand and it works satisfactorily. So he will have my support and I look forward to seeing his amendment in due course.
Turning now to the provision with regard to motorcyclists. Clause 23, I warmly welcome this. As has already been said, the casualty rate among motorcyclists is distressingly high: some 1,100 deaths per annum and some 66,000 injured—and usually pretty seriously injured. The fact is that a young man or a girl on a motor-cycle—usually a young man—is 30 times more vulnerable than a driver sitting in a motorcar. We have only to see them careering through the traffic with immense brio to understand the fearful hazards that they are running and the great danger there is that they will end up in some collision where they will he seriously hurt, possibly fatally.
So I welcome Clause 23. It will restrict the beginner to less powerful machines, as my noble friend has said, and it will make the provisional licence of limited duration. Now, as we are all aware, many motorcyclists go through the whole of their motor-cycling career with an "L" plate on the back and never take the test at all. In future there will he the two-part test, part of which will he taken on the training ground off the road, and I am quite sure that the extra disciplines that the motor-cyclists will get will stand them
242
in good stead when they have to deal with traffic on the road.
I had something to do with this training business 25 years ago in the Royal Automobile Club, who were pioneers in setting up a training scheme, and I know how valuable it is. Today it has grown to quite substantial proportions. The figures are interesting. The RAC/ACU scheme, which is the RAC and the industry together, have 310 training centres, and the national training scheme has 257; that is 567 altogether, and I think there are about another 50 local authority centres. So there are a little over 600 altogether and a great many splendid public-spirited voluntary helpers who go along and help at those centres. I should think that this provision would be adequate for the two-part test, but of course the ideal solution, where every beginner motor-cyclist would be required to take a course of training off the road in a training centre, is not yet possible because the capacity is just not there. But I hope that my noble friend will be able to say that this is a priority of the Government to continue putting money into it and to put more money in, so that the training centres can be increased in number until eventually we reach the position where all beginners may have a compulsory training period off the road before they go on to the road and encounter the dangers there.
Finally, on drinking and driving, I welcome Clause 25. Drinking and driving is undoubtedly the potential cause of most road accidents, and there is no doubt that there has been a slackening in the observation of the law in recent years. Clause 25 will make a useful advance in strengthening the police powers. I think it is about right, although I look forward to hearing that I am sure will be tabled at Committee stage, which will be a Blenner-Hassett recommendation. I am inclined to think that may he going too far. The relationship between police and public in this field is a very sensitive and a vitally important one and I am inclined to think that the Bill has got it right, but I look forward with great interest to hearing those debates on the Committee stage. As other noble Lords have said, we are going to have a long and interesting Committee stage; I look forward to it and I hope that usually I shall he supporting my noble friend on the Front Bench.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, who always puts his case so persuasively and so gently. As one of the prospective victims of the compulsion amendment which he proposes, I know he will forgive me if I find myself unable to emulate his gentleness. A week ago I had not intended to speak in today's debate, proposing instead to wait until the Bill reached the Committee stage. However, since that time there has been evidence in the press of what appears to be a skilfully concerted campaign—and I am certainly not accusing anyone in this House of being involved in it—to bamboozle the public, together with those Members of both Houses of Parliament who are not closely in touch with the situation, into believing that compulsory seat belt wearing for adults is virtually an accomplished fact—that it is as good as signed,

243
sealed and delivered and that all is over bar the shouting. I can assure the press and the House that this is most decidedly not the case and that those who attempt to force their fellow citizens, and specifically their fellow adult citizens, into the straitjacket of compulsory seat belts will be fought vigorously at every single stage of the Bill—and afterwards, if need be.
Furthermore, if the pro-compulsion camp does not show rather more signs of flexibility and compromise than in the past I fear the fight may become a very bitter one. I very much hope that this will not happen. The second group of people who need to think very hard about the consequences of compulsion are the Government. We know that the Minister of Transport, Mr. Norman Fowler, has fought extremely courageously to retain our traditional freedoms, despite considerable criticism and indeed vilification and that the Prime Minister has supported him (as one would have expected her to do, particularly in view of frequent Conservative election pledges concerning the freedom of the individual). Nevertheless there are rumours that siren voices are trying to persuade the Cabinet that in view of persistent paternalist pressure it might save a good deal of trouble if the Government were to capitulate to a small section of their party and allow a free vote when this Bill reaches the Commons, the reasoning being that any outcry at the imposition of compulsion would be short lived and that by the time of the next election, two or two-and-a-half years hence, all would have been forgotten and docile motorists would be meekly conforming with the law.
This is a misconception which the Government should disabuse themselves of very rapidly. When we last debated this matter, shortly before Christmas, the noble Earl, Lord Avon, speaking from the Government Front Bench, revealed to the House that in South Australia there had been no fewer than 7,000 prosecutions in 1977 for failure to wear seat belts. There is no reason to suppose that British opponents of this law are any less angry or determined than their Australian counterparts. So translated into United Kingdom terms one can envisage 306,000 prosecutions per annum, or approximately 1,260 every day that the courts sit.
Even as things stand, many motor-cyclists who do not wish to wear helmets opt for prison rather than pay their fines. The number of motorists likely to take this course will, naturally, be very much greater because there are so many more of them. The issue will, therefore, be very much in the public eye at the time of the general election, especially as there has been no mandate for compulsion; it appeared in no election manifesto published by any political party, understandably so.
It may be argued that those opposed to compulsion have nowhere else to go, as the saying goes, since the Conservative Party is the least illiberal one we have got, the other three main contenders all being more coercive and collectivist in this matter, with a few shining exceptions among individuals in each of them—in the Labour Party, the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party. Well, this may be so, but nevertheless I would expect many lifelong Conservative voters to abstain altogether if this measure goes through, and
244
many others to vote for the Liberals or the Social Democrats out of pique.
The reputation of this noble House should also not be overlooked. Many hundreds of thousands of people throughout Britain regard this House as the ultimate defender of their liberties. This reputation will plummet if this House now turns round and metaphorically, and perhaps not only metaphorically, imposes shackles upon people, particularly in view of the absence of any mandate from the electorate. The consequent loss of reputation may not seem to matter all that much now, but in a few years' time things truly be very different.
Lord Somers: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for one moment, when he speaks of defending the liberty of the individual does he include in that the liberty to damage other people or possibly to kill them?
Lord Monson: No, my Lords, certainly not. I am all in favour of laws which prevent individuals from harming third parties. It is laws which protect people from themselves that I object to and so many other people object to. If I turn now to the question of child safety, it is not to change the subject. I shall have quite a bit to say about Clause 27, which deals with children wearing scat belts, in Committee: I would only say now that if it goes through unamended it will effectively outlaw that valuable institution known as the "school run", whereby parents living in a certain street or a certain village take it in turns to pile five, six, seven or eight children into their cars and run them to school each day. The abolition, or the virtual abolition, of this useful custom will involve many tens of thousands of parents in considerable expense and hardship, particularly where working mothers are concerned.
However, let us disregard that for a moment and let us accept for the sake of argument the contention that Clause 27 will save the lives of a certain number of child passengers in cars each year. At the moment it appears that 70 such passengers, child passengers, are killed, and even if all of them were front-seat passengers, which of course is not the case, we can take it that only one-third, that is to say, 23, would be saved if Clause 27 goes through as it stands; that is the generally accepted proportion of front-seat drivers or passengers whose lives are saved by the compulsory wearing of belts. Let us then return to the proposal to make seat belt wearing compulsory for adults. When we debated this matter before Christmas the noble Earl, Lord Avon, speaking for the Government, said that all the arguments on this question had long since been heard. With great respect, the noble Earl was wrong.
A couple of months ago Mr. John Adams of London University produced a fascinating and thoroughly researched paper which confirmed in detail what commonsense, intuition and observation have long made obvious to many of us, namely, that the sense of security conferred by the wearing of seat belts subconsciously encourages motorists to take more risks and to drive with less care and attention; so in countries where compulsion has been introduced there is no net saving of life as compared with countries

245
without compulsion. Any saving of life among drivers and front seat passengers is counter-balanced by an increase in fatalities among other road users.
And this was borne out by the BBC programme on road safety to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred. Having started off by showing graphically the efficacy—the undoubted efficacy, which I do not deny—of seat belts in reducing injuries in head-on collisions, the programme continued by admitting towards the end that every safety improvement which made the driver feel more secure subconsciously encouraged him to drive faster and more recklessly. How does this conclusion affect the safety of children to which I referred earlier?
In 1975, the last year for which I have been able to dig out figures, a total of 374 child pedestrians—and by "child" I mean those aged 14 and under—74 child pedal-cyclists and seven children who were motor-cycle pillion passengers—a total of 455—were killed on our roads. It is safe to assume that 99 per cent. of those killed were involved in collisions with vehicles. Would it not be a tragedy, and ironic, if a well-meaning attempt to save the lives of adult passengers—and I do not deny for a moment that it is well meaning—resulted unintentionally in a counterbalancing 23 extra deaths (5 per cent. extra) among child pedestrians and cyclists as a result of motorists in a hurry having been led to believe that the seat belts which they have been made to wear will automatically protect them and make them immune from accidents?
5.18 p.m.
Lord Noel-Baker: My Lords, I venture with respect, to congratulate the noble Lord the Minister on introducing this Bill and on the lucid and persuasive speech which he made for its introduction. I want, if I may, to speak, as the last two noble Lords have done, on what I regard as the gravest of the social evils by which our nation is afflicted today; I mean the tragedy of death and mutilation on the roads.
On Monday of this week a fellow citizen announced that he would make a tour of the country, a 1,000-mile journey, in a wheelchair, not, I think, Land's End to John o' Groats but another project which he had devised; it is a sponsored tour, and he hopes that his sponsors will enable him to raise the great sum of £100,000. He is in a wheelchair because some years ago he was run over by a motor-car, and has never walked again. If he raises his £100,000 he will buy 100 wheelchairs like his own and give them to other victims of the car who, like him, have been crippled for life in road accidents.
It moves me to two reflections. First, what might our fellow citizen, with his public spirit, his physical endurance and his motivation, have achieved for the benefit of the nation if he had been able to lead a normal life, to carry out the work which would have been open to him? That is how we should measure the loss from the road accidents which afflict us. Secondly, his 100 fellow victims are only a small fraction of those who are crippled by motor-cars every year that passes. The basic figures—and I recall them again—are devastating: 6,000 deaths every year, approximately 20 every working day, and 84,000 serious injuries, 200 every working day. To the victim and his family serious injury can be graver than death itself—it
246
can mean living death for many people who are so destroyed.
Of the 6,000 deaths, 1,200—one in five—are due to driving by motorists who are drunk. One-third of all the drivers who are killed are found to have drunk too much alcohol. I ask your Lordships to consider the true gravity of these facts. A driver who drinks and then goes on his journey having had "one for the road" or perhaps two, three or four, feels no special sense of guilt. He takes it lightly. But I put it to your Lordships that in reality his guilt is equal to that of a man who deliberately plans a murder and then goes out and incontinently commits it. He knows that if he drinks he may well kill someone. It may be said that he has no intention of doing so, but he ought to have that thought in the very forefront of his mind.
I find the present provisions of the Bill most inadequate as regards this very grave aspect of this social evil. A rich motor driver with a large, fast car is not much deterred by the thought of incurring a fine of even £1,000 if he kills a child. I believe that the punishment should be not a fine, but long terms of imprisonment. I believe that the prospect of imprisonment would alter the whole thinking of the driver who drinks. It would produce a most significant result.
In my view the same is true of drivers who kill children. Again, the basic figures are appalling. My research gives me a figure which differs widely from that of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. The figure which I have for the latest year for which I could obtain a figure is 14,000 children killed and 13,000 seriously injured. I believe that it should be the duty of every driver to have in the forefront of his mind the thought that he must take every conceivable precaution to allow for children's errors. It is very easy to say that the children themselves are often to blame—of course they are. Children panic; they run into danger when they might easily escape. But the driver ought to drive with such precaution that he is not led by children's errors to commit injury to them, or even death.
I turn to accidents in which very heavy lorries are involved—lorries of more than one and a half tonnes unladen weight. The figures that I have are that 1,000 people are killed per annum in collisions with heavy lorries and that 18,000 are gravely injured. This is a very serious matter and one as regards which the Government should, I venture to suggest, do much research. I confess that I do not have any recent information. But in the last year in which I was a Member of another place, the chief constable of my city made a special inquiry into all the lorries that passed through the place. He stopped the lorries and tested them for mechanical defects. Unless my memory deceives me, he found that no less than 60 per cent. of the lorries had some mechanical defect and 25 per cent. were so gravely defective that he refused to allow the drivers to drive on until they had been to a garage for repairs. Again, if my memory serves me correctly, he found that a number of the drivers were being paid by the number of journeys they accomplished—an open invitation to reckless driving. As I have said, I have no recent information on these points. But I draw attention to information of long ago in order that the Government may take the matter up and examine with care what I have said.
I turn to seat belts and, with all respect to the noble

247
Lord, Lord Monson, I venture to express the liveliest regret that the Bill does not make seat belts compulsory for adults as well as for young children. Indeed, I find it absolutely amazing that the Government have been able to bring in a Bill without making seat belts compulsory. In my view the case is proved and proved again. I was personally convinced when my friend, Dr. Sir Roger Bannister, told me that his life and that of his wife had been saved by their seat belts. He broke both of his legs. He was not able to run for a number of years—a grave loss to him and to his children—but the seat belt saved his life and did a great service to our nation because he is pursuing a most eminent medical career.
The case is proved by the experience of other countries. Would your Lordships believe that Britain, Ireland and Italy are the only countries in Europe where seat belts are not compulsory? Would your Lordships believe that the Minister, the Secretary of State for Transport, made a report not long ago in which he calculated that a 100 per cent. wearing of seat belts would mean the saving of 1,000 lives a year and the saving of 10,000 serious injuries? Deaths and injuries result from head-on collisions. Indeed, 70 per cent. of all road accidents are head-on collisions. I venture to think that on financial grounds, if on no other grounds, the Government would be well advised to introduce this reform.
I add to proposals for heavier punishment and the compulsory use of seat belts others of my own. Let me say at once that in principle punishment is not an efficacious deterrent to crime. Even the death penalty has proved a very inadequate deterrent to the crime of murder. But I believe that for rich motor drivers a five-year term of imprisonment would be a prospect that would deter them, when a fine of £1,000 would mean very little.
Finally, I want to say a few words about the cost of road accidents. The Government are making cuts in public expenditure and on almost every use of public money that is of social value. They are cutting grants to students to such effect that students are being forced to choose between books and food, and there are reports of students who, on choosing books, have developed scurvy as a result of malnutrition. By cutting the incidence of road accidents the Government could save far greater sums of public money than they can by stopping grants to students. The cost is approximately £1,000 million a year for the police, the courts, the hospitals, the doctors, the damaged vehicles, the vehicles that are totally destroyed, and all the rest. If you can make a significant reduction in death and injury by the measures that I have proposed, you will save a great deal of public money; but more important, you will reduce the grave burden of physical suffering of the victims and the grave burden of the mental anguish of their families and friends.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, may I say with very great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, that although his speech was both touching and delivered in that style (with no notes at all) that we have all come to admire, I cannot agree with the sentiments which he expressed. There is just one figure in our
248
debate on this Bill, which will continue for some little while, upon which I question him. He mentioned the man who is driving an electric wheelchair on a sponsored drive as a result of which he expects to raise £100,000. The noble Lord said that if he raises that sum of money, that sum will be able to provide 1,000 wheelchairs.
Lord Noel-Baker: My Lords, 100. I should have said 100 chairs.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, my understanding is that these are German-made wheelchairs and that they cost nearly £2,000 each. I think that it is rather important that, when we are talking about figures, we get the right kind of balance.
I want to turn to the earlier part of the Bill and, like others before me, congratulate my noble friend Lord Bellwin on his masterly exposition in explaining to us the various parts of the Bill. I should like to say here and now that Part I, that part dealing with British Railways, has my total support. I believe it is absolutely essential that we have a successful and an efficient railway system, and I believe that any business—particularly a business run in the interests of the public sector by the public sector's money—should be relieved of all peripheral activities so that its investment and its other resources can be properly devoted to its main task—in this case, that of running a railway and a railway system.
What I have to say is not contrary to anything that I have ever said before with regard to transport. I look forward to the day when the railways are modernised and more efficient, and are carrying even more passengers than they are today and even more freight than they are today because there are—and it was the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who so succinctly put it—bulk goods (he mentioned in particular coal) and there are dangerous and other sensitive materials that can be carried by rail and are so unsuitable to be carried by road.
But let nobody share a view that might be expressed that this Bill singles out one mode of transport against another. I was, frankly, surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, brought in those matters more properly associated with a debate on Armitage. We are not debating that. There is nothing in this Bill that suggests or presupposes Government action along the lines that the noble Lord suggested, that of bigger lorries.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I am worried that when the time comes there will not be Government action and I think there ought to be.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, perhaps we can join forces at a later date on another occasion.
It is with exactly similar feelings that I approach Part II of the Bill which deals with the British Transport Docks Board. Although my noble friend Lord Bellwin spelt out the success story there, I believe that if the interests of users and of those who work in the ports can be more closely drawn together, it will be for the benefit of the whole service. Much praise has been given to some ports, particularly Southampton. In

249
general, I share that view, but I must say that the people at Southampton Docks have for a number of years been running a campaign which is known locally as the dock drivers registration scheme, whereby the dock employees will say who shall use the dock. We cannot have that sort of thing.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, it is an hereditary system.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lord Ferrier has misunderstood; it relates to who drives the lorries in and out of the dock, not who is employed as a stevedore or a dock worker.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, that is not hereditary.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, it is not quite hereditary. Perhaps I might ask my noble friend what is so wrong with the hereditary principle in some areas of our society.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, not in the docks.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, if by the measures contained in the Bill we can draw the whole success force together, I think that we could do away with, or certainly minimise, some of the restrictive practices. Of course, it follows, does it not, that the abolition of the Ports Council must come about, which I also welcome?
I turn, as have noble Lords before me, to Part IV of the Bill dealing with matters relating to road safety. It was the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who early in his speech referred to the "Man Alive" programme and to casualties on the roads as an epidemic. I am glad that he picked out that word because an epidemic is an illness. It covers a range. It is not one specific ailment or one specific disease to which that programme referred. I take it that he used that word in that sense.
Clauses 19, 20 and 21 deal with the disqualification provisions with Parts I and II of Schedule 7. There is little doubt that we shall be discussing this in much greater detail at Committee stage. I did not notice any reference in the schedule to an offence which might qualify for the points system, that of driving a motor-car or motor vehicle without a valid test certificate; nor indeed a points penalty offence concerned with driving a motor-car with either a false certificate or indeed a falsified driving licence disc. In parenthesis, I might ask my noble friend—perhaps not for answer today—whether he is able to provide a reasonably up-to-date figure of the amount of tax revenue lost, since the rate for the road fund licence went up to £70, from those who do not renew. It might be an interesting figure within the context of whether an offence relating should qualify as part of the disqualification process.
I also see particularly that the two offences relating to drinking and driving carry 10 penalty points only. At first sight they would certainly appear to be less adequate to deal with this growing problem. I wonder why, upon a conviction, there is not an instant disqualification, be it even for one month only? I would shink that it would have a salutary effect. I am more teriously concerned with the drink element of accidents
250
than perhaps are others of my colleagues who think that seat belts are the answer. Can my noble friend on the Front Bench tell me exactly how many fatal and serious road accidents involve a drink element? I am led to understand that it is about 40 per cent. reported, with another 20 per cent. which are not reported.
There again in that "Man Alive" programme to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred it was revealed that some doctors do not think that it is their duty to reveal that there is a drink element in the condition of a patient brought in as a result of a road accident. The doctor feels that this is a matter of confidentiality between doctor and patient. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, at Christmas time when he was talking about the doctors' responsibility with regard to accidents. I say to myself, somewhat cynically, "My goodness, the profession wants it both ways". They want to preserve their doctor-patient responsibility, confidentiality, in the hospital situation and yet they can come and tell us what we are to do with our own lives and how we are to do it. I shall be taking this up at Committee stage when we discuss the clause of my noble friend Lord Nugent.
I suspect that drink is probably the most important single factor in road accidents and it is upon reducing the number of accidents that we must focus our minds. Figures have been bandied about the House of the casualties, the maiming and injuries, and so on, as the result of accidents. If 40 per cent. of road accidents are caused by drunkenness and we get that matter right, we shall vastly reduce road accidents, the death and serious injury. If noble Lords quote Australia and New Zealand, I suspect that they are quoting hearsay and estimates. I have yet to see authoritative figures. If this is the basis upon which they are going to argue for compulsion of seat belts, I say to them that they are chasing a shadow. They will step on it, they can step around it, but never are they going to grasp it.
In the absence of my noble friend Lord Strathcarron, may I touch for a moment on the motor-cycle issue. He was to have spoken. I know that he, like myself, and like other noble Lords, is very concerned about the loss of life, particularly among youngsters. While welcoming the general provisions contained in the Bill with regard to this matter, there are some matters which I know he will wish to discuss in greater detail and set some amendments to.
Clause 27 dealing with child safety belts I believe is really quite well-intentioned, but again there are a number of unanswered questions. I would find it difficult to accept that we are going to find the answers within the course of the next four weeks. It may be that the full social consequences of accepting a clause of this nature will prove fairly disastrous to us.
I want to touch quite quickly on Part V. We have discussed road humps before. Perhaps the less said about them this evening, the better. I shall want to ask some questions on this subject at Committee stage. On the vehicle excise duty changes, I believe there are some anomalies, particularly concerned with the lightweight bulk carrying vehicle, the user of which will have to go for a heavyweight vehicle, and there could be some anomalies which we can examine later.
Lastly so far as the Bill is concerned, I find it somewhat disappointing that in Clause 33 we are dealing

251
with the taxi trade and yet still have to reserve the general position until such later time as the consultative document is out. My noble friend Lord Bellwin may remember that in 1980 when we discussed the Transport Bill taxis came into the debate, and at that time we were going to defer decisions because a consultative document was going to be published. If I have a point of criticism on this Bill may I assure my noble friend that that is probably the only serious one that I have—that I have not got the document.
Finally, seeing my noble friend Lord Avon on the Front Bench, may I ask him whether he will take to his noble friend our Chief Whip the plea that we are given sufficient time—a sensible time; I do not mean just adjournments during dinner—to deal, in Committee and other stages, with this most important piece of legislation.
5.48 p.m.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, I rise to make one or two comments on Parts IV and V of the Bill, but mainly because it might be helpful to your Lordships and to the Minister to say that I have already put in the text of a new clause which I think would go in Part IV of the Bill. It might be helpful if I briefly indicated the purpose of it and its origin. The origin of this new clause is the Greater London Council. I suppose that, as I was for some time chairman of its transport committee, they came to me. I believe that they have also contacted other Members of the House, but I have actually put in the text. The provision would provide that—
"the police or an authorised person shall have the power to attach wheel clamps to cars where there is reason to believe that they are being, or have been, permitted to remain at risk on a road in contravention of any statutory provision, restriction or requirement respecting the waiting of vehicles".
In other words, where a car is parked in a spot where it has no business to be parked—according to the markings on the road and the regulations—clamps may be fixed to immobilise the vehicle so that the driver cannot remove it. That would not apply to a vehicle parked in a dangerous position; as we know, in those circumstances the police may tow it away.
There are people who park where they should not park and they do it repeatedly, not once or twice but to the point where they get a couple of tickets and even a pile of tickets, yet never pay the fines. The courts are overworked and the people about whom I am speaking cause a great deal of trouble to traffic wardens, who are already 40 per cent. under strength. This proposal is designed to get those people to behave in a socially responsible way and the GLC feel that wheel clamps is the best way to achieve that. The clamps may not be removed until they pay the fines; I think that is the idea, and it would be a salutory lesson to them. It is essential that when regulations are made -when lines are painted on the road and indications given to drivers not to park in certain places—they are respected because they are designed to enable London's traffic to run, and I therefore hope the amendment will receive support. I thought it would be helpful to the House to know the background to the proposal.
I welcome the proposals relating to motor cyclists. Like the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, I hope that without
252
delay it will be possible to have every one of them trained before they get on to the roads. I happened to switch on television recently and see a programme about motor-cyclists' helmets. I was horrified to see demonstrated helmets—it is shameful to think that they are on sale in the shops—made of a light plastic material which on impact immediately shatter. The youngster who buys such a helmet, apart from wasting his money, thinks he has security when he does not have any. His parents are no doubt comforted by the thought that he is wearing a helmet, but the type of helmet demonstrated on television would be quite useless in an accident. I am wondering whether it would be possible to introduce regulations saying that only helmets with the seal of approval of, say, the TRL should be on sale.
I admit that when we last voted on the compulsory wearing of seat belts I voted against compulsion. I believe I did so because I have always had a horror of being in an overturned car that has caught fire, unable to escape because I am wearing a seat belt. Having thought more about it, and having studied the various reports to the best of my ability, I think I was wrong, and if there were a vote now I would vote in favour of the compulsory wearing of seat belts. In this connection, a difficult problem concerns young children sitting in the front of motor-cars, and unless a harness can be devised that is capable of fitting all shapes and sizes of children, irrespective of age, I think we should legislate that children must be kept in the backs of cars.
I live beside a private road which has road humps, and they are most effective because whereas people used to drive at speed down our road, young children can now play there on their tiny tricycles quite safely. However, there must be notices telling motorists of the road humps. Especially for drivers who are not familiar with road humps, the humps should be painted white or some other colour—yellow should not be used-which will show up at night. I recall seeing a taxi—the driver had obviously never been down our road before—proceeding at too fast a pace for road humps and the heads of the passengers hit the roof of the taxi as it went over the humps. Such impacts cannot be good for vehicle exhaust systems, let alone the heads of passengers. By all means have road humps in appropriate places, but let us ensure that they are painted white so they can be readily seen. A notice at the end of the road saying, "Beware humps" is not satisfactory; drivers need to see precisely where the humps are.
I welcome the proposals for making changes in the vehicle excise duties relating to goods vehicles. We should be concerned not just about damage to roads caused by lorries, particularly heavy ones. We must be aware of the shaking of houses, exhaust fumes and noise. The constituency in Islington which I used to represent was a lorry route all night long. Beautiful scheduled Georgian houses along the route were shaken to bits, apart from the residents who could not sleep for the noise and were being poisoned by the fumes. A couple of weeks ago I was in the little town of Buckingham, which I had never visited before, and I was horrified to see the great intercontinental lorries making their way down little streets, just managing to get between the two narrow pavements, almost touching

253
the lovely old buildings on each side. I beg the Government to do more to provide by-passes for such small towns, which are being ruined.
I conclude by pressing for something to be done about the 20-year-old saga of the M25 to relieve London. To my personal knowledge, this proposed relief road has been in progress for at least 20 years; we were told that it would be completed by 1978, then we were assured it would not be later than 1980. Today, great sections of it have not even been started and I am not certain that even the inquiries have been held. For London, this is a most urgent matter.
5.59 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, like others, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bellwin for the clear way in which he introduced this stage of the Bill. I too welcome the Bill because, as has been pointed out, it is far too long since we had a chance not only to debate but amend the law relating to road safety, and it may be many years before we get another chance to bring our road safety rules and regulations up-to-date to cope with the new environmental and technological age in which we live. I am sure that we can give the clause relating to road safety a good airing in Committee.
I should like to speak in the main on one aspect only; that is, the drinking and driving aspect. Here, I must declare some sort of interest or involvement, since I am one of those who have been "done", albeit fairly. The drinking and driving regulations must once and for all be laid down clearly-one rule for all throughout the United Kingdom; no differences, no loopholes, clearcut. If you are caught with excess alcohol in your bloodstream while in charge of a vehicle, there should be no mitigating circumstances, no matter who you are, or what you are. If you go out for an evening and are going to drink, you should leave the car at home and go by taxi. Some people would say that in some areas there are no taxis. In that case you get either your wife or your girlfriend to drive, and take it in turns.
As I said, I was caught, and I make no bones about it—and I did not at the time. I pleaded some reasons as to why I was in the state that I was in, but I knew that I was in the wrong, and like others I thought that I could get away with it, but I was ready to face my penalty.
Many people might not realise the fact that once you are convicted of a drinking and driving offence and have paid your fine, there is still more to come. Not only do you suffer the humiliation of not being allowed to drive for one or two years, but when you do get back your licence having been a passenger and suffered as I did, since I am one of the world's worst back-seat drivers when being driven in my own car, somehow or other your insurance company knows about your conviction, and when you ask for your new insurance certificate, having got back your licence you have a nasty surprise in store. Although you keep your no claims bonus, you have to pay a hefty premium, as well as having to bear a large excess charge if you should be involved in an accident. This is still not the end. If, for some reason, your car is off the road and you wish to rent a self-drive car, again you will be out of luck, as the majority of,
254
if not all, car rental companies will not rent a car to you for five years from the date of your conviction.
As I have said, there should be one law to apply for the whole of the United Kingdom. As was said in column 1262 of the Official Report on Second Reading in another place by Mr. Enoch Powell—and I quote:
"…it is wholly anomalous that there should be different codes of law in different parts of the kingdom. Whatever arguments may be put forward elsewhere, a motorist in any part of the United Kingdom should clearly be under the same law and subject to the same penalties in the same circumstances".
As the law stands at present, in my view that is not the case.
Since I was convicted I have been very careful of my drinking and driving habits, but reading the papers as one does, I have noticed and heard of many cases where people manage to escape conviction, even though they were charged—some because they were able to afford a solicitor (I do not say that in any detrimental way) who found loopholes in the manner in which they were arrested; some on a technicality in the law; others because they were able to show some hardships, for business or other reasons, that they should not lose their licences. But in all cases they were able to escape their sentences, although they had an excess of alcohol in their bloodstreams. That is why the law relating to drinking and driving should be fair—fair to all in the United Kingdom, up and down our country; one law, one law for all. As Mr. Kenneth Clarke said in another place on Second Reading, at column 1327—and I quote:
"We wish to simplify it, clarify it, remove needless technicalities and, thereby, to make it more difficult for the guilty to get off by means of silly technical defences".
That I welcome wholeheartedly. It is only right that it should be one law for all.
I regret that under the Bill as it stands it is no longer the intention to allow the driver the option of providing a blood or a urine sample in case the breath-alysing machine is out of operation; and here may I say that these arrangements should be mandatory all over the country, so that we have a fair system. Furthermore, I strongly feel that the Minister of Transport should hold consultations before changing the prescribed level of alcohol, as in Schedule 8. These are two aspects which I feel should be changed at Committee stage. As for random testing, I think that it is right not to give the police more powers.
Moving on briefly to other points in the Bill, I agree entirely with the points system, which is surely better than the present "totting up" system, but I am not happy about the way that the points are allocated in Schedule 7. I feel that some of them should be higher; my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth has mentioned this. As for a regular speeding offence, I feel that this should be dealt with differently. I should like to see it treated by means of an on-the-spot fine, if possible, as that would relieve our courts of some of the pressure, since they are somewhat overcrowded. Failing that, the offence should be treated by means of a fine, or in some other way, but not as currently proposed.
Having had experience of the new system, I am glad to see the provision for changing the points system

255
subject to parliamentary approval. But surely if the Minister is to get parliamentary approval for these changes, he should also have consultations and parliamentary approval for the change in the level of alcohol in a driver's blood. Therefore I hope that we can change that, too, at Committee stage.
I have one other point—that is the new clause relating to children in the front seat of a vehicle, and the wearing of seat belts. I know that this subject touches sore points with many noble Lords and people outside, but I really do feel that this is a very bad clause. I think children under 12 should be banned from the front seat altogether, as in other countries. However, I shall listen to and read in our report other noble Lords' views on this subject. In conclusion, I welcome the Bill. As it stands at the moment. I feel that it is reasonably fair, and I am sure that by the time we get it onto the statute book it will be even fairer.
6.8 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the very lucid and easy way in which he has explained this very difficult Bill to the House this afternoon. I should also like to say that with her usual customary common sense manner, the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, with both feet on the ground, has suggested what I consider, and I believe my colleagues on this Bench also consider, is a very useful new clause, and I am sure that when the time comes we shall find ourselves able to support her from this Bench, behind her.
British Rail is facing a massive financial crisis, and as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has said, we are not necessarily opposed to the sale of some of British Rail's subsidiaries. But if any of those subsidiaries are sold off at a reasonable and fair price, will the Treasury agree that the proceedings of the sales will be added to the external financing limit of British Rail? If not, the sale of the subsidiaries will not assist British Rail in its present financial crisis, and it will only worsen the position if such sales are used to reduce British Rail's call on the National Loans Fund.
The Secretary of State so far has refused British Rail's investment proposals, although money is urgently needed for track maintenance, structure renewal, better and more modern signalling systems, and indeed new rolling stock. In these days of recession one would hope that the Government would see the sense of providing for capital renewal and improvements on our railways, and perhaps even agree, without undue delay, to Sir Peter Parker's demand for capital to electrify the railways. That would surely be a sensible use of some of our oil revenue, and it would improve the services for both passengers and freight. It would also provide employment and revitalise the railway system.
British Rail's investment budget is already less than half of that of most European rail systems. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, spoke about freedom of control by Government. Yet in Clause 3 of the Bill the Secretary of State is increasing his stranglehold on British Rail by denying it the right to sell its subsidiaries, other than with his consent; and the Bill also gives to the Secretary of State the power to direct British Rail, when, and in what circumstances to sell.
256
I cannot help being reminded of the time when the noble Lord and I faced each other across the Dispatch Box, arguing about the draconian powers given to another Secretary of State in the Local Government and Planning Act. A responsible body such as British Rail really ought to be allowed to manage its own affairs. Instead, the Secretary of State proposes to take unto himself the powers to give British Rail detailed instructions as to how to deal with the most important aspects of its business. In my view the Government's approach is wrong and arbitrary. It would make sense—especially today—if the Government would agree to increased investment in public transport as a whole and in British Rail in particular. Both the private and the public sector would benefit if British Rail's investment proposals could be approved quickly; not to do so makes neither commercial nor economic sense in today's situation. If the Government do not accept Sir Peter's proposals then the only avenue open to British Rail is an even higher fares policy and the inevitable consequential drop in the number of passengers using British Rail.
Other speakers have dealt in detail with those parts of the Bill relating to ports. I just want to register my concern at the suggestion to abolish the National Ports Council. I know that as a body it lacked teeth, but over the years it has provided research and development of port activities and has given legal and financial advice on port matters to successive Ministers. We all know the problems which are facing our docks today, particularly in London and on Merseyside. This is no time to get rid of a competent advisory body. The British Transport Docks Board has also been a highly efficient business concern and has produced a good level of profitability. It has introduced new methods of efficient working into the docks, and I believe we should acknowledge that. These bodies have created healthy competition between ports in this country, but the real competition still comes from continental ports. When the Minister replies, can he tell the House whether the proposed British Ports Authority undertake overall port planning, and will he also say whether the Government envisage that that authority will also be expected to take over eventually the Port of London Authority and the Merseyside ports?
Viscount Simon: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will give way for a moment, I do not think there is any such thing as the British Ports Authority in the Bill. There is, however, the Associated British Ports.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I also welcome the attempt in the Bill towards improving road safety hut, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I believe it would have been much better if there had been a separate Road Safety Bill as such rather than include these matters in Part IV of this Bill. Road safety is not a question of party politics but of life and death, and it is not something that should be included in a highly controversial Bill dealing primarily with denationalisation.
We have not yet reached the point where the roads in our towns are one immovable traffic jam; but as the loss of public transport, the closure of lines and the

257
withdrawal of services continues, more and more people—especially those in rural areas—are driven to using the roads and thus to create more problems of road safety. I too am concerned about fatalities among motor-cyclists, and I speak with some feeling since I have been a motor-cyclist for many years. I share worries expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, with regard to training. I should like a legal requirement for organisations licensed to conduct the proposed test to do so only after the candidate has undertaken an approved training course. I should also like the department to lay down the essential requirements to be taught within such an approved training course; which course might include not only advice on how to maintain one's machine and ride it but also roadcraft training—which is so essential for a young rider's survival.
Our roads are choc-a-bloc with traffic, and all those concerned about road safety must be increasingly worried at the unwillingness of successive Governments to implement seat belt legislation, and also to take the Blenner-hasset Report more seriously and do something more positive about taking drunken drivers and those under the influence of drink off our roads. Blenner-hasset himself observed:
"The greater the driver's dependence on alcohol, the less likely he is to be influenced by legal sanctions".
That comment was made five years ago and it is still as true today. I hope that before this Bill leaves your Lordships' House seat belt legislation will be included, and that we shall also look at the proposals about the level of alcohol and the rights of the police to apprehend and check on suspect drivers.
In general, I support the points proposal for totting-up offences, but I am sure that the actual points proposed need more consideration, because I am not yet convinced that they are right or fair. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has expressed some doubts and I have others. Why should: "Failing to comply with traffic directions", which could lead to a serious accident, or: "Failure to obey sign exhibited by school cross patrol", which may lead to the death or maiming of children, deserve only three points? Are five points really enough for: "Using, or causing or permitting use of, motor vehicle uninsured and insecured against third party risks"? Even worse are, "Being in charge of a motor vehicle when unfit through drink or drugs" and "Being in charge of motor vehicle with alcohol above prescribed limit", which are worth only 10 points.
As I understand it, 12 points earn disqualification. I may be more than usually obtuse today, but with serious offences which could carry disqualification now attracting only 10 points under the Bill, does this mean that we accept not only that every dog is entitled to one bite, but also that very motorist who drives recklessly or under the influence of drink or drugs is allowed to kill or maim at least one person and be allowed back on the road to do so again before he is disqualified? That cannot be right. Or does it mean that the present automatic disqualification still stands, plus another 10 points towards the next disqualification? That is not clear in the Bill, it is not clear to me, and I doubt whether it will be clear to many motorists. Why put discretion into the points system now? As I understand it there is a working party on fixed penalties
258
which has been sitting for the past two years but which has not yet reported. Why write discretion into this Bill until the report of that working party has been considered and accepted or rejected? If one is going to introduce discretion, why give it for: "Failing to stop after accident" or "Failing to give particulars or report accident", which may be anything from an accidental touching of bumpers to a hit-and-run, and yet give a fixed penalty for reckless driving or speeding which could be anything from travelling through my village at 41 m.p.h. or 85 m.p.h.?—but both would attract the same penalty.
I believe these penalties will create dreadful problems in our courts. It is fundamentally inappropriate that a court should he required to involve itself in a process of allocating points as part of its adjudication. Is there any precedent for this kind of process? The way in which the discretion would be exercised in this regard—on the basis of past experience—is likely to differ widely between one bench and another. In respect of road traffic offences the Magistrates Association has felt it necessary for many years to issue guidelines to assist in the imposition of penalties, and discrepancies in the grant of party and party costs in summary cases give rise to similar problems. The allocation of another discretion in the respect of the allocation of points may lead in the same direction.
As I understand it, the position in respect of: "Failing to stop after accident" is that the number of points would be from five to nine; and for "Failing to give particulars or report an accident" the number of points would be from four to nine. When 12 points have been acquired during a period of three years, there is a risk of losing the licence, on the same basis, I understand, as the present totting-up system; that is, special mitigating circumstances would have to be established to avoid disqualification. Therefore, when an offender has already accumulated at least three points at the time of conviction for the relevant offences, a bench will in effect be considering whether, by the number of points they allocated, to put the offender in a position where the court is obliged to disqualify him unless there are special mitigating circumstances, or whether not to do so. Is there not just a possibility that some benches are likely to seek to avoid this position by allocating fewer points in respect of the offence than perhaps they might otherwise have done?
The risk, where a defendant has accumulated at least three points already, that on conviction a bench may allocate a high number of points, thus putting the defendant in a position where he must in the absence of special circumstances be disqualified, and the uncertainty in this regard, is going to lead defendants to contest cases where they would not otherwise do so. This is going to lead to a waste of court time, and in some instances to increased cost to the legal aid system. I believe the discretion to vary the number of points will inject a new issue into these cases. I believe this will lead to much longer speeches in mitigation in our courts, and much more time will have to be spent by benches in considering such issues, thus delaying the work of the court.
I checked this morning with my own justices' clerk, and in our City of Peterborough the bench has 18 sittings a week. Fifty per cent. of the cases they hear, in number, are motoring cases with pleas of guilty,

259
and these are dealt with normally at one session. I believe they are normally referred to as "the cash and carry department". Now, under the system proposed, all these cases are likely to be contested, and the court will then be overloaded. I believe it will also lead to more appeals to the Crown Court, since presumably such an appeal will have to lie against the decision to allocate a particular number of points. The costs will be increased, and there will also be the additional cost to the legal aid fund.
I have great faith in our magistrates, and I believe that a bench, if it is properly fulfilling its public duty in respect of graver offences of this kind, which frequently involve a driver deliberately removing himself from the scene in order to avoid a drink/driving situation, should use their powers to disqualify on the merits of the offence; and I believe that most of them would. My Lords, we are no doubt going to spend a lot of time on Part IV and Schedule 7 in the coming weeks, before the Bill leaves this House and I hope the Minister will bear in mind the points I have raised today.
6.24 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, although I should like to say that I am sorry she is not within arm's length of the Dispatch Box any more. I am not going to talk about alcoholism, or drinking and driving, but I will say just this. I was first a magistrate 25 years ago, before all these laws were in force and when it was part of the law of the country that anyone found to have more than the permitted amount of alcohol in their blood when they were driving (though it was not established what the permitted amount was) was automatically sent to prison; and I remember very well several people having to go downstairs without being able to go home again. Having said that, I welcome this Bill, and I am most grateful to the Minister for putting such a very difficult Bill so briefly and in such an interesting way that we could all understand.
Time is getting on. I will not take up much of your Lordships' time, and all my comments will he on Part IV except those dealing with road humps, which I think are provided for in Part V. Clause 19 and Schedule 7 set up the points system, which I welcome very sincerely. For many years magistrates in this country have been criticised by the press, and by people who have no knowledge of the way the system works in our courts, for not being fair, for having given one fine in one court and a completely different fine in another. This points system (although, like other speakers, I do not think the number of points allocated are quite right) is, I am quite certain, a very much fairer basis upon which to judge the infringements of the road traffic laws that come before the courts.
Personally, I think that when we finally decide on the number of points they must be adhered to rigidly. I do not think there should be any room for manoeuvre, and then it will he seen that it is fair and just throughout the length and breadth of the country. The courts will still have the powers to impose different fines for different types of offence, or should I say different parts of an offence. None of the work done by a
260
magistrates' bench now will be taken away from them. I am interested to notice that mitigating circumstances will still be able to be taken into account. I had a feeling they were going to go completely, and I am glad that is not so because in my experience there are occasionally mitigating circumstances. They are few and far between, but I think it is essential that it should be part of a court's prerogative to consider mitigating circumstances.
Clause 23, in Part IV, stands out to me as being by far the most important in this part of the Bill, in that it deals with motor-cyclists. When one realises that the total number of casualties in the 12 months ending last September reached 66,700, which was an increase of 7 per cent., whereas in the case of mopeds, with their very much smaller engines, the increase was of only 2 per cent., one realises what an enormous problem it is to which one has to find a solution. I therefore welcome very sincerely the Government's idea of the learner-driver being allowed to drive only a 125 cc motor-cycle until he has passed his test. As other speakers have said, the motor-cyclists in this country are nearly always young people. They are people who have no experience of driving on our roads before they get on their motor-bikes, and in my view they therefore need a great deal of tuition—more, probably, than the more adult person driving a motor-car.
I therefore welcome these two stages of the test. I am sorry it is not going to be compulsory, but I presume that is because we have not got enough training centres, although the RAC have 300 training centres, as the noble Lord pointed out before, and they reckon that 28,000 young people go through those training centres each year. But when it is estimated that 200,000 new motor-cyclists come onto our roads each year, then the 28,000 which go through those particular training centres are not a very large number. That is especially so when I gather that the trainers at these training centres are voluntary—people with a vast experience of driving motor-cycles but who, in the main, are not paid; and even some of those who adjudicate on tests are not paid. Therefore, there is great scope for asking for volunteers to help to ensure that these young people are thoroughly trained.
In my view, nobody can actually train somebody else in good manners on the road; yet I believe, as a long-seasoned motorist, that without good manners accidents are bound to occur. Another thing is that to prevent accidents motor-cyclists must be seen. Too often on our roads, especially in the highly built-up areas or on the main M-roads and the A-roads with three lanes of traffic, motor-cyclists are weaving from one side to another and unless they are seen motorists, if they are a little inexperienced, are likely to pull out into another lane of traffic or to impede the motorcyclists in some way because the motor-cyclists cannot be seen. Although lights on motor-cycles by day are used far more frequently than they used to be—and I am delighted that they are—I should like to see them made compulsory. I wrote to the Transport Ministry about this a year or two ago and they said that they thought that brightly coloured clothing would be sufficient. What is brightly coloured clothing? It is certainly not a strip of green ribbon passed from one shoulder to the hip. No motorist, or few motorists,

261
can see that. I welcome this part of the Bill very sincerely.
Clause 27 deals with seat belts for children. Seat belts for adults is at the moment not part of this Bill although I understand there will be an amendment at Committee stage. I feel—and I hope that without undue offence I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, so—that we have discussed this five times to my knowledge in this House and it has been thrown out every time. Therefore, with respect, I would not think he is correct in saying, as I understand him to say, that the great majority of this House would agree with the compulsory wearing of seat belts.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I would remind her that in December there was a vote on the Second Reading of my Private Bill making seat belts compulsory which was two to one in favour of the Bill.
Baroness MacLeod of Borve: My Lords, yes, but it did not get very far. It was two to one on Second Reading, was it?
Lord Nugent of Guildford: Yes.
Baroness MacLeod of Borve: My Lords, I stand corrected. Well, four times instead, of five times, we have thrown it out of this House. But I welcome, in a way, the intention to restrain children in cars, although personally I think it would be very much better if, as the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, said, one kept children under 13 in the back of cars. Children cannot visualise an accident coming because they have no knowledge; whereas adults can do so. That is one of the reasons why consistently I have voted for no compulsion over seat belts for adults. I think that perhaps if the Government still think children under 14 could be in a front seat of a car—although I do not think I have ever known of any; certainly not in my own family—they should be restrained. I take the point that with many children going on school runs there might be difficulties in the country districts where they might have to go, at vast expense with petrol as it is, and therefore they take as many children as they can. It is difficult then to retain empty seats in the front of the vehicle. I shall be interested to see the Minister's new clause on this.
Clause 30 and Schedule 10, dealing with road humps, was discussed in this House before Christmas. I think we might take the liberty of patting ourselves on the back because it was entirely as a result of the deliberations in this House that the idea of ditches as well as that of humps has now been dropped. It was the ditches that I personally thought were particularly dangerous. I could not possibly have voted for that part of the Bill if ditches had been agreed to. We understand from the Bill that they will be constructed only on roads with speed limits of up to 30 mph. In my view, there must still be signs and those must be lit and also the humps must be lit, as the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, has said. Otherwise, they might cause still more accidents when they are designed to reduce speed and improve safety.
I welcome also the new Section 90C(2) to be inserted in the Highways Act 1980, under which it is going to
262
be mandatory to publish in the local press where the humps are suggested to be located. Unless the local people have a method of going to the local council or the Ministry to remonstrate with them or perhaps to encourage them, I can see them popping up everywhere, except that as we heard in the debate before Christmas, they are very expensive to construct. With those few remarks, I wish the Bill a speedy passage and I hope that we shall have plenty of time to consider it further on Committee.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord introducing this Bill was conscious of the fact that he had got rather a cumbersome Bill in two separate and quite distinct parts to bring before the House. I think the Government lost a good opportunity of using their imagination on the subject of road safety. If we include compulsory seat belts in this Bill, how do you sell that idea under the prosaic title of "Transport Bill"? Where is the imagination here to catch and engage public attention on a matter of vital importance to all of them? The first part of the Bill again shows how commonplace the Government thinking is. It talks about privatisation. What sort of policy is privatisation? Who understands what it is? It sounds a bit intimate in some sort of way, privatisation, when what they are thinking about is dismantling, reshaping, or transferring from institutional life to a more dogmatic enterprise. You can really describe it how you like from your own point of view.
But I think it is time we had a Road Safety Bill and then we could devote ourselves to it in a different spirit from having a twin-screw Bill like this where we shall be probably acutely divided politically on Parts 1 to 3 inclusive, although opinions may differ on that. But it will not be so close to the public interest as the remainder of the Bill. So I will skip all the Bill up to Clause 19. This is where the public interest is going to lie. It affects the public more closely than anything else in the Bill. Nationalisers, and anti-nationalisers and Left and Right and business interests and business management can all come into the first part of the Bill. But that is a long way from whether you get away with drink and driving or have to wear a seat belt, or even stop at a hump because otherwise you break the back axle of your car.
When we come to Part IV of the Bill we find it is headed "Road Safety". What we are dealing with in this Part of the Bill is road safety law breakers. We are dealing with the delinguencies of road safety. It seems to me to be a pity that something more imaginative has not been used in describing even this part of the Bill. My noble friend Lady Stedman has criticised the points system which is in Clause 19. There is no doubt that there is a packet of trouble there. On the face of it, it seems to me like classroom stuff. Something to do, in the public mind, with points for council houses. If ever the papers of the magistrates' court get mixed up with the papers of the housing department, somebody will find that instead of being disqualified he is offered a council house! One can see all sorts of administrative confusions in certain circumstances.
On the whole, we are too lenient about breaking the law on safety matters. This after all is life and death.

263
Injury, long incapacity, bereavement, costly illnesses, loss of work—these are human tragedies that can be built up on the failure of some people to observe the rules about safety on the roads; and they are horrifying. If we are going to have a points system for motoring offences, why not one then for burglars, thieves and pickpockets? How deep in the pocket did they go? How much did they take? Should they be given another lease of freedom in order to see whether they commit the same offence again? The whole atmosphere of motoring offences seems to be: "These are the things that people do. They are widespread".
In the motoring field there is the greatest number of law breakers in the land. There are few people who can put their hands on their hearts and say, "I have never broken the traffic laws". There seems to be some excuse available to those who commit offences which some people do not regard as particularly serious. On drink and driving, for example—indeed, on other offences—while not wishing to say a single word against the integrity of magistrates generally, there is no doubt that some benches of magistrates are corrupted by the well-known philosophical reflection: "There but for the grace of God, go I." We are all familiar with this. The points system seems to suggest that another piece of philosophy shall come into our reckoning on motoring offences. "To every dog the first bite." Only when it comes round a second or a third time do you have to take it seriously.
My particular concern about this Bill is that it does nothing really to strengthen the laws about drink and driving. This problem of how to deal with drink and driving has been before us for 16 years. It started during the office of the Labour Government in 1965. I was chairman of the Home Affairs Committee and chairman of the Transport Policy Committee of the Labour Cabinet at that time. We brought before the Government of the day our proposals for the random test as a means of curbing the tendency to excessive drinking when driving. It was the longest discussion in the Cabinet that I remembered in my time. Eventually, we decided—though with some dissent—to back the random test. I know that there were criticisms to be levelled against it. One was that under the random test a policeman might stop the President of the Band of Hope Union who would be highly indignant at having to give a specimen, and this would be regarded as a gross infringement of the liberty of the person. One acknowledges that.
But I ask noble Lords: "What for a policeman in uniform are reasonable grounds to suspect so that he can exercise his rights under this Bill?" Does "reasonable grounds to suspect" mean that he can go round the car parks of the pubs and pick up motorists as they drive away at closing time and say "I have reasonable grounds for suspecting that you have been drinking. Give me a specimen"? At the time of the selective test, the idea that the police should stand around the public house car parks was ruled out as ruinous to the business of licensed premises and also as a most unfair surveillance of the weaknesses of human nature in regard to those coming out of the pubs last thing at night.
Under this Bill, will policemen have reasonable grounds to suspect if they stand opposite public houses
264
with notebooks and take the numbers of motor-cars and watch for people coming to claim them? Is that how it is going to work? What else are going to be reasonable grounds to suspect, unless a policeman sees a car lurching from one side of the road to the other or it' it hits a bollard or there is some other moving car offence for which a policeman can stop a motorist?
This is why the selective test has failed over the years. We have had it for 16 years and I believe now is the opportunity to take a firm decision to last for some time to come as to what Parliament will do on this subject. That is why I think it is much more suitable to a road safety Bill than to this prosaic title "Transport Bill". This is really of vital importance not only from the point of view of safety but also from the point of view of interference with what many people regard as the liberty of the individual.
Some liberties have to be curbed some day. The liberty to kill and maim even oneself has to be curbed one day. The motor-car is a lethal instrument which is regarded as the right of everybody to own. It is more dangerous than the gun in the United States. I feel that we have a crucial decision to take on this issue and on this Bill. Probably noble Lords are asking: "Why was it that although the Labour Government decided on the random test they did not introduce it in 1966?" The answer is that we had a change of the Minister of Transport who did not like it and, in any case, our legislative programme was very crowded after the general election of 1966.
It was feared that not only would we have the motoring organisations against us, but also many of our own supporters, too. On the motoring organisations, one has to look at the question of what is the basis upon which they express opinions. To what extent is the democratic voice of the members of the AA and the RAC reflected in the decisions of their ruling body? They are not democratic bodies at all and we have to beware of regarding them as if they are. That is not to say that their advice should he disregarded. Many of us have received a very informative paper from the RAC on the scope of this Bill.
I think that it is very difficult indeed for us to get our values straight. When I think of how we regard drink and driving and motoring offences on the one hand while on the other hand we employ the police to hunt, search and enter in order to find drugs and accuse young people of being drug addicts, it seems to me that there would be much more sense in their going into the pub car parks to see what their parents have been up to. It is a matter of what you get used to. If you are used to killing people on the roads, you will go on killing people on the roads.
There was a very striking television programme the other day. I caught a snippet towards the end of it, and it seemed to suggest that if there was a disaster on every airport in Britain once a week, if there was a railway crash every two or three weeks and if there was a great disaster that befell the nation week after week, there would be an outcry. Yet none of them would account for the number of casualties that occur on the roads today. Northern Ireland was mentioned in this context. Even with the position in Northern Ireland as horrifying as it is, the death roll on the

265
roads there is still, I understand, greater than the horrifying mutilation and murder that is going on as a result of political differences. I hope that we shall have an opportunity for going into this and deciding upon it.
On seat belts, I firmly believe that the judgment of this House in the public interest is probably worth more than the judgment of Members of another place, because we can look at it more objectively than they can. They have to bother with votes and we do not; and there is no doubt that having to bother with votes clouds the judgment a great deal more than many people would acknowledge. So it may be with drink and driving. At least we can express ourselves as we feel on these matters and let the other place reach a judgment of its own, having regard to the electoral and representative responsibilities of its Members. So I sincerely hope that we shall not lack courage in doing that.
I have two final points. When are we going to stop motorists, lorry drivers and van drivers running on to pedestrian pavements in order to park and escape the conditions of the yellow lines? One can be walking along the pavement and see to one's consternation a lorry coming towards one. What chance does a blind person stand? People with impaired hearing probably do not hear what is coming upon them. They run up and often stay there for quite a long time, as if it was an acknowledged and authorised parking place.
On motor cycles, I think we really do have to be tough. They are the noisiest, most dangerous things on the road and probably more motor cyclists are killing themselves than they are killing others. But that is the tragedy, because motor cycling is to a large extent the adventure of the young and we all know that youth can be impetuous, impulsive, courageous and reckless. I think something has to be done to take better care of the motor cyclist.
There it is, my Lords. As my noble friends have just been saying, we are going to have some interesting times on the Committee stage. I am certain that we have to have a mix, a controversy, with earnest consideration and with no political content—and no holds barred, for that matter, either—on these matters of public safety on the road.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I shall not attempt to follow the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in his witty, amusing but also serious harangue. It was very enjoyable. I shall be extremely brief. Like all other noble Lords, I warmly thank my noble friend the Minister for explaining so well all the details of this long Bill. Happily, there is nothing for me to say on road passenger transport matters. That is a great relief, because that industry had enough on its plate last time to last it a lifetime. There is, however, a clause dealing with the taxi-drivers and here I agree with my noble friend Lord Lucas it is disappointing that we do not go further on that aspect.
Regarding Part I of the Bill, I agree it is right that the British Railways Board should be able to sell their subsidiaries if they so wish. In the long run it must be beneficial for them to be able to take advantage of private investment and, in turn, for the British Railways Board to concentrate on its prime function, which is
266
to convey people and to carry freight. In spite of all sorts of delays and irritations we might receive by travelling on British Railways, we must congratulate them on being competitive and making attractive offers for us to travel. I have recently taken advantage of one of them by purchasing a family rail card. Not only does it benefit families financially but it should also take many motor cars off our extremely congested roads.
Turning to the part of the Bill dealing with road safety, this is a subject in which almost everyone purports to be an expert, either as driver, passenger or pedestrian. The whole House, with few exceptions, has expressed admiration to the Government for introducing many of the road safety provisions in the Bill. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that, as Members of this House, we should be able to vote on these matters in Committee according to our own personal consideration and not necessarily according to party lines—provided that we have listened to the whole argument on the amendments concerned.
I will not delay the House by discussing what is in the Bill. There will be plenty of time to do so in Committee, and if I did so now I should be repetitive; but I should like to mention just one or two other points which are not there. First, I should like to consider the collection of penalties for road offences. While appreciating some underlying difficulties, it would again take too long at this time to develop the argument, but I do not see why we should not look into the system practised in other countries regarding the payment of on-the-spot fines. That would surely save considerable delay and also much work for our overworked courts and other authorities.
The other point I should like to raise is parking on roads. I would say it is relevant because it relates to transport and also to road safety, and parking in certain areas contributes to obstruction and congestion. I believe there is one area in which we should be able to express our views; we should be aware of and condemn the abuse of drivers who dispose of their parking tickets and hope that they will be forgotten. Much time and money is spent by authorities in tracing the drivers concerned.
In this connection I should like to tell your Lordships a little story which outlines this particular point. Recently I was standing at a bus stop in Fleet Street on my way here when—first, enter car and driver; driver parks on a double yellow line; driver exits. Thirty seconds later, enter warden; warden writes out a parking ticket and places it on the windscreen; exit warden. Sixty seconds later, re-enter driver, who removes the ticket and places same in a dustbin with summary contempt. Exit car and driver. It is an absurd situation and it is one that must occur frequently. Surely we could devise some method whereby a driver could pay his fine straight away, either directly to the warden or to the Post Office. If the authorities have to trace and remind a driver who has abused the system, then they could impose a substantial handling charge for doing so.
I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government are satisfied that visitors to this country have every opportunity of acquainting themselves with our driving laws. Is the Highway Code available for

267
purchase at airports and seaports, and is it translated into a number of foreign languages? If not, then it is essential for that to be done, especially as—apart from Siam—this is the only country that still drives on the left. Therefore, visitors must be made very much more familiar. These people are quite often culprits, who do not pay fines. They hire cars from private companies and then get into their aeroplanes and forget all about what has happened. I have been only six minutes, but I look forward to the Committee stage and hope that we shall have masses of time.
7.1 p.m.
Lord de Clifford: My Lords, I should like to apologise to the House for not being in my place earlier on. I should particularly like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. Some distance away, I was exercising my inalienable right to vote, which was a greater pleasure because I did not have a Whip standing by my shoulder telling me how to vote.
I have very little to say about this Bill, except that I would echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. This Bill could well have been split into two halves. We should have had a Road Transport Bill or a Road Safety Bill, which a noble Lord suggested is the correct phraseology, and Part I should have been completely separate. People like myself have small knowledge of what goes on at the back of British Rail, and we suffer some of the rather peculiar things which occur when we travel with them. But I feel that one should agree that British Rail run a railway. They do not run laundries or hotels. Their business is to run a railway for the benefit of the user. That is all I wish to say on that part of the Bill.
To come to the road part of the Bill, I get the feeling that we are forgetting what we are trying to do. What we should be trying to do is to shake off this awful feeling that accidents and deaths on the road are inevitable. We have to start again in the depths of our thinking. Where do we stop death occuring on the road? All the propositions about seat belts and everything else are merely to mitigate what we are admitting, which is that we must have deaths on the road. I am not prepared to admit that that is so. If we could pass enforceable laws-and it all comes back to the word "enforceable"—we could get very much further.
There is a proposition in this Bill about children's seat belts. I have not discovered to my satisfaction whether they are to save children from injury or to stop accidents happening, because of naughty children. I have seen children climbing about and annoying their mothers and fathers, and have wondered why the car did not drive over the bank. I have also seen enormous dogs loose in cars. Why should you tie up a child, when you do not have to tie up or restrain a dog? It is a most unpleasing thing to be hit in the back of the neck by a boxer, when you suddenly have to apply the brakes. No seat belt would help, because he would just be on the back of your neck and your head would be on the wheel. It is unbelievable that we can concentrate on children, when we do not concentrate on the carriage of dogs. I have always believed that a dog should he securely tied or confined in the rear of
268
the car so that, in no circumstances, could he interfere with the driver.
Another thing which annoys me, when I am waiting at traffic lights, is seeing a small dog sitting on his owner's lap when she is driving. It is unbelievable that we should allow that kind of thing, yet at the same time spend hours in discussing children and seat belts. I shall not go into the compulsory wearing of seat belts. I think your Lordships know that I am not in favour of seat belts. What I shall ask your Lordships to do all the way through the passage of this Bill is to look at it from the viewpoint that we stop accidents, so that people are not damaged. We should not pass laws which the police cannot enforce or can enforce only when something happens. That is all I shall say.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, at this stage of the Bill, I intend to be as brief as possible, after joining in the protests which have come from all sides of the House about the length of this Bill and the fact that it is a mixture of two matters. I agree it is a pity that, as the noble Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord de Clifford, said, we do not have a separate Bill dealing with road safety.
It is as well to remember that road safety is not only about the driver and, perhaps, his vehicle. It is also about the road itself, the Highway Code and so on, which have been the subject of Road Safety Bills which we have discussed in this House, over and over again, during the last 20 years. I also feel it is a pity that the other place has left us with such an enormous job of work to do. It will be a very long job, if one puts together all the points that have been made in this debate.
In general, I support the plans in respect of British Rail. On the British Transport Docks Board I defer to my noble friend Lord Lucas on the points that he raised. I am only sorry that, as I have to catch a train tonight, I may not be here to hear Lord Bellwin's replies to his questions. So far as British Rail is concerned, I only hope that these measures will lead to a regeneration of the public spirit in the staff of the railways, particularly at the lower end, in the operation of the system. May the day come again when they recognise that the travelling public are their customers, not just a lot of people who, by wishing to travel by train, are rather a nuisance, which is the impression I sometimes get from station staffs. I am a regular traveller by train and I am a great respecter of British Rail, so my criticisms are meant only to be constructive. To one who remembers the old days of company management, it is a sadness that the old spirit will be difficult to regenerate.
As for those parts of the Bill which affect this matter, I was impressed by the opinion expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon: that any proceeds from the sale of railway property should inevitably be ploughed back into the railways. It is a point which we can repeat again and again. The railways need the money. I begrudge every pound that they spend on planning the Channel tunnel. I believe it was the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, who pointed out that if only they would electrify the whole of the railway system they would not only consume large quantities of steel

269
(which I see Mr. MacGregor is worried about as a possible outlet for building the Channel Tunnel) but they would provide jobs, widespread jobs which every part of the country needs. Such jobs would be provided if a major railway reconstruction could be put in hand. In other words, what about electrification?
Apart from providing jobs and consuming steel, electrification has been proved to result in a saving of fossil fuel. There is plenty of work to be done upon replacing the existing rolling stock and the existing motive power. It seems to me that if their equipment was right up to date it would be easier to inject the improved spirit which I look for into the railways of the future.
I feel, too, that the shabby state of some of our remoter railway stations stems from restrictive practices in the unions. I live in the country. I look back to the days when there were station competitions. The station gardens glowed with flowers, the palings were painted and the loos worked. A lot could be done if the same spirit could be instilled into the men and if the unions were to agree to the removal of restrictive practices.
May I now turn to Part IV of the Bill which deals with road safety. We have heard a great deal about motor-cyclists. I first rode a motor-cycle at the age of 14. The motor-bike which I rode then belonged to a young officer who was courting a sister of mine. The "beastly boy" got the young officer to lend his motor-bike to him to get him out of the way. After that, I had many motor-bikes. Those of us who are or who have been motor-cyclists and who are keen on them are utterly horrified by the pace at which these beautiful machines now go. They ought not to be permitted on the road. I liked the idea put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, that the lights on motor-bikes should always be switched on.
Two other points have been mentioned to me. The first is the question of eyesight. Because of the speed at which these boys go, we should be sure that their eyesight has been properly tested before they are given even a provisional licence. Secondly, may I mention a rather curious point which has been put to me. I come from the North. I have been asked whether their clothing is always adequate; whether cold, particularly about the head and the ears, may affect their judgment of speed. But that is another matter.
As for the intention of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford to move an amendment to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory, I shall support him, as I have done on previous occasions—indeed, to such an extent that if he should fall by the wayside I would pick him up, and his amendment with him. There has been a lot of misunderstanding over this issue. It is absolutely logical that the House should accept this proposal. It was decided in the 1960s that all motor vehicles manufactured in Britain should be fitted with secure anchorages for seat belts. When the Road Traffic Bill of 1974 was debated in this House, the clause making the wearing of seat belts compulsory was carried by 66 votes to 55 without very much trouble. Although admittedly there were one or two occasions when, by a narrow margin, the idea was
270
turned down, we did, by two to one, decide in favour of Lord Nugent's Bill not so very long ago.
Turning to Clause 27 which deals with the compulsory wearing of seat belts by children, may I ask my noble friend Lord Bellwin whether or not I am right in thinking that he said that the Government are going to recast it, anyway? If I am right, it is no use speaking about it at Second Reading; it will be considered at the Committee stage. I do not know whether noble Lords heard on the BBC radio this morning about the tests which are being carried out by the TRRL. A question which was asked was: who will be able to tell the difference between a child of 13 and a child of 14? They will be of different sizes, and it is possible that no size will fit a seat belt which is adequate for a grown-up. There are many complications, but we can leave the question because, as I said, I think that my noble friend is going to get the Government to recast Clause 27 at the Committee stage.
If I may return to motor-cyclists, I am horrified not only by the ghastly loss of life among motor-cyclists themselves but also by the loss of life to the people they kill. People are also knocked down and injured in the most dreadful way. And some people are not physically injured: a motor-cyclist crashing into the front of a car can upset people for life, because the boy may be thrown clean over the car and killed. That again is a Committee point.
If I may turn to drink and driving, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, spoke about what happened in the 1960s. We debated in this House at great length the question of random tests. I remember it very well. Lord Stonham and Lord Lindgren were the two people on the Front Bench. The matter was gone into very thoroughly. It might be worth having a look at what was said then.
I come now to my chief point. It relates to Clause 30 and Schedule 10 which deal with road humps. Perhaps we can embellish this point in Committee. I have already started, with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, a plan which we hope will result in certain amendments being put down at the Committee stage. Your Lordships will remember that the noble Earl introduced a Bill some time ago on this point and that it had gone through the other place.
If I may turn to the differences between England, Wales and Scotland, line 37 on page 79 of the Bill contains the word "especially". This matter is to be left to the Secretary of State for Scotland. If he is especially keen on road humps, they may be made available. As a patron of the Pedestrians' Association I should like the principle to be established that one function of road humps in a residential area is to facilitate pedestrian crossings, especially for,
"pedestrians with prams or shopping trolleys since the difficulty of negotiating the kerb is removed".
I have just quoted from a report which I found in the Library. It has been there since 1979. It is the report of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, No. 878, on "Speed control humps on residential roads". I have been to the Printed Paper Office and they are going to try to get a number of copies so that they will be available to noble Lords when we reach the Committee stage. It is quite fascinating because there are all sorts of designs. My recollection from reading it is that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod

271
of Borve, was wrong in saying that they are terribly expensive. If they are of a recognised and accepted design, they ought not to be very expensive. As for seeing them, the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, spoke about being able to see the humps, and it is interesting to see that they have various proposals in this report as to how they are to be made white. One of them includes the introduction of tiny glass globules so that they are visible with any light in the dark. This will contribute not only to the safety of the pedestrian but it will also save the motor-car and the motorist from injury by hitting the hump. This is well worth looking at, and I hope there will be plenty of copies by the time we get to Committee stage.
It must be remembered that pressures of traffic on through roads are increasing the tendency of drivers to take evasive action, as it were, by nipping along side roads and I think that point also was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Denington. One cannot blame the drivers, but the fact is that it is most unpleasant for residential areas, and this point also is brought out in the pamphlet.
My Lords, it is important that Mr. and Mrs. "Walker" are properly represented on councils and on consultative bodies which have to deal with these matters. I should like to make the point that provision should be made somewhere to ensure that pedestrians' representatives are included in any advisory councils which are set up to help to advise in regard to road humps.
It only remains for me to refer to the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, to parking on pavements. I cannot agree more with him, particularly from the pedestrians' point of view. It is something that the pedestrian's association have been dealing with and it is one of the problems of mothers with prams. There may be a lorry halfway across the pavement and the mother has to go into the street in order to get the pram past it. I think it might be wise to consider some provision about that. Indeed, that would have been a proper matter to have been in a road safety Bill rather than in the Bill which we are discussing today. I hope that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading and that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, will forgive me if I am not in my seat when he winds up because I have to resume my customary travel with British Rail.
7.25 p.m.
Earl Fortescue: My Lords, I welcome Part IV of this Bill and agree with most of it. I speak as a magistrate and I know that the Magistrates Association agrees with most of what I have to say on Part IV. My first point concerns the proposed totting-up procedure contained in Clause 19 and Schedule 7 of the Bill. Other speakers have already touched on this new procedure and I should like to go into it in a little more detail. This is intended to be fairer and more finely tuned than the present totting up procedure and I think that would certainly be so if courts had some discretion as to the number of points to be awarded for the more serious offences. The gravity of such cases can and does vary enormously.
May I take one example, that or careless driving. I would ask your Lordships to consider the case of a
272
driver attempting to negotiate a left-hand bend at too high a speed; he loses control, the car skids across the road and ends up in the offside ditch, having possibly struck an oncoming vehicle in the process. I submit that is a serious case of careless driving. A far less serious case of careless driving occurs when one car just touches another when being extricated from a car park. The car is being driven slowly and the damage to the other car amounts to a small dent or the loss of a little paint. I would ask your Lordships to envisage the car park here by the Peers Entrance when there is a large attendance in your Lordships' House. Many of your Lordships' cars bear minor blemishes and I am sure that all will agree that these two cases do not merit the same number of penalty points.
Similarly for the offence of driving uninsured against third party risks. There are serious cases, as where a driver deliberately drives without insurance cover to save himself the expense, which can be very considerable, particularly if he is young and the car is of high performance. A much less serious case occurs when a driver has asked an agent for insurance cover, and without the driver noticing the insurance company issues a certificate to cover the policyholder only or it excludes drivers under 25 years of age. Very often the driver first knows of these limitations to his cover when they are pointed out to him by the police. Again I suggest that these two cases do not merit the same number of points.
When this Bill was first introduced into another place it was intended that courts should have no discretion to vary the number of points awarded for any one offence. However, during its progress through the other place the Bill was amended to give courts some discretion in the cases of failing to stop after an accident and failing to report an accident. The Government have therefore agreed to the principle of giving the courts a degree of discretion in these cases, and I would strongly urge that this discretion is extended to cases of careless driving and driving while uninsured.
On another point, it is a pity that the law relating to the offence of driving without a licence has not been tidied up. A person who has failed to renew a provisional driving licence cannot be charged with failing to comply with a provisional driving licence if he drives unaccompanied or without L-plates; he is simply guilty of driving without a licence. A person who drives a class of vehicle which he is too young to drive can no longer be charged with driving under age because this offence was (I think accidentally) abolished by the Road Traffic Act 1976. I submit that this offence should be reintroduced.
A new flaw will be created by this Bill as it stands under Clause 23. If a motor-cyclist fails to pass his test within two years and persists in driving, he cannot be charged with the offence of failing to comply with the conditions of a provisional licence if he drives without L-plates or if he carries a pillion passenger, but only with driving without a licence. I would ask the Minister whether these anomalies can he rectified in this Bill, or, if not, in the next Road Traffic Bill, which I believe to be long overdue.
There is one final point which I believe should certainly he included in Part IV of the bill. Certain of the more serious road traffic offences must be or may he tried by the Crown Court. At present the

273
Crown Court has not got the power to deal with summary offences, although they may be part of the same incident. An example is an incident involving reckless driving coupled with driving with excess alcohol. The Crown Court deals with the former offence, but the latter offence has to be heard later in a magistrates' court. This adds to the delay and adds to the waste of court time. Surely it is only reasonable and sensible that the Crown Court should be able to deal with both charges on the same occasion.
My Lords, this Bill ranges over such a wide field that I think no apology is required for my final point. It costs the British motorist driving a family car from a Channel port to the South of France between £15 and £20 in tolls; that is, if he drives on the autoroutes. On the other hand, a foreign juggernaut driver can drive as many miles as he likes on our motorways without being asked to pay a penny. This is surely an injustice, and I fail to see how this situation complies with Common Market principles.
7.32 p.m.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, there are several points I should like to mention regarding Clause 27. I spoke on this subject fairly fully only a few months ago when the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, had its Second Reading, and I will try not to repeat what I said then. But one thing I must repeat: if you are going to make any wearing of seat belts compulsory you must ensure that the release mechanism is both very simple and identical for all cars registered in Britain, and this must be done before compulsion is introduced, not after.
Next, as regards design, other noble Lords have mentioned the tests done by the British Standards Institution and commissioned by the Sunday Times. The inescapable conclusion is that seat belts for children must be different from adult ones, both as regards design and size. The size would have to alter continually or to be adjustable, as children do not stay the same size from the age of one until they are 13. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, implied, 13 year-olds, or indeed children of any age, can vary very greatly in size. Then again the same child may not always be in the front seat. The Motor Industry Research Association have developed a computer programme to determine seat belt fixing positions, to determine ideals for various sizes and shapes of people. I certainly think that before doing anything further about seat belts, for children or adults, we should wait until there is a generally acceptable fixing matrix available.
Now I come to what is to me the crux of the matter. This clause seems to me to have been dreamt up for what I call the cornflake packet family, mother and father and two children. What happens to the family with four or five children or more? They do exist, and their parents cannot usually afford vast limousines or a minibus to ferry them about from A to B. They cannot always use public transport. Many places in this country have inadequate bus services and many have none at all; or people may live a very long way from the bus service. As the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, said, in the country it is very often necessary to take the children by car. Country families
274
have to use cars to do essential shopping for food and so forth, and very few have anyone to leave the children with while they do so. Indeed, if they had anyone to leave the children with they might have to take the children by car to the person they were going to leave them with, if your Lordships see what I mean. It is, quite rightly, against the law to leave children under 16 alone in the house without older supervision. I should have thought the dangers to the children of doing that greatly exceeded the risks of packing them all into the car. But if this clause becomes law parents could be faced with the dilemma of perhaps having to break the law in one way or in another. Even if one does not have five children of one's own one may have those of relations or friends in addition to one's own. I myself have frequently driven such carloads to and from school and elsewhere.
Then it is to be illegal for a baby under one year old to travel in the front seat at all. So the baby has to go in the back, possibly unattended, while its mother drives with her eye sometimes on the road but frequently turning her head, her mind mostly on what may be going on behind her. That is not, I think, conducive to good or safe driving. If other children are in the back too, trouble can easily start, because not all children are little angels. I would prefer to have a situation where the baby could be in the front seat of the car, provided it was in a carrycot strapped into the front seat or in an approved type of safety harness.
I could go on for ages producing examples of how real life is lived, but I shall not do so. Of course there are dangers in taking children by car. There were dangers in taking children by horsedrawn carriage or cart. Life is dangerous and no amount of Acts of Parliament will ever make it quite safe. For one danger you can very easily substitute another. Most people are very careful with their children if they know how to be. It is those who are not whom we hear about and they will disregard Acts of Parliament anyway. I think it is time that the Government contented themselves with advising people on road safety, encouraging research into better seat belt design for both children and adults, and trying to improve standards of driving, instead of acting like nanny—a nasty nanny making endless rules and regulations and punishing ordinary decent people for not obeying orders which may be difficult or even impossible to obey.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, because I agree so much with what she has had to say. We will come to that later. I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Bellwin, as so many have, for introducing the Bill so skilfully. I am sorry he is not here to hear me say that. There is one point that I think noble Lords opposite made rather an issue of. They spoke of the Bill being one which has many sections and parts in it and covering a wide range. I do not see why we should get fussed about that. We have many Bills like that. Not very long ago my noble friend Lord Bellwin took through a Local Government Bill which also covered a very wide range of subjects, and at the end everybody congratulated him on it. So I do not think that that is an important issue.

275
There are four matters that I should like to deal with. I shall deal with a couple of them fairly lengthily and a couple of them very briefly. My first point concerns the implications in Clause 2 for the Isle of Wight. My noble friend Lord Bellwin, when he comes to read what I have said, will be reminded that I always have a plug for the Isle of Wight and in this case I should like to express support, in the first instance, for the Member for the Isle of Wight, Mr. Stephen Ross, in respect of his statements on Second Reading in another place on 13th January, in columns 1277 and 1278, and in particular what he had to say in relation to Sealink, I have two hopes about the possibility of Sealink returning to private ownership. I say "returning" because, of course, for many years it was part of the Southern Railway. I also have two concerns.
My hopes are that Sealink, again in private ownership, will maintain the present sea services and, indeed, improve upon them. I would hope that, freed from the type of restraints that inevitably appear to happen to nationalised industries, they might find themselves able to operate more flexibly and altogether more with the aim of giving a direct service to people, with the aim of satisfying the customer. A basic feature of what private enterprise must do is to satisfy the customer.
My second hope is that the special problems of the Isle of Wight will be fully recognised as different in important respects from all the other routes operated by Sealink. I note from the debates in another place that there is no question of Sealink being sold off in hits, and in a sense that is a good thing. However, in another sense it may be that the specific difference of the Isle of Wight sea routes would better be served if it were sold off in bits. I have an open mind about that. The important point is that there are limitations on alternative services. We have no air routes such as those going across to Ireland and the Continent. There is only one other company service—Red Funnel—operating a steamer and hydrofoil service. Therefore, it is more important to us that we maintain the service we have, and I am hopeful that that will happen.
My two points of concern are, first, the question of the future organisation of services with the railway. Of course, as the Southern Railway it operated both the sea route and the railway. Memories of the past always tend to be brighter, but my memory was that in the pre-war days co-ordination of the sea passage and the railway passage was a great deal better than it is even now. Indeed, in recent weeks there have been two occasions on which there has been—I would say for bureaucratic reasons—a lack of co-ordination which has staggered those affected. The boat was on two separate recent occasions, with two different people involved, five minutes late in arriving from Yarmouth at Lymington, and when the passengers got as far as the train they saw it steaming out of the station. The boat was five minutes late; the overlap was only two minutes, and so it went. It reached Brockenhurst on time.
The argument was that it would be unfair on the people of Lymington town not to pick them up at the time at which they expected to be picked up. The train reached Brockenhurst and would have overlapped with the Bournemouth train that was stopping to meet it. Indeed, even if the Bournemouth train itself
276
had had to be delayed for two or three minutes that would hardly have mattered because it should have been able to make up the extra time between there and Southampton. This sort of thing did not happen in the Southern Railway days because there was a greater degree of flexibility and it was operated more as a service to the public by local people. However, it has happened now, because although they are operated by the same company the railway people are tied by their book and I suspect that they are ordered to follow written regulations because they are a great big bureaucracy. So that is the present situation which is bad.
What will happen when Sealink is a separate outfit—which in all sorts of other respects is better—is that over the years I feel there will be a tendency for even less consideration as between the two. Therefore, I would suggest to the Government that the better plan would be not just to sell off Sealink, but to sell off the Southern Railway—let us get back to 1930. That, to my mind, would be a better solution.
My second point of concern is the question of what is described in the Bill as the rights and liabilities applicable to the island and its opposite mainland, harbours and piers as listed in Clause 2(2)(a). At present Sealink adopts a somewhat autocratic stance towards the legitimate local island interests in respect of the harbours and piers from which it operates. It is to be hoped that, in private ownership—with greater flexibility, greater understanding of the needs of the customer and all those tremendous benefits that private ownership gives—there will be a greater understanding of the legitimate island worries as they occur. I hope that that will be the case, but I have a certain amount of concern that it might not he so. I hope that the Government and my noble friend on the Front Bench can give me some sort of a reassurance that there is some way in which those points of concern can be met.
I turn next to seat belts. I shall not talk for long on this matter except to say that once again I am dead against compulsory seat belts, but I shall reserve my arguments for the Committee stage. I am afraid that I do not wish my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford any success with his amendment at all.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mottistone: Hurray, my Lords—I hear, "Hear, hear!" from all round the Chamber.
The third matter that I should like to deal with is road humps. Again I shall reserve my remarks for the Committee stage, but suffice it to say that, whatever the Road Research Laboratory has to say, there is experience in Northern Ireland where they have road humps that drivers of light vehicles can very easily and quickly master them with special expertise and road humps do not trouble them at all. As for the heavy goods vehicles, they do not trouble them anyway. Therefore, it would probably be better—as is the case in some parts of London—to go for a width restricting apparatus so that we limit the width of the vehicles rather than try to bump them to disaster if they go too fast. I should be grateful if my noble friend would touch on that matter and say whether the Government have at least considered extending the width method rather than the hump method.
The final point that I wish to deal with relates to

277
the taxation in Clause 31. The change is welcomed in principle, but it is essential (and my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth touched upon this when he commented on the matter and I shall say a little more about it) to make provision for the carriage of light products in heavy goods vehicles. I am thinking of light products like cakes and biscuits. As your Lordships know, I have to declare an interest as being employed by the trade association which looks after the interests of cake and biscuit manufacturers. This is a matter of great importance. I am aware of extensive debate in another place on what is called a down-plating concession by which an operator could agree with the authorities that the load would not exceed a given weight which would be less than the nominal carrying weight of the vehicle, and have it marked accordingly.
At column 1322 of Hansard of another place, on 13th January, the Minister said that he saw the point, but that this would, in effect, be allowing lorry owners to choose their own weight for taxation and that there would be difficulties in enforcement. I suggest to your Lordships, and indeed to the Government, that lorry operators in any case do their own choosing by deciding on which lorry to buy. Under the Bill, if you buy the appropriate lorry you will get a different taxation. So they are already making that sort of decision. If it is wicked so to do, perhaps we could be told so. As to enforcement difficulties, these would be no more than those which are currently experienced of enforcing axle weight restrictions. That is all I think it is fair to burden your Lordships with at this stage. I shall look forward to joining in the Committee stage, particularly in trying to shoot down compulsory seat belts. In the meantime, I wish this Bill well because in general terms I think that it is an excellent advance towards giving people the service that only private enterprise can give.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I should like to join many of your Lordships in congratulating the Minister on the manner in which he introduced this Bill. As always, he addresses the House on these occasions with an attractive benignness which always wears the air of innocence, in such a way that it reminds me of the art that one learned in another place, that whenever one wanted to pull a political "quick one", one endeavoured to disarm the opposition by making the whole affair appear so innocuous that it did not even merit much attention.
Today the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, deployed this art to the full because, of course, as he knows only too well, Parts I, II and III of the Bill are entirely irrelevant to the problems of British transport communications; they serve no useful productive purpose whatever. Indeed, the way in which the debate has proceeded today, with one or two exceptions, indicates that those of your Lordships who have taken part in it entirely endorse that, because the discussion has been almost entirely on those matters in the Bill which are concerned with road safety. This is the whole guts around which the debate has taken place. Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I do not propose to take up any further time by arguing on those questions of road safety, which have been dealt with so
278
diversely and so interestingly by those of your Lordships who have spoken on that particular part of the Bill.
I shall, therefore, return—perhaps also as a matter of temperament—to those parts of the Bill which the noble Lord himself indicated, in his mild and benign manner, were slightly controversial because these, of course, are the real political guts of the Bill. Those are the parts of the Bill which are being put forward in pursuit of the eternal party dogma of the party opposite which, as I shall show, have no relevance to the transport problems of the United Kingdom.
Parts I, II and III of the Bill deal with questions of disposals of parts of undertakings, the reconstitution of the Docks Board, and the dissolution of the National Ports Council. These are the matters with which they are concerned. They deal with questions of ownership, revised management, and financial opportunities for those financial interests who normally identify their political interest with that of the Conservative Party—financial opportunities to make yet further wealth out of those sections of the publicly-run industries which have shown themselves capable of making a profit, and which have still continued to make profits despite the restrictions, and the extra restrictions, which have been imposed on them by the Government who have been in office for the past two years.
When he addressed us on this, the noble Lord, almost casually, indicated that of course there would be facilities for private capital to come into these new undertakings, and he rather beamed round your Lordships' House, almost indicating by his motion the terrific benefits that would undoubtedly follow automatically from such a course. Then he indicated that there would be freedom from Government restraint. We all know perfectly well that the more powers that pass into the hands of successive Secretaries of State, the more freedom that those bodies for whom they are responsible undoubtedly experience when they languish under a shoal of statutory instruments and regulations made by the Minister. That horse will not run.
The noble Lord knows perfectly well that the real functions of the public sector borrowing requirement are not understood with an even degree of intelligence by members of his own Government. Some have one version of it; others have another. But how the noble Lord manages, within this Bill, to link the whole question of eligibility for being classified as to their borrowing system—whether they should be public sector borrowing requirement or otherwise—I think will beat practically any economist in the country, including those who advise Her Majesty's present Administration. Even Mr. MacGregor, who was designated by the Prime Minister not very long ago as a "super guy", as the noble Lord will be well aware, said the other day that of course the inclusion of money required by nationalised industries for productive investment purposes in the public sector borrowing requirement ought, on any grounds, to be excluded from the public sector borrowing requirement. So I do not think that we should be beguiled by giving approval to these steps of disposal, reconstruction and dissolution, into believing that it will in any way solve the public sector borrowing requirements of the various industries that remain.

279
These parts of the Bill do not deal with the real needs of British transport. What are required are constructive and practical measures to deal with the United Kingdom's appalling overall transport position. In part, as a result of the considerable increase in the population of the United Kingdom over the past 50 years—a factor that is sometimes forgotten—but not due only to that, we are living, so far as our roads are concerned, under conditions of appalling congestion. Both industry and the private individual are bearing the considerable burdens of the excess costs involved.
There is a gross over-use of the road network by freight which is quite capable of, and far more suitable for, being transported by rail. It seems to have been forgotten that there is a canal system. With the indulgence of your Lordships I shall illustrate the point. A large number of manufacturing companies today use our road network as nothing more nor less than a work in progress store. They are using the road network to transport their goods for almost instantaneous transmission on to the production line instead of, as could be done quite easily, particularly in the open situations in which many of the large factories find themselves, using the large amounts of land which would accommodate very large buffer stocks of goods that are otherwise endlessly piling along the road. Indeed, in the case of motor-car components in particular the roads themselves are being used as a transit store and are helping in the congestion.
Moverover, as I say, it is sometimes forgotten that we have a canal network which is well capable of being used, particularly under conditions where many goods are now containerised and can therefore easily be fork-lifted off, not requiring a lot of lightering or anything of that kind. Once the initial flow has started—and one agrees that the first load would take a long time—a continuous supply of various goods, commodities, parts and so on by canal would itself ease our road problem. As it is, owing to the congestion of our roads in one way or another, what is happening is that we are getting the road system clogged, and clogged further by heavy lorries which are an environmental hazard in themselves, and which produce considerable inconvenience to individuals and also considerable additional maintenance problems.
So far as the railway network is concerned—and Part I concerns the railways—I think your Lordships will agree that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, probably understated the position when she referred to the under-investment that has taken place in British Rail. It is quite appalling in this modern age that we in this country should be investing far less in our railway system than any other country in the world of comparable size and significance bar one, and that Germany itself invests two-and-a-half to three-and-a-half times as much in subsidising the losses of German railways than we do here.
This is all part of the philosophy that transport itself has very little social implication. This, of course, is entirely wrong. Transport is not merely a vehicle by means of which investors of capital, whether they be from the public purse or from private funds, can make money. That should not be the main motivation for the provision of a transport system. There should be
280
some regard to its social implications. The way in which the railway system has been run down and has been denied the investment to which it is entitled, the investment that it ought to have to achieve its correct function, has had disastrous results on the remainder of the road transportation system itself.
In rural areas today, for example transportation is much more difficult than it was 20 years ago. It is more difficult because many rail links have been taken away and because there has been no satifactory road transport substitution. The congestion of our roadways itself is a factor in the whole question of road safety. We have been discussing some aspects of road safety tonight in connection with Part IV of the Bill. I do not want to add to the contributions that have been made concerning that. But I should like to leave one thought in your Lordships' minds; that is, that the very congestion of our roads also has considerable bearing on the incidence of road accidents, and that the state of our whole road transport system must be considered as an important factor.
Perhaps even more important than that is the state of mind which has grown up in the United Kingdom over these last few years whereby a car has ceased to be merely a method of conveyance, a means of getting from place to place like the old horse and trap that I well remember from the days of my very early youth. It has ceased to be considered merely as a means of transport. It has become a status symbol, and is so advertised in the press where considerable emphasis is given to its qualities of speed, to its shining qualities, and to its design. In short, the very design, possession, and even driving of a machine becomes an end in itself. This is as distinct from merely being a method of conveyance.
We should be failing in our duty if we omitted to draw the attention of the public—as many of your Lordships have done today—to the fact that we ourselves have to take a totally different attitude about travelling by road and the use we make of our cars. Several noble Lords brought that point out very well indeed; the point that when we drive, we should drive responsibly and he conscious that we are, after all, only going from one place to another and that there is no particular prestige to be derived either from the speed at which we accomplish the task or the style with which we conduct the vehicle. Such matters, although they cannot be incorporated in a Bill, should be borne in mind.
Like many of my noble friends and at least two noble Lords opposite, I regret that the road safety section of the Bill was not made completely separate from the rest. We hope that by a free vote in your Lordships' House on that part of the Bill, we shall be able to arrive at an effective and constructive solution to the problem. As for Clause 33, which imposes new burdens on cab owners and drivers, I should have thought that would be more appropriate to a Finance Bill than to be tacked on at the end of a Transport Bill as a matter of convenience.
As for Parts I, II and III of the Bill, we on this side propose to do battle on those. We will do our best to see that the more objectionable parts of those almost entirely irrelevant sections of the Bill are brought into some kind of greater sense, even within their present political connotation. We hope that, in that, we shall

281
receive the support of those of your Lordships who place the broad interests of transport and the whole improvement of the transport system far above the party dogmas which they may be invited to support.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the motorcar as a status symbol. While he is probably right about that in urban areas, may I ask him to agree that in rural areas the motor vehicle is now a machine tool in the hands of those producing food?
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am obliged for that support, my Lords, and that is exactly my view; in the countryside, where cars are put to everyday and constructive use, they tend to be used more wisely. As the noble Lord points out, in part they are used as a tool of the trade and in part as a means of conveyance. I was drawing attention to what I consider to be the daft way in which, for example, people drive cars in fits of motorway madness, going dashing into places into which they cannot possibly see, purely for the thrill of speed.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, whatever our respective views are about the Bill, it has given rise to an interesting and, in the main, constructive debate. I am sure that noble Lords on all sides will, like me, he looking forward to the Committee stage.
Noble Lords: Oh?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I find it amusing that some of my noble friends should smile at that comment. I have the same experience when saying similar things to ministerial colleagues who are surprised at the enthusiasm which I like to try to show to working in your Lordships' House. I know that noble Lords would like me to deal with as many of the points raised today as possible. However, it is a wide-ranging Bill and this has been a wide-ranging debate, so while I shall do my best in the limited time available, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I resist the temptation, strong though it is, to respond to all the issues that were raised, and of course it goes without saying that I shall write covering any of the points I do not specifically mention in this winding-up speech. Some of the provisions are very complex and we shall have a chance to return to points of detail in Committee.
We have had a number of excellent speeches and I know that any noble Lords to whom I do not refer will forgive me. As always, the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was succinct and, certainly when he was talking of road safety matters, very constructive. While he will allow me to disagree with him on the other points he raised, I always find it is a joy to debate with him across the Floor of the House. I know I am taking a great chance in mentioning names—the dangers of omission are great indeed—but I thought the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, emotive though it was, was impressive in its sincerity, and I assure him that we will look very carefully at, and think about, what he said. I would only tell him that in my view the strongest deterrent of all is not a prison sentence for a driver, because the threat of disqualification is tremendous. I will not bore the
282
House, but as a magistrate for many years, I have seen the effect on people who have been disqualified—especially when, as happens in some cases, it has been for a lot longer than six or 12 months—compared with any fine or even a detention sentence that may have been given. The effect of long-term disqualification is quite dramatic in its impact, and I hope the noble Lord feels able to agree with me on that.
I thought my noble friend Lord Lucas, who always joins in debates on transport—he too is always a pleasure to listen to because he knows the subject so well—made a fair comment when he referred to the delay in the consultation paper. I assure him I am trying very hard to do something about that. As always, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, made some careful points, a few of which I shall touch on shortly, and I am grateful to him for the way in which he approached the Bill. Likewise, although he is not in his place at the moment, from his new and elevated position the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was very kind to me and I thought he made a helpful and constructive speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, with whom I have crossed swords on many occasions in the last two years, started most kindly but then spoilt it; he was doing so well at the beginning. In a quite long political career many things I may have been called, but "mild and benign" have not been included among them. On the other hand, the noble Lord might have said worse—much worse—and I promise him that I shall not rise to the bait but instead will try to confine my remarks to some of the details in the Bill.
First, perhaps I might make a few general comments. The debate has demonstrated, not unexpectedly, that noble Lords opposite are, as we know, strongly opposed—I hate to use the word, for which I apologise in his absence to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and to Lord Houghton—to privatisation. I do not know a better word to use and I shall go on using it until somebody provides me with a better one, and I invite anyone so to do. The fact is that noble Lords opposite are strongly opposed to the privatisation measures in the Bill, and we know that.
However, throughout all the speeches today I have not heard one which explained in simple terms (or, for that matter, in any other terms) why we must have a ferry company or a hotel chain in the public sector. Do they provide a better service to the consumer by being in the public sector? Are they more efficiently run? Do they have better access to capital? Is their workforce more content than their counterparts in the private sector? The truth is that these companies will have a brighter future under our proposals in the Bill. I will say no more about that now: there will be plenty of opportunity to say more later.
I feel that I should now turn to some of the points that have been made. One point was made in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. They were concerned about what will happen to the proceeds of sales of British Rail subsidiaries, and I think that I should say something on this. The fact is that the proceeds of sales made by the Railways Board using its powers in Clause 1 of the Bill will go to British Rail Investments Limited as

283
owners of the businesses and hence to the Railways Board. Those proceeds will be included by the board in the financial forecasts that it submits to the Government and will be taken into account along with all the other relevant factors in fixing the board's external finance limit each year. Proceeds of disposals are already taken into account in this way. The precise effect on the board's EFL is therefore undecided at this stage. As the Government have said in another place, they do not intend simply to reduce the board's EFL by the amount of any sales proceeds.
I should now like to respond to another point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. The putting together of the Government and the board is not a shot-gun marriage, if I may use that term. The board is very keen that its subsidiaries should have the opportunity of a prosperous future, taking a strong place in the market, and it has decided that the best way to do this is to introduce private capital into them. The board's decision to look for ways of doing that was taken before any discussions with the Government began, and I really do not believe that Sir Peter Parker and his colleagues would have acquiesced in this policy if they did not see any real advantages in it for the board.
Concern was expressed about the proposals for Sealink. I should say at once that Sealink is an excellent example of a business that has suffered from the disadvantages of the public sector. A shipping business needs ready access to investment. Already Sealink's fleet is less modern than that of its main competitor, and without access to private capital this situation is bound to get worse. That is why the Government and the board both believe that Sealink needs to be transferred to the private sector. As to the timing of any disposal of shares, in the first instance that will be a matter for the board, and it will wish to try to choose the best moment. But we need to make early progress if Sealink's future growth is not to be impaired.
I consider that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on the British Rail property holdings were, if I may say so, based on a number of misapprehensions. The first point is that although it is true that the Railways Board has received a significant income from property, the great bulk of the board's income from property comes from operational property. In 1980 lettings of operational property produced receipts of £25·2 million. The great bulk of that property will not be affected by the present policy. But non-operational property—that is the property no longer needed for running the railways—with which we are concerned, produced a net rental income of £8·4 million.
A second point in this respect is that disposing of property is not a new phenomenon for the board; disposals of property have always taken place. In 1980 the Railways Board sold property that it no longer needed worth £40 million. The present policy is merely a development of that existing practice. As yet no decisions have been taken about how this will be done. Certainly there will be continued sales, but the floatation of a property company is also possible, and if that latter course is chosen, the board
284
would be able to retain a substantial stake in the company and thus benefit in any future growth in profits.
A point was made about British Rail and investment in it. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, spoke very forcefully upon this subject. I hope that he would tell me that he made this same point on frequent occasions when the previous Administration were in power. Knowing the noble Lord, I have no doubt that he would have made the point here and elsewhere. That is fair enough; respect it. But the fact is that the present Government have maintained the Railways Board's investment ceiling at the same level in real terms as that set by the previous Administration. The level of the ceiling is substantial and has allowed the board to carry out a wide-ranging programme of renewal and modernisation. The Government have given the board investment approval for several major projects in recent months. As for electrification, this is a very large project, involving high expenditure, and surely it is reasonable that the Government should have time to consider the case for the proposals. But as yet no decisions on that matter have been reached.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, asked how has the National Ports Council transferred its research functions to the British Ports Association before the Bill is enacted. I am sorry—that question was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. The National Ports Council carries out research under Section 3 of the Harbours Act 1964, which permits it to do whatever it considers feasible and expedient to promote research. It has reached agreement with the BPA that the assocation should take over its research responsibilities from 1st April. This ensures a smooth transition between the two organizations, particularly since the NPC has already shared some of its staff, while the BPA is building up its organisation to take on its new functions.
I come now to some of the other aspects of the Bill. In regard to the points system and the "totting up" procedures, the proposals form the first fruit to come from the review body that the Government set up to look at certain aspects of road traffic law. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and heard his reservations on this question. I believe that this is a most valuable reform, which will be fairer and more effective than the existing crude system of "totting up" of endorsements. It has been welcomed by the general motoring public, as well as those who administer the law.
I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said, and I shall speak to colleagues about some of the points that she made. However, as a long-standing magistrate myself, I would take issue with her on a number of her arguments. Certainly I do not accept those which concern the likely effect on the work of the courts.
But there is a dilemma. Even among my noble friends we have had today a difference of opinion as to the degree of flexibility, or whatever, that should be given to magistrates in this matter. My noble friend Lord Fortescue would like more discretion in certain cases. We shall carefully read What he said on certain other aspects of this matter, concerning anomalies. My noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve gave general support on this matter, for which I am

285
very grateful, but she would prefer no discretion as to the points that should be given. I would say that this is a judgment that one has to make, and we are making it as we think best.
I have before me many notes which set out the justification for coming to these particular conclusions, but at this time of the night I shall not go into the details. However, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that this proposal is not entirely new—in some ways would that it were. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, this is done in a number of countries, and it works well enough.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Would he care to change the psychology of the matter and instead of talk about points awarded, talk about black marks awarded?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, to use an expression that I have learnt since I came into Government, I would say that I hear what the noble Lord says.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned his dislike of the wiping clean proposals. I would say that apart from unfairly counting offences more than once, the present system does not encourage a driver to try to do better and to keep a clean record, certainly not as the threat of disqualification is continually present. I would have to disagree; I do not believe that we have weakened the effectiveness of our measures by such an improvement in the way that the system works.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said that the Bill does nothing to strengthen the laws on drinking and driving. Again, I would say that he has his point of view, but I am sure that the changes proposed in this Bill will simplify the law, remove needless technicalities, and therefore make it more difficult for the guilty to escape conviction by technical defences. The introduction of evidential breath testing will make it easier for the police to administer and enforce the law and in that way the law will be made more effective. At the same time, I hope that our proposals will help to maintain good relations between the police and the motorist. Evidential breath testing will be quicker and more convenient for the motorist than having to give blood or urine samples.
Turning now to the sections dealing with seat belts, which I know are so much in the minds of every Member in your Lordships' House, let me say that I understand the views expressed by so many of your Lordships who wish to see provision for the compulsory wearing of seat belts included in this Bill. Certainly my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford has been second to none in advocating that course. I am sure this House will be able to express its views fully during the later stages of this Bill, but I should like to make the Government's position perfectly clear. It is our firm view that seat belts save lives and prevent injuries, but we do not agree that we can force the issue of compulsion. Therefore, it is for your Lordships to decide how you will vote. But I will say that, should support for compulsion eventually win the day, then we will of course respect the wishes of Parliament and implement such a provision.
Just referring en passant to the hypothesis put
286
forward by Mr. John Adams of UCL, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that seat belt wearers compensate for the protection which belts give by driving more dangerously, I believe that the facts which Mr. Adams presented in order to prove his thesis are open to much criticism. Even so, the question is under much wider consideration by the Department of Transport.
On the subject of child restraints in Clause 27, let me just say that this was added to the Bill in another place and it has been given the support of the Government. In our view, the duty to care for children who are not old enough to look after their own safety overrides factors which must be considered in relation to the compulsory wearing of seat belts by adults. Therefore, Government support for this clause cannot be taken as a precedent on the general seat belt issue, but we made our position clear on the general issue during the Second Reading of the Bill, which my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford recently introduced, and our views on that are as I just expressed them. However, I should like to take this opportunity to reassure those who are concerned about the desirability of putting young children in seat belts, which have, after all, been designed to be worn by adults, that the Child Accident Prevention Committee have studied the whole question of the safest way for children to travel in cars and found no evidence that the use by children of adult seat belts increased the risk of injury, even to very young children. The committee concluded that children were safer using adult belts than they were travelling unrestrained in the back of the vehicle.
However, this will not be compulsory and it will be for the parents or the driver of the car to decide whether or not to take advantage of the protection afforded to the child by the adult belt fitted to the front seat or for the child to travel in the back. In another place the Secretary of State for Transport has said that he will study the findings of the research commissioned by the Sunday Times and will make a statement. My noble friend Lord Ferrier was right in that indeed the final word on this subject may not as yet have been said.
May I conclude by saying that nothing I have heard this afternoon has shaken my belief that this is an extremely good Bill.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, before my noble friend comes to his peroration, will he kindly say a word about motor-cyclists? Noble Lords have had quite a bit to say about motor-cyclists and it is very important that we should hear from my noble friend on what he proposes to do about training facilities in the future.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I thought I had said at the beginning—and, if not, I shall gladly take the opportunity to do so now—that we are extremely concerned about the appalling number and extent of accidents involving motor-cyclists. We are not only carrying out the measures which are outlined in the Bill and to which I referred at the time, but we will look at everything that has been said today and at anything that may be said in the future about better ways of training, to ensure that young people in particular—although older ones too if it comes to that—who are

287
often starting to ride motor-cycles for the first time at a relatively young age, are equipped and fitted to do so and so reduce the awful carnage—which is the only proper word to use. I say to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford that just because I have not stressed this point as much as he might have wished, no one should imagine that we are not fully apprised of this subject. We are concerned about it and intend to do all we can to improve matters dramatically.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, makes his concluding remarks, will he give some indication as to whether or not he will take into account the views which have been expressed by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. Many of us on this side of the House felt that she raised some points of great significance which ought to be considered by the Government.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, simply because I do not repeat every point in my response—and, after all, I have spoken at some length—does not mean that we will not study very carefully the points made by the noble Lady, and I an very happy to assure her that they will be considered very thoroughly.
As I said in my opening remarks, in party political terms the first parts of the Bill are highly controversial and I am not going all over that again. We believe that what we are proposing provides a challenge and an opportunity, and I am confident that the management and work forces of the businesses concerned will rise to the challenges and seize the opportunities. The Bill's road safety measures will make the law fairer and more effective. We can and will discuss the details in Committee, but I believe that the principles of what we are proposing are sound and deserve the full support of your Lordships. The privatisation and road safety measures and the other important changes which I have described tonight make this a most important reforming Bill. We will study carefully what has been said, but I ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading, and I look forward to the consideration of the Bill by a Committee of the whole House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ECC 15th Report: Proprietary Medicinal Products
8.38 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the proposed Council directive on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products (15th Report, H.L. 94).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I speak on behalf of the Education, Employment and Social Affairs Committee, Committee C, and I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, for supporting me this evening, because he always speaks on every
288
subject with great wisdom and intelligence. I am grateful and my committee is grateful for his support. I should also like to take this opportunity to thank those who gave evidence to the committee, and I shall be referring to their evidence at a later stage. Finally, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, who is to speak for the Benches opposite and also Mr. Turnbull, the clerk to our committee, whose support helps and guides all members of the committee in their deliberations.
I will repeat the Motion because it is a very complicated one:
"That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the proposed Council directive on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products".
This Motion has been set down and pursued tonight in order to elicit from Her Majesty's Government their view concerning a complicated issue. This issue concerns, on the one hand,
"the proposed Council directive on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products";
and, on the other hand, the findings and conclusions of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities 15th Report, which do not accord and indeed are at variance with the proposed directive.
The main point at issue concerns what is known as parallel importation of proprietary medicinal products. This takes place when a person who is not a manufacturer of the product buys, quite legitimately, a proprietary medicinal product in one member state at a comparatively low price and sells it in another member state, where he can obtain a higher price. He is, in effect, an independent entrepreneur. He has nothing to do with the manufacture of the product, and all that that involves in the realm of research, production and distribution.
The position as it stands at present is that the control of proprietary medicinal products is governed by two Council directives. The first, 65/65/EEC of 26th February 1965, has as its primary objective the safeguarding of public health without hindering the development of either the pharmaceutical industry or trade in medicinal products in the Community. The second directive, 75/319/EEC of 20th May 1975, aims to further progress towards free movement of proprietary medicinal products on the market in one or more member states. The directive establishes a Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products responsible for giving opinions on whether particular products comply with the earlier directive.
In general, these two directives have worked well towards the aim of abolishing barriers to the freer movement of proprietary medicinal products. The proposed new directive has as its aim the establishment of a common system of registration for parallel importers of proprietary medicinal products. The Commission regard the implementation of the proposed directive as a matter of urgency in order to ensure consistent implementation of a judgment of the Courts of Justice of the European Communities of 20th May 1976. The case number was 104/75. This case concerned the importation to the Netherlands by the firm Centrafarm B.V. of valium manufactured by

289
Hoffman La Roche in the United Kingdom, unpacked and sold under the name of Diazepam in the Netherlands.
Hoffman La Roche sought to deny Centrafarm B.V. the marketing by refusing to supply documents required by the Netherlands licensing authority as essential to the granting of a marketing authorisation. Under Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome the European Court ruled in favour of the parallel importer, on the grounds that as far as possible and practicable there should be free movement of goods within the EEC countries. Furthermore, the manufacturer should not, by withholding the necessary documents, be able to deny the parallel importer, the entrepreneur, a right to import and market the product. The proposed new directive is therefore in accordance with the latest ruling and favours the parallel importers to the detriment of the manufacturers.
My Lords, I should say at this point that I have taken legal advice and I am informed that there is no appeal against a ruling by the European Court unless somebody reapplies and brings forward another case. The European Court is not bound by precedent. Such action would be expensive, time-consuming and of great concern to a manufacturer.
The House of Lords Select Committee took evidence from the Department of Health and Social Security, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Society and the Department of Trade, all of whom have misgivings on the proposed directive. Evidence was also given by Mr. M. A. Alter, of Spectrum Marketing. The Pharmaceutical Society gave four reasons why they were concerned over the court ruling and the consequent directive supporting the case of parallel buying. First, parallel importing is jeopardising the manufacturers with loss of market. The case of a well-known heart drug was cited. ICI has been manufacturing a well-known heart drug throughout the world for 20 years. It is alleged that various businessmen who are not in the manufacturing industry have been buying this drug in small quantities in the United Kingdom, re-packaging it and then selling it at a profit in some of the EEC countries. ICI have said that they have lost 20 per cent. of their sales in Holland, for instance.
Secondly, there is the health aspect. The entrepreneur is breaking up the packages of medicines, repackaging them and then selling to dispensing chemists under the name of the manufacturer. This re-packaging is not done under supervision. The manufacturer, on the other hand, is of course controlled by legislation—the Medicines Act 1968. Thirdly, there is the question of product liability. The medicinal goods are bought by the entrepreneur, repackaged and sold under the name of the original manufacturer, who is responsible, for the product. The manufacturer's packing is carried out to a higher standard. There should surely be no subsequent repacking by the entrepreneur, whose work is not supervised as is the work of the manufacturer. Lastly, the manufacturer spends time and money on research. The businessmen, of course, do none.
We also received evidence from the Department of Health and Social Security. The department stated in their evidence that there would be policy implications. It was recognised that the directive would create
290
freer trade, but there were health implications, they said. If entrepreneurs can buy, repackage and resell, there would have to be regulatory requirements, which would be cumbersome and expensive. We also took evidence from the Board of Trade representatives. There is the question of national trade marks, but this really comes under the patenting directive and I do not propose to pursue that matter this evening.
Finally, we took evidence from a Mr. Alter, of Spectrum Marketing—a businessman who offered to give evidence. He maintained that the Treaty of Rome, Article 36, was being contravened because the manufacturers in at least one country will not supply the necessary documents concerning a medicinal product. The entrepreneur therefore cannot obtain a marketing licence of the competent authority in the place of import. He contends that the problems in obtaining the necessary product licence act as a barrier to free trade. He considers that each member country should be prepared to accept the product licence of the original country, where the goods were manufactured. It should be said that there is the aspect of confidentiality. One Government might be willing to supply to another Government details of the make-up of a medicinal product, but would not be willing to supply it to a businessman outside the manufacturing of medicine industry.
It should be noted that the Economic and Social Committee in Brussels are against this directive. In October 1980, at a plenary session, the voting against the directive was 36 votes to 9, with 7 abstentions. We understand that a number of member states are not happy about this directive.
The House of Lords' committee was somewhat bewildered by the court ruling on which this directive is based. The opinion of the Advocate General quoted in the judgment the words "parallel import". I wonder whether he meant "parallel importer".
The position under the directive would have a serious implications for health and for the work of the pharmaceutical industry, which does research and manufactures the goods, and the DHSS which fixes the prices. Therefore, the House of Lords' committee considered that the Commission's proposed directive raises important questions of policy and principle and it was thought right to bring the matter to your Lordships' House. The committee are interested to know what is the view of Her Majesty's Government and what action can be taken concerning this directive which is unacceptable to the committee and to other member states of the EEC. I beg to move.
8.52 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I must first thank warmly the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for the clarity and brevity of her presentation of this complicated report. On this side, we would wish to thank all Members of the committee for the work they have done on this matter. I must say that I read the report with great care and concentration, an exercise which I found so exhausting and demanding that my expression of appreciation to the committee is sincere indeed. Certainly, my heart went out to one exchange on page 14. My noble friend Lord Plant asked the question which I echo:

291
"Could you tell me in fairly simple language why the directive saw the light of day?"
Dr. Arnold of the British pharmaceutical industry replied:
"It is very difficult to fathom the minds of the officials in the Commission".
With that I have great sympathy.
The terms of reference of this report and, therefore, of this debate are very narrow but there are undertones of wider, inescapable questions. The pharmaceutical industry is growing rapidly all over the world. Its products are the major element in the cost of our National Health Service and the cost of any health service anywhere. While we appreciate that there are countless people kept alive and in health by essential medication, we do not know how many are the worse for careless or superfluous medication—a form of internal pollution which should give us all cause to ponder in this pill-hungry world. I cannot escape these thoughts because the proposals for this directive on parallel importing seem to be concerned mainly with maximising commercial freedoms rather than safeguarding the health and wellbeing of our peoples. Concern for free competition seems to pre-empt most other considerations, enabling profitability to increase.
I was interested to see that, on page 24, the DHSS stated:
"The objective of the proposal is freer trade but there are implications for public health…which will need study in depth".
I agree with the main findings of the report from which it seems that the committee came to the conclusion that some directive may be necessary although it may not necessarily be in this present form. Certainly, the time scales set out are totally unrealistic. The hestitations which were expressed on various pages to my mind are very serious. There are the dangers of repacking and, with loss of identification, of relabelling; there are problems about how shelf-life of products will be monitored, problems about the necessity sometimes of recalling batches which will have been sent out and in respect of which there may not be complete records of the destinations. So I find myself wondering whether the EEC did not have anything better to do.
I feel that in this country, if I may seem narrowly patriotic for a moment, we have a very fine pharmaceutical industry, with a very important basis of research, and that the controls which we have set up under our legislation, with the agreement of the industry and the medical profession, serves to protect our people. I trust that, while minds will not be closed on this matter, the Government will accede to the advice of the committee and will not accept in any precipitate way the recommendations of the directive which I share Lord Plant's difficulty in understanding.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Faithfull for presenting the report of the committee and I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, the chairman is not present. I am a member of Sub-Committee C of the EEC Select Committee. I took part in the first part of the hearing
292
but then was taken ill and did not hear the second part. I think that what is at issue is a perfectly simple case. The position is that valium is sold here at £x for 100 tablets, is then bought by a businessman and sold in Holland for £2x and so the businessman makes a profit of £x, and the question is whether or not this is legal. The European Court has ruled that it is legal. The reason why the entrepreneur does it is because the price level for the same product differs in different countries of the European Community—which prima facie is against the principles of the Community, which is based on considerations raised in Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome, that free competition shall prevail. Therefore, given chartering costs, the uniform price for identical products should prevail throughout the Community.
This particular case raises two issues of principle. One of them formed the main substance of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, the question of public health. I share with her the admiration she expressed for the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry. The rate of conquest of disease and of discomfort in the past 30 to 40 years has been remarkable and, to a great degree, is the result of the work of the pharmaceutical industry. The record of safety of the industry is really quite outstanding. I am told by medical professors as a matter of fact that the level of safety in the pharmaceutical industry is such that if the same criteria were applied to surgical operations in hospitals no surgical operation, even setting a broken leg, would actually take place—so low is the risk of taking pharmaceutical products under suitable medical direction.
I think that while the industry exists in private ownership it would be foolish to believe that the industry can survive without making a profit; so I do not regard as axiomatic the fact that the pharmaceutical industry makes a profit is a sign that it is behaving badly. In that respect, I was somewhat astonished to read this morning in The Times a speech by the Prime Minister of India, Mrs. Ghandi, who accused the pharmaceutical industry of concentration on profit, fierce competition and recourse to hard sell advertising. She claimed that sometimes dangerous new drugs are tried out on populations of weaker countries although their use is prohibited within the countries of manufacture. I believe that the last part of that statement in so far as it applies to United Kingdom manufacturers happens to be completely false. Nevertheless, it is a widespread view that private business—or indeed public business—ought not to make a profit out of dealing in products which are to do with health.
Having therefore stated my basic position, which is one of being in support of what the pharmaceutical industry has done and of admiration for its record, I found its case came in two parts. Frankly, the first did not seem convincing; in fact I thought it was a sham. It rests upon the assumption that chemists in Holland—of all countries!—will split up batches of drugs, repackage them and then sell them to patients who come with prescriptions issued by Dutch doctors.
No single case was brought forward to substantiate the argument which the industry produced along these lines. Indeed, it is extremely difficult to believe that in Holland, a country which I imagine is almost pathologically clean, and which has a standard of public

293
health care which is second to none throughout Europe, would allow this to happen. It also happens to be illegal in the United Kingdom. It could not conceivably be done in the United Kingdom by a pharmacist who hoped to be able to remain on the register of pharmacists and to be able to deal with doctors' prescriptions.
Frankly, I think that we can assume that our European allies are as perfectly competent to look after their public health as the United Kingdom undoubtedly is. The practices which have been cited in the report do not take place in the United Kingdom, and they certainly do not take place in the Netherlands—which was the case which was cited—and I doubt whether they actually take place anywhere. Certainly no cases were brought before the committee.
The second issue—not that of public health care—which is one of competition, is of far more significance. Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome requires industries in Europe to be competitive. It applies particularly to the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry which is one of the two most successful pharmaceutical industries in the world—the other one being the United States. The United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry is a major contributor to the United Kingdom gross national product; it is a major exporter.
The way that the industry operates is by what is known technically as a discretionary monopoly, that is to say, it charges what the traffic will bear. It happens to charge low prices in the United Kingdom because the National Health Service imposes low prices; but in the case of some of our European allies—Holland and Germany are good examples where the system is not our National Health Service system but is an insurance-based system—the prices prevailing are higher. Therefore United Kingdom manufacturers make a bigger profit in those countries than they make in the United Kingdom. By this process of discretionary pricing, discretionary monopoly, the total flow of profits to the firm concerned has increased.
I must emphasise that there is nothing unusual about that. It is something, for example, that the railways do. As many noble Lords will know, the railways offer cheap prices to old-age pensioners. If an old-age pensioner presents his pension book he can get a pass to travel cheaply on British Rail. The same is true of students. The reason is that British Rail tries to discriminate in its marketing policy between businessmen and so on who can pay the full cost and other more vulnerable groups in a community who, if they were charged the full price, would be unable to travel, and therefore it recoups the cost of running the trains by charging cheaper prices to those vulnerable groups. That is in principle exactly the same as what the pharmaceutical industry is doing.
The question which arises, and is raised by this directive, is of great significance. Is that principle of charging which is common and is practised by theatres who offer discounts to students, and so on, and is something carried on by a whole range of industries, against the competitive principles of the Community? Personally, I see nothing wrong in the principle of discretionary pricing. The patent law offers a pharmaceutical company a monopoly in the product which it is selling; otherwise the product would not be marketed, because it would not be invented unless there was
294
a guaranteed market of 15 or 20 years in order to recoup the money spent on the product.
Therefore, in principle I see nothing wrong with this. If our industry is to be sacrificed on the European altar of competition on the grounds that this practice is in principle against European law, it is going to be an extremely severe blow against one of the industries which I claim is a major industry—an important industry—of which we in the United Kingdom have every right to be proud. Unfortunately, when the industry gave evidence they foolishly rested their case upon the alleged misdemeanours of pharmacists in Holland. I must say that of all the people I know, the Dutch are the least likely to be fiddling about with doctors' prescriptions inside their pharmacies. I should think that they are a nation of meticulous care about that. The industry did not rest their case upon this central point of whether or not discretionary pricing was in principle against the competitive law of the Treaty of Rome.
I must mention in passing that one of the undoubted consequences of adopting the directive would be to raise the price of drugs in the United Kingdom. What would be required of pharmaceutical firms would be to average the prices that they now charge throughout Europe. If they were not allowed to sell their products cheaply here and expensively in Holland but had to charge the same price, the laws of arithmetic tell us that what will happen is that prices charged in the United Kingdom will go up. Therefore, the net effect on the National Health Service will be to increase costs.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, will the noble Lord not accept that these price differentials are often to do with currencies and exchange rates? They also have to do with the differing price controls which take effect in different countries. For instance, the price levels between this country and Western Germany are very different and must contribute to the difference in prices as well as to the competitive marketing element.
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, I accept that might be true in the short term but not in the long run, because it is necessarily the case that if you can make a bigger profit because the Dm has depreciated and you can sell your product there at a higher price, then you necessarily would sell your product in such a way. But we have very substantial areas of non-competition within the Community. There was an article in the Sunday Times recently which showed that if you went to Belgium to buy your Volkswagen and brought it back to use in the United Kingdom you could save yourself something between £700 and £1,000. So even in something like motor manufacture, in which the Community is concerned with preserving competition, there is not at the moment a uniform price level.
I share the view of the noble Baroness on the Front Bench opposite that this kind of practice is widespread and I myself see nothing necessarily wrong in it. Furthermore, I see no great evidence to suggest that the industry is conspiring against the public interest by making monopoly profits. I certainly agree with the noble Baroness on the Front Bench opposite that the differential behaviour of national health authorities in different countries has profoundly affected the price

295
level. The National Health Service in this country has managed to maintain a very reasonable price for drugs, but under the much laxer system which prevails in the Federal Republic of Germany and in the Netherlands prices to the patient are substantially higher. I think that in this industry, which has a first-class record and where we lead the world in safety and research, it must be a matter of very great care before the United Kingdom Government assents to this, in my view, rather foolish directive.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he would clarify one point for me? Is he putting together the entrepreneur and the parallel importers with the pharmaceutical industry?
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, the word "entrepreneur" was used in our committee as a rather dirty word—something like "pimp". I, perhaps rather naively, assumed that, particularly on this side of the House, the word "entrepreneur" was surely looked on as rather a good word. A man who is in business for a profit would be assumed, as a matter of axiomatic belief in the Tory Party I should have thought, to be doing a good thing; and I see no great damage being done to the Dutch consumer if a British businessman buys goods cheap here, makes a hit of a profit and sells them cheaper in Holland than the Dutch consumer can buy them from a Dutch firm. I see nothing wrong with that and therefore I would not subscribe to the rather nasty way in which the businessman is referred to in some of the evidence which was presented by the pharmaceutical industry to the committee.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships are grateful to my noble friend Lady Faithfull for introducing this subject today and for giving the House the opportunity to debate this report, which concerns the important matter of parallel importation of proprietary medicinal products. My noble friend and the other noble Lords who produced the report are to be congratulated for submitting such a clear account of the position, together with their views.
I had got a lot to say in order to explain exactly what parallel importing is, but it has been very well described by my noble friends Lady Faithfull and Lord Vaizey. In short, parallel trade is the purchase by an entrepreneur of a branded prescription medicine in a low-price country and its sale in a high-price country. I agree with my noble friend Lord Vaizey that there is nothing very serious about being called an entrepreneur.
A marketing authorisation in that other—high price—country will be held by the manufacturer or his authorised agent. The problem for the would-be parallel importer is to satisfy the member state into which the product is to be imported that his product is identical to, or at any rate virtually the same as, a product which is already licensed in the importing country. The parallel importer, however, does not possess and does not have access to the information—much of it of a commercially confidential character—
296
which would enable him to satisfy the member state as to the nature of the product he wishes to import. The manufacturer, for his part, is unlikely to accommodate the parallel importer by providing him with this information or, as the case may be, by agreeing to a change in the original marketing authorisation so as to extend the marketing authorisation to cover a product manufactured in a location different from that specified in the authorisation. And I think your Lordships would agree that this is a perfectly understandable attitude for the manufacturer to adopt towards what is, after all, a prospective and undercutting competitor in the market.
In 1976, in what is known as the Centrafarm case, the Court of Justice of the European Communities considered that it should be possible for a parallel importer to play a role in stimulating competition. The court ruled, first, that national rules or practices which result in imports being channelled in such a way that only certain traders can effect these imports amounted to a quantitative restriction on free movement within Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome. The court also ruled that in such a situation, which enables a manufacturer, simply by refusing to supply necessary information, to enjoy a monopoly, this could not he justified in terms of Article 36 of the treaty—that is to say, on grounds of protection of health and life of human beings—unless it could clearly be proved that any other rules or practices would obviously be beyond the means which can reasonably be expected of an administration operating in the normal way.
The court added that an exception on the basis that almost identical products were, in fact, different medicinal preparations would be acceptable only if it could be shown that there was therapeutic justification for the variants between the products as marketed in one member state compared with another. The European Community Commission is of the opinion that the principles enunciated in that judgment should operate consistently in all member states. It has become apparent, however, during the five years which have elapsed since the judgment, that member states diverge on the interpretation of the judgment. The European Community Commission has, therefore, proposed a Council directive in order to ensure consistent application of the judgment throughout the Community,
The proposed directive would establish a common system of registration for parallel importers of proprietary medicinal products, and would enable those registered to obtain information necessary for them to trade between member states. There would also be controls to prevent manufacturers from circumventing these proposals by changing the name or composition of the product. The Commission considers that the proposed directive would assist the free movement of proprietary medicinal products within the Community.
But there are a number of objections to the proposals in the draft directive, which, incidentally, appears to be a source of disquiet in virtually all member states. Parallel imports will not improve the range or quality of the medicinal products available, because the products would already be available in the country into which they are imported. Consequently, the proposed directive will contribute nothing to protecting the

297
health of the Community. The proposal will not assist in maintaining a thriving pharmaceutical industry. I so agree with my noble friend Lord Vaizey about the wonderful job which the pharmaceutical companies have done in this country. Were they to be starved of the profit from which they get their research, it would be extremely damaging.
A company bears the immense expense of the research, the application, the licensing and the marketing and promotion of the product; a parallel importer would have none of these expenses yet he would be able to cream off the price differential. He would also be able to offer the product to the retailer at a lower price, although it is by no means to be assumed that the product would become available to the consumer at a significantly lower price than the product which is already in the country concerned. The consumer may, therefore, benefit little or not at all through lower prices.
The proposal in the directive, that information which is confidential to the holder of the original marketing authorisation should be made available to the parallel importer, is unacceptable, and we would wish to see any proposed registration scheme based on the proposition that only regulatory authorities of the member states involved would be entitled to exchange the control information required to assess and monitor the products which enter a member state by way of parallel importation.
The proposed directive would appear to require all applicants for marketing authorisations to submit details of all authorisations and variations in other member states, and require all further changes to be notified, too. It seems quite unreasonable to require that such information should be exchanged for all products between all member states against a possibility that a question of parallel importation could conceivably arise. Such a requirement would place an unreasonable burden on regulatory authorities, possibly to the extent that they were unable to discharge efficiently their more important functions.
The proposed directive would also appear to impose unreasonable requirements upon the original holder of the marketing authorisation, such as the imposition of controls to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the proposals by changing the composition or name of the product. As far as differences in composition are concerned, the proposed directive would not allow variations from the composition authorised in another member state, without therapeutic justification. However, there are often valid commercial reasons for variations in what is basically the same medicinal product. It might be, for example, that a particular flavour or colour could be commercially more successful in one member state and less successful in another because of, for instance, differences in patient preference.
So far as differences in trade names are concerned, a trader would not be granted a licence to market a product where he could not provide a legitimate reason for the use of different names for this purpose in different member states. Problems would arise when licences came up for renewal and traders were faced with having to abandon established names whose goodwill had been built up at not inconsiderable expense. This would be further exacerbated where, as is often the case, such names are registered as trade
298
marks, since a legal bar on their use is, under present trade mark law, a ground for invalidation of registration.
The idea of requiring justification for the use of different trade marks for the sale of the same goods in different member states finds expression in a more general form in the Commission's recently proposed directive for the approximation of national trade mark laws. The sanction here, however, is direct invalidation of the registration although, unlike the proprietary medicinal products directive, continued use in an unregistered capacity would attract no sanctions. There is, nevertheless, clearly a similarity of ideas between the two directives, and in fact proprietary medicinal products will be affected by both. In the absence of any demonstrated reason to the contrary, we are unable to accept that it would be at all desirable to consider the trade mark aspects of medicinal products in isolation from any other products and accordingly we would endorse the Select Committee's recommendation that this is a matter which is best considered within the framework of discussions on the trade mark directive.
A directive would not prejudice the introduction of new products by curtailing research and development or otherwise damaging the pharmaceutical industry. One of the main costs incurred by the major pharmaceutical companies is the cost of research. Research and development of new medicines and the cost of licensing are financed out of current sales of existing medicines. Parallel trade in existing products of a research-based group results in a reduction of the overall revenue available to that group. If it caused a significant reduction, the extent to which research could be financed would be reduced and the ability to produce new medicines would equally be reduced. The United Kingdom industry is particularly strong in research-based companies and has in recent years produced new medicines which are significant export earners. In 1980 the United Kingdom had a favourable balance of trade in prescription medicines in excess of £500 million. That is why there is concern about the possible effects of parallel trading.
The proposed directive seeks to remove a possible barrier to trade in the form of licensing regulations. Although the United Kingdom is unlikely to be the target for parallel importing on any scale, it is the Government's view, as it was the view of the Committee, that to replace what may be an inequity with regulations which much more inequitably place burdens on the companies who are the losers in parallel trading is unacceptable. If there were truly a common market in medicines, the problem would not exist or would be far less difficult. As it stands, the draft directive is in part faulty and in part unnecessary and it does not deal at all with the underlying matter of pricing differences or the reasons for them. Since the Commission itself is engaged in commissioning research to study differences in the prices of medicines in the member states, the Government agree with the conclusion of the committee that any further action should await the result of the Commission's investigation on price structures.
At this point I should like to give grateful recognition to the close collaboration with representatives of the principal bodies representing the pharmaceutical

299
industry: the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and the Proprietary Association of Great Britain, which the Government have enjoyed in considering these proposals, as indeed we do in all matters affecting the control of medicinal products in this country. It will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that representatives of the ABPI were examined at length by your Lordships' Select Committee. The industry and the Government are at one in their objections to the directive as drafted, but I think it is fair to say that, while the industry would prefer no directive at all, believing that the judgments of the European Court provide ample guidance to enable member states to adapt their national legislation, the Government's view, notwithstanding all the objections to the present draft, is to concede the substance of the European Commission's argument that a directive of some kind is necessary in order to secure the consistent interpretation and implementation of the court's judgment by all member states.
The proposed directive appears to have been drafted solely from the point of view of facilitating the free movement of goods, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, pointed out. The court's judgment could not relate to the economic circumstances which obtain at the present time. It tended instead to look forward to the time when the objects of the Treaty of Rome will be achieved, that is, free movement within the Community.
While the Government fully endorse that objective, we also need to consider the problems of the present. Since the inception of the Medicines Act 1968, successive Governments in this country have been concerned to maintain standards of safety, quality and efficacy in medicinal products and to ensure the integrity of storage, handling, and documentation arrangements. We are committed to ensuring that these standards are maintained in the future. Any directive should not prejudice the controls already established for the protection of the public by permitting, for example, the importation of a product where the identity of the product had not been firmly established or where it was not possible to identify particular batches so that suspected quality defects could quickly be identified, quarantined and recalled, or to ensure compliance with the terms of the existing licence.
The Government's view therefore is that, although a directive is necessary, further consideration of it should be delayed until the Commission has dealt with both the initiatives on price structures and harmonisation of manufacturing standards. This view will be put forward in European Community discussions on the subject in the hope that it will find a measure of acceptance among other member states and the Commission. However, if the general Community view is to proceed with a directive, then we would not wish to withhold our co-operation. Our objectives—and here again we are entirely at one with the industry—would then be to see the proposed directive modified to provide that regulatory authorities rather than the parallel importer are entitled to obtain confidential information relating to medicinal products in order to operate a system of registration. We should seek to secure adequate control of the parallel importer and of
300
the products he imports in much the same way as any other licensed manufacturer or wholesaler of medicinal products, without creating cumbersome and expensive administrative machinery and without imposing unreasonable requirements upon the original licence holder. Above all—and your Lordships may rest fully assured on this point—the Government will do their utmost to ensure that the standards of safety, quality and efficacy of medicinal products which this country presently enjoys are maintained.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, as there is a most important Unstarred Question following this debate, I will certainly not detain your Lordships' House. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, for taking part in this debate and also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, for the very satisfactory reply he has given. I should like to make various comments on it, but in view of the lateness of the hour and the other business which is to come before the House I will not make any further comments other than to thank the noble Lord for all that he has told us this evening.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Economy
9.30 p.m.
The Duke of Abercorn The Duke of Abercorn rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will introduce special and innovatory measures to assist the Northern Ireland economy.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, although this short debate is held against the all too familiar backcloth of community tension and uncertainty in Northern Ireland, I believe that the will and determination to solve our grave economic problems must continue unabated and not be sidetracked. Indeed, it is a fact, and a sad fact, that our political, economic and social problems are inter-related. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Airey of Abingdon, is also participating in this debate this evening.
I believe there is a grave danger that the Government and the people of Northern Ireland are getting too locked into existing problems and therefore failing to identify economic potential, for any society which insists on sticking to traditional economic methods and systems, instead of exploring new ideas, new technologies and new structures, will remain a static society and be left behind. Therefore, when reading the Hansard report of a recent economic debate on the Northern Ireland economic situation I became more and more depressed since the Government's response to a grave economic situation was indeed unimaginative, almost lethargic. In fact, there was no semblance of a radical approach to counteract a deteriorating situation resulting in a continuous narrowing of the Northern Ireland economic base and further losses in employment.
The gravity of this economic situation is confirmed by the Government's own unemployment assumptions, which imply that the total number of unemployed will soon exceed the numbers employed in manufacturing. Surely the extent of a reversal of this grave trend and then any economic recovery in the future will directly

301
depend on the Government's imaginativeness and the response both by investor and entrepreneur. I am convinced that these two ingredients are inter-related, for during my association with the Local Enterprise Development Unit one witnessed time and again the response of local businessmen to the range of incentives provided by this organisation. Therefore, clearly there is the strongest necessity for the Government to widen and update the initiatives offered to business talent, and in fact establish a commercial economic platform to encourage practically, develop and literally launch every vestige of talent within Northern Ireland.
So often debates and discussions on the Northern Ireland economy have itemised existing problems but rarely pinpointed areas of potential growth and initiative. On this occasion I will attempt not only to itemise these problems but also to recommend a prescription for the cure to some of our problems. Of course, it would be irresponsible to suggest any further significant public expenditure for Northern Ireland, due to the prevailing economic climate in the United Kingdom. But much could be achieved at modest cost if only the Government and their advisers would adopt a more inspiring and less mundane approach.
Apart from the high cost of living, in stark contrast to low income per capita, there are the all too familiar problems of high energy and transport costs which impose on the economy a severe competitive disadvantage. Again, the rate of exchange for sterling, particularly in relation to the punt, has yet further increased this competitive disadvantage. Also the declining ability of Northern Ireland to attract new investment is due not only to years of political strife and violence, but also to the scarcity of mobile investment and inequitable fiscal incentive competition from the Irish Republic.
During the last decade there has been considerable emigration from Northern Ireland which, in the short term, has naturally alleviated the unemployment problem but at very considerable cost to the country in terms of skilled, qualified and management talent since emigrants tend to be drawn from the more able, better qualified sections of the population. Therefore, Northern Ireland is losing some of its best talent and potential who are desperately needed now and in the future to tackle our economic problems.
How can the Government assist in the counter-drift of that talent? I believe that the Government should appoint one of the existing agencies to carry out systematic detective work to find out where this expatriate management talent has emigrated to, then make contact and encourage a reverse brain-drain movement so that these expatriate managers can develop further their talents in Northern Ireland. Research work of universities and technical colleges could provide considerable assistance. In other words the LEDU dragnet has successfully contacted the local businessmen and now the Government dragnet should be trawled further afield. Are the Government in agreement with that proposal?
Since incentive financing is now a major moving force in both British and American industry, and probably one of the most encouraging developments in industry during the last 12 months, surely the Government should maximise the encouragement of expatriate managers to become entrepreneur owners of manufacturing firms in Northern Ireland by offering
302
really generous incentives and opportunities which could result in considerable benefits to the Northern Ireland economy in the 1980s? To quote but one example, the recent announcement of Sperrin Textiles at Coleraine is, indeed, an encouraging move in this direction.
I am concerned that successive Northern Ireland Administrations have failed to take advantage of European Investment Banks Loans for public and private sector projects. As regards public sector projects, since 1973 EIB finance has been sought for only five infrastructure projects in Northern Ireland amounting to only £115 million. In other comparable, less-favoured regions of the Community, the authorities seek EIB assistance for most of their respective infrastructure developments, including water supplies, land drainage, railways, ports, and advance factories, in addition to roads and telecommunications. As regards loans to private sector projects, the bank has made only two direct loans for industrial projects and five indirect loans for smaller projects. That contrasts most unfavourably with the hundreds of such loans made to other comparable regions.
As regards loans for land drainage and reclamation, I received confirmation last December that, in principle, the EIB would provide loans for land improvements up to half the involved cost. Although a loan, as of today's date, would offer only a marginal advantage over bank borrowing, I believe that this opportunity should definitely be offered to the farming community since there are thousands of acres, particularly in the West of Northern Ireland, which could he reclaimed, thus providng not only increased production, but also further employment.
As the Northern Ireland Development Agency is, of course, actively involved in offering loans to viable projects, would it not be more practical for this agency to take over the role of the EIB agency for all commercial and industrial projects in Northern Ireland? Is it not ironical that it takes the worst economic depression in Europe since the war to re-emphasise the importance of agriculture to our economy? The severe effect of the current recession in farming has hit—and hit hard—every sector of the rural community, for in Northern Ireland farming is, and will always remain, our biggest and most important industry, providing the only source of economic stability in rural areas.
When the country moves out of the recession, many factories and businesses will remain closed. However, our land will remain intact. Therefore, it is essential that in order to achieve the vital economic recovery, agriculture is given a prominent role to play. I believe that my noble friend Lord Elton was in Brussels last week communicating the problems of Northern Ireland's agriculture to the Commission. I look forward to him informing the House about the progress of these negotiations and in particular about an announcement on the less favoured areas, which I believe should take place either this year or in 1982.
Again, the time is right to examine how and where production can be improved, thus providing direct and downstream employment; in other words, further employment in the food-processing industry; for further manufacturing of our large supplies of beef and dairly produce would, of course, narrow the gap

303
between the animal and the shopping basket and help create additional revenue and additional jobs. Are the Government in agreement with this viewpoint?
I recently tabled a Question asking the Government what benefits, in both additional revenue and employment, could he generated through increased processing and more sophisticated marketing of Northern Ireland's food products. I was appalled by the hollow reply, stating that it was not possible to quantify any such benefits that might arise, as the Community market of 260 million consumers offers a whole new marketing opportunity which must be exploited through increased processing and more sophisticated marketing. Surely the Northern Ireland Office should be carrying out detailed research into these opportunities in order to maximise the advantage of our indigenous products which could result in much needed further employment in rural areas. Are the Government in agreement that such research is urgently required?
How can the Government apply more incentive and impact in attracting mobile investment to Northern Ireland? In 1978 the consultancy organisation, Plant Location, carried out a study of financial inducements to attract mobile investment, and concluded that the Northern Ireland range of financial inducements available to industry was more beneficial than and superior to that offered by any other European countries. However, the salient fact remains that since 1972 Northern Ireland has only promoted more than 2,000 jobs from inward investment in one single year, namely, 1978. Clearly, the impact of the available range of financial inducements is more than counteracted by the Northern Ireland image problem. Again, there is a feeling that the current Government policy towards attracting new industry results in investments of high cost and high risks that are over-reliant on subsidy and too capital intensive, and has failed to attract the highly profitable firms in the process of expansion. Since it is vital to attract long-term viable investment to Northern Ireland I believe that fiscal incentives are just as important as grant inducements in this context. Therefore, I urge the Government once again to introduce a stabilised rate of corporation tax, say at 10 per cent., until 1990 which would provide Northern Ireland with fiscal incentive parity to the Irish Republic.
The Government must also appreciate that a fiscal incentive to attract mobile industry would have maximum psychological impact with minimum cost to the Treasury. When this House discussed the Appropriation Order last December I asked the Government to review once again the right structure for job promotion agencies in Northern Ireland. Since then, many prominent business men, trade unionists, and academics have constructively criticised the present structure.
In April 1980 the Northern Ireland Economic Council recommended the establishment of a single economic development authority in order to take over responsibility for all forms of job creation and job maintenance in both large and small businesses. Northern Ireland has a population of only one and a half million, yet there is a proliferation of job creating agencies; namely, the Department of Commerce, the Northern Ireland Development Agency, and the
304
Local Enterprise Development Unit. Since all these agencies are interrelated I am of the firm opinion that the current structure is sheer madness and at times creates a bureaucratic jungle which cannot possibly maximise effectiveness. One promotion agency avoids duplication of talent, time and effort, and removes inevitable contention between agencies. Again, and of equal importance, a sole vertical organisation consisting of sites acquisition, factory building, internal and external promotion, including a sophisticated marketing service, which is of crucial importance, and equity participation would result in a concerted, nationalistic, if not missionary zeal, which Northern Ireland so desperately needs to generate.
I also support the Economic Council's view that this single agency should be an independent body located outside government and staffed by personnel of the highest calibre available. As this House is aware, the innovation which creates and generates economic growth comes from individuals and not institutions. I should like to confirm this viewpoint by quoting from the 1979–80 Annual Report of the Economic Council:
"We find it equally difficult to see how leadership drive and entrepreneurial flair, which a successful job creation agency so obviously requires, could be exercised within the Civil Service".
Therefore, although civil servants have succeeded in job promotion, particularly prior to 1968, I believe that this crucial role should now be undertaken by businessmen who can speak the same language as successful industrialists. However, the success and impact of LEDU should be preserved by the formation of a small industries division within an economic authority.
Are the Government still determined to maintain the status quo? I believe that the Northern Ireland economic problems highlight a fundamental weakness in the United Kingdom economy; namely, too few producers. How can the Government counteract the alarming decline in Northern Ireland manufacturing employment of 22·5 per cent. between 1969 and 1979, and at the same time adopt a policy of minimising transport costs across the Irish Sea—in other words, encouraging the manufacture of high added value products? I believe the answer lies in concentrating on the development of advanced technology which would result in taking full advantage of the high quality of existing school education; and of course the higher educational institutions there are quite outstanding. Therefore, I read the Economic Council's report on advanced technology opportunities for Northern Ireland with great interest, and I quote this highly relevant paragraph:
"Advanced technology is very suitable to those countries which have little or no natural resources other than the innate skills of their people. Switzerland and Japan are but two examples of such economies and there is no basic reason why the Northern Ireland economy should not be developed along similar lines".
Do the Government agree with that assessment? Do they plan to implement the recommendation of that report? If so, to what extent? Surely it is important initially to harness together all existing high technological talent and energy within Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland suffers not only in geographical remoteness but also in remoteness from international

305
developments in terms of products, processing and new markets. Therefore, more than most countries we must adopt a more effective form of importing knowledge and innovations; for instance, plugging into developing American technology. Surely the Government should seriously consider encouraging an American institute of technology to establish a research innovation centre on one of the university campuses, which would not only provide vital employment for Northern Ireland brain power, but also provide an excellent launching pad for the further development of Northern Ireland advanced technology. Do the Government agree with that proposal?
Probably our greatest national asset is the excellent and reliable labour force, of keen trained and educated men and women, while the most effective shop window to display this factor in America lies in the success of the De Lorean motor car project and the Lear fan jet enterprise. There is no doubt that if those highly-publicised and innovatory enterprises succeed, the spin-off effect in new American investment for Northern Ireland could be considerable, if not immense. Success will prove that Northern Ireland not only has a highly effective labour force, but can also create large new business enterprises in minimum time. Again, let the constant critics of the De Lorean car project remember that Northern Ireland has all too often witnessed the withdrawal fever of branch factories by the parent company when there is the first whiff of a recession. In this instance, De Lorean stands or falls by the success of its management and labour force at Dunmurry.
Having discussed the urgent need for Government to implement a short-term startegy to avoid further de-industrialisation, I wish now to stress the need for an intensive long-term strategy to attract more talent and ability into industry. I believe that the Government could achieve this objective by studying the promotional success of the combined cadet force which has resulted in excellent recruitment of the highest possible calibre of all ranks; in other words, an industrial cadet force established on the same enterprising basis with, say, an annual camp being spent not under canvas, but with a LEDU-sponsored firm. Again, each school could be twinned with a sponsoring industrial firm. The analogy between the proven success of a combined cadet force and the potential in an industrial cadet force requires urgent consideration by the Government. I am fully confident that my noble friend Lord Elton, who so far has achieved a great deal in encouraging closer liaison between education and industry, will react favourably to this concept.
9.56 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Duke for tabling this important Question and to indicate support from these Benches that special and innovatory measures should be vigorously and urgently tackled by the Government to assist the Northern Ireland economy. I believe that my remarks might follow closely the theme which the noble Duke has put forward. I am pleased to note that in addition to the Minister two other noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Airey of Abingdon, are to speak in this short debate. As the hour is late, I shall try to
306
keep my remarks brief. Therefore if I do not make and argue my points in accordance with the relevance that I think they merit it will be because I am trying to be as brief as possible.
Like the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, I find it difficult to speak about the Northern Ireland economy without mentioning the acutely fractious and sensitive nature of the present community tensions in the Province. There can be no doubt that the continuous political instability and violence weigh heavily against new productive investment and employment. At the same time I consider that the debate is timely for I believe that there is a greater need than ever for all sections of the Northern Ireland community to take suitable measures to surmount the present sad, difficult and tense political situation
The determination of management and workers, of industrialists and trade unionists, to carry on with their respective daily business and jobs in the face of ideological terrorism and divisive provocation is a great tribute to the commonsense and diligence of the vast majority of people in all parts of the Northern Ireland community. There is every reason to believe that these qualities of steadfastness and courage in adversity are potent forces for good in all aspects of civilised living. However, there can be no doubt that persistent heavy unemployment has serious social effects in any society. In a community divided as politically and culturally as is Northern Ireland these effects are exacerbated. Members in this House will know of the chronic levels of unemployment and social deprivation in the Province. It is not my intention tonight to recite a litany of the proven need for employment, housing, health, educational and social amenities in Northern Ireland.
While it is unlikely that employment and social developments alone would solve Northern Ireland's political and cultural conflicts, there can be no doubt that improvements in economic measures and outlook would remove some of the feelings of alienation and antipathy towards the system of the society that we have in the Province. I am sure that all your Lordships would agree that self-respect is usually an early casualty among the unemployed. Many young people feel rejected, useless, and without a purpose in life. I suggest that as a Government and as responsible citizens we must together earnestly search to find possible ways to overcome this sense of rejection which unemployment encourages. We must give hope to the people, in particular to the young adults. They must feel that they have a real share in our Province and that they can help to build for their present prosperity and their future wellbeing.
There are strong economic arguments to support jobs rather than dole, and I stress here the humanitarian aspects as well as the political aspects. Certainly there is little within the economy of Northern Ireland today to inspire and encourage hope. We have the highest level of unemployment since the 1930s and the biggest ever rise in unemployment in a single year. We have suffered the biggest fall in output in many years and the greatest collapse in industrial production since the pre-war depression.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, has referred to the European Investment Bank and it might be appropriate for me to mention the outlook as seen by

307
a number of banks in Northern Ireland. In his annual report, published on the 26th March this year, the Chairman of the Northern Bank, Mr. Newland, stated:
"Since the incorporation of Northern Bank in 1824 no year as proved as financially unsatisfactory as 1980. In the past it has been reported that industry in the Province was in a depressed state and no alleviation of this condition occurred in 1980. As a result, many businesses have been forced to cease trading, often with considerable loss of employment. Of our very substantial total of bad debt provisions, the greater proportion has been incurred in Northern Ireland in lending to industrial customers, either to broaden their activities or to introduce new products. Our disappointment with the outcome of our endeavours is tempered by the knowledge that we have tried to play our part in stimulating and sustaining the economy of Northern Ireland and that in certain directions we have achieved a measure of success".
Mr. Newland goes on to comment:
"Apart from the immediate effects of closures and redundancies the overall decline in manufacturing is of great concern as and further shrinkage of the industrial base could have a serious effect on the Province's ability to participate in any improvement in trading conditions".
Speaking at the annual general meeting of the Ulster Bank on the 9th April 1980, Sir Robin Kinahan stated:
"A very troublesome year lies ahead. In the north, inflation is coming down but unemployment is rising fast. Many businesses are in trouble and, as previously mentioned, the farming community is having a difficult and unprofitable time. They are struggling against rising costs and static prices".
The banks and finance houses have made efforts to stimulate and sustain the economy in Northern Ireland and measures have also been promoted by such bodies as the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce, the Northern Ireland Region of the Confederation of British Industry, and the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. There have also been published recently studies by the Northern Ireland Economic Council mentioned by the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, the well-researched quarterly reports published by two firms of industrial consultants, namely, Cooper and Lybrand and P. A. International. Both these industrial consultancies have a high degree of experience, expertise and knowledge concerning the Northern Ireland economy.
Another praiseworthy effort to promote action and commitment was taken recently by a group of Ulster businessmen under the chairmanship of Mr. Stanley Silcock of the Engineering Industries Association, who presented the Industry Minister for Northern Ireland, Mr. Adam Butler, with a plan to rebuild and rejuvenate Northern Ireland industry.
Whatever else they do, these reports, statements, studies and proposed plans reveal a deep and growing concern about the present Government policies and the lack of suitable administrative machinery for dealing with industrial problems and the promotion of jobs. I join the noble Duke in asking this. Is it not a tragedy in the small industrial community, with a labour force in the region of around 600,000 people, that we have in Northern Ireland we have failed to devise and accept suitable measures to promote a dynamic industrial strategy backed with a sense of commitment and common purpose.
It is important to realise that we have a small, open economy, and that we have to compete effectively in a world in which practically every Government seek
308
to help their industry by working in partnership with it. There is therefore no way that the Government can stand aside and leave industry to its own fate. Equally, the Government should not be seen to do industry's job. The only way forward is a partnership, in which the Government play a strategic role while leaving to management and trade unions the responsibility for specific decisions involved in running the enterprises. A new industrial strategy is urgently required if we are to face up to the difficulties about suitable energy supplies, the fast-changing world market forces, the increasing technological innovations and the problems created by structural changes within the Northern Ireland economy.
I would wish to ask the Minister a number of questions. Do the Government accept that they have a responsibility, an obligation, a role to play, in rebuilding and reshaping the Northern Ireland industrial base? Have the Government a co-ordinated strategy to help both sides of industry to innovate and to adopt to the needs for change? In this connection, I would emphasise that any economic strategy and policy for industry must be more than a series of ad hoc initiatives, however well-intentioned these initiatives may be. May I ask: what practical measures have the Government taken genuinely to tackle the problems of Northern Ireland industry? What has been done to exploit to the full new markets for our competitive goods and services? What has been done in the search for new products suitable for manufacture in the Province? What has been done to establish firm links with research and development organisations, especially in the field of engineering, electronics, textiles and food technology? And what has been done to give guidance to our overseas representatives in their search for modern growth products?
My Lords, this debate is timely in that I understand from a letter of reply that I have had from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, the Minister, and from the Secretary of State's announcement on 19th March last, that the Secretary of State was setting in hand studies of the departmental organisation required to deal more vigorously and effectively with economic affairs in the Province. It has been stated that the studies will necessarily include the organisation structure for promoting employment and industry in Northern Ireland, which primarily involves the Department of Commerce, the Northern Ireland Development Agency and the Local Enterprise Development Unit.
I join with the noble Duke in his main theme, though perhaps not in the detail. I am convinced, along with others, that the study should be much wider and should at least include the Northern Ireland Industrial Council, the Industrial Development Consultative Forum and a group of businessmen led by Mr. Stanley Silcock. It could be that the Ulster Farmers' Union could also make a valuable contribution by way of involvement in such a study. If they are to be really tackled, the industrial problems, along with productive investment and job promotion, demand much more than departmental reorganisation. There requires to be a co-ordinated and unifying approach, involving all the interested bodies concerned, if the aim of the Government is really to create a new strategy with a new, imaginative outlook, and with a new commitment to innovation and decision. I have

309
pleasure in supporting the noble Duke's call for a new approach and for Government action concerning industry in Northern Ireland.
10.4 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I will speak only briefly among a list of speakers who have a much more intimate knowledge of the scene in Northern Ireland than I. I support the view that the economy in the Province is affected by three main factors: first, by the economic state of the United Kingdom as a whole; secondly, by the cost of transport and the lack of indigenous energy—the problem otherwise termed that of "remoteness", which was mentioned by the noble Duke—and, thirdly, by civil disturbance, so sadly to the forefront today, with all that it involves by way of terrorism, rioting, bombing and destruction, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blease. All points, it seems to me, are influenced by one vital question which is whether the people of Ulster wish to remain a part of the United Kingdom. The answer is taken as read that the majority does.
I believe that it might be of value to put it to the test by means of a referendum asking two straight questions. One, do you wish Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom? Two, are you prepared to accept the freely declared wishes of a majority of the electorate? There could be two possible results. In the quite unexpected majority decision to leave the United Kingdom, we could then say, "We were very willing to help but we accept your wishes and will withdraw from the running of the Province's affairs". We point out that British involvement to the tune of so many million pounds per annum will no longer be forthcoming. "Thank you at least for saving us this burden on the taxpayer". In the much more expected majority vote to stay in the United Kingdom, we could say to our critics across the world, "This is the clear decision of the people of the Province, democratically expressed. We stay and shall continue to help where we can. We shall continue to do all possible to see that the substantial (if that were the case) minority of voters has no reasonable grounds for grievance".
To return to the three factors affecting the economy, Ulster would then have to accept that it cannot isolate itself from the economic state of the United Kingdom as a whole but would, hopefully, receive urgent consideration of its problems of transport and energy. Liberals for some time have been advocating the setting up of an advisory council of 18 to 20 members elected from the whole Province by proportional representation. May I emphasise that this idea was supported to me by a Tory Member of the other place who has considerable experience of Northern Ireland.
The third factor seriously affecting the economy of Northern Ireland is the civil disturbances there. This is the factor over which the people have the possible answer in their own hands. As an informant has written to me, "I cannot imagine any businessman looking for a factory location being favourably inclined after seeing the media coverage of the Sands affair". Here, I should like to put a question to the noble Lord the Minister when he comes to reply. Does he consider that press coverage gives a fair view of the scene in Northern Ireland or does he consider that it exaggerates
310
the impact of current violence?—for those who live there seem to take a calmer view than those of us on this side of the water where a not infrequent comment I here is, "There is no answer". There seems a tendency to suggest that the clock is being put right back to where it was 10 years or so ago but I cannot accept that as the truth.
My heart warmed to the father, whose son was killed a few days ago, who made a clear statement that he did not want this to be taken as an excuse for further violence. "Do not let them use you", he exclaimed. By "them", he clearly meant the men of evil who deal in terrorism and fear. The position today may not be as critical as it seems to an outsider but I suggest the position is this. It will need great courage by many good people to decide not to be "used"; but to replace hatred by compassion. It will need courage and, I fear, still sometimes sacrifice, before old wounds begin to heal. It will need a miracle, it seems, to solve the problems of the Province and for compromise and compassion to replace rigidity and hate—but I happen to believe in miracles. I came across a proverb the other day which I believe comes from Ireland. It reads: "Two thirds of help is to give courage". The message should go out from this country: So long as you need us, we will help as best we can.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Duke for having introduced this not only important but extremely urgent topic in this House this evening. I think that one of those things to which he referred is particularly pertinent; and that is the state of unemployment which is an index of the economy. The overall figure in Northern Ireland of 17·2 per cent. Is appalling; but when on considers some of the worst areas, the worst one of all is the town of Strabane where total unemployment is 34·4 per cent. and unemployment of all male workers is 44 per cent. This is not just appalling, it is disgraceful, disgusting, shocking and shattering—words are inadequate to describe it.
Ironically and sadly I can remember the time when Strabane was a busy, bustling and thriving country town. I can remember that the noble Duke very kindly had me to stay at his home. It must be nearly 30 years ago. He took me to a shirt factory in Strabane which made up shirts for him. He persuaded me to buy some shirts there because they were good value. Looking back on it, I think that he probably received a commission on the sale! None the less, I say, "Well done" to him because he was promoting industry in that small town which was exporting its textiles all over the world. He has done much since to promote industry in his position on the local enterprise development unit and in many other ways.
Now, sadly, Strabane is by comparison a depressing and derelict place. It is not alone in that in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland's employment is much more dependent on the public sector than the rest of the United Kingdom. In 1979 61 per cent. of the total workforce was in the service industry and of those two-thirds were in the public sector. While it is recognised that cuts in public expenditure are necessary in the

311
interests of Her Majesty's Government's efforts to bring about recovery of our economy it must also be recognised that such cuts have much more swingeing and drastic effects in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. What is more disturbing—and I do not want to be cruel—is the fact that Her Majesty's Government seem to have achieved—I am sure unconsciously—the technique of placing an extermination order on the geese that lay golden eggs but a preservation order on white elephants. Indeed, if one were to be cruel one could suggest that there is a game reserve for white elephants.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would be kind enough to name some of the white elephants?
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention which I fully expected and for which I have prepared. I am about to go on to do that. If the noble Lord will bear with me, I shall, if I may, pursue the sequence of my notes.
First of all I shall speak about the geese which have been trying to lay golden eggs. Enterprise Ulster is one of them. In my view, it has turned out to be a remarkable success in view of the adverse conditions which have obtained since it was established. It has given employment to more than 10,000 people. More significant than that, 54 per cent. of those to whom it has given employment have gone directly into regular employment having previously been in the category of long-term unemployed. The cost per annum per man in the year 1979–80 of providing employment, was according to my figures—I am sure the noble Lord will have some different figures—pound;5,780, whereas it was stated in answer to a Question in your Lordships' House recently that to keep unemployed, with social security, a man with a wife and children, on average earnings, would cost £6,000. Therefore it was more expensive for that man to be unemployed than to be employed by Enterprise Ulster.
Her Majesty's Government have now decided to give an effective reduction—and by that I mean inflation-indexed—of some £5,750,000, I think, which means that the target for cost per man-year of employment in Enterprise Ulster is going down to £5,300, which does not seem to be viable. I am aware that there is the proposed ACE scheme, whereby employers such as local councils will have 90 per cent. of the salary paid of those whom they employ who are on the register of unemployed, but I fear this will not achieve what Enterprise Ulster has achieved in providing a bridge between long-term unemployment and regular employment. Indeed, an independent European survey of the projects in Northern Ireland to cope with the unemployment situation suggested that:
"Enterprise Ulster is enabling men to use their talents and as such must be fulfilling its rehabilitative function in building up self-confidence and self-awareness'.
Thus it is not just a question of taking men off the dole to give them temporary employment, but of getting them rehabilitated and giving them self-confidence so that they will become regularly employed thereafter.
The next goose that lays golden eggs is, I suggest,
312
in the area of housing. The Housing Executive, in some cases understandably, have to block up houses which have become vacant. I understand this is because those houses have to wait for time and money to become available so that they can be modernised and made fit for occupancy. That means there are houses which are not available while, parallel with that, there is a long waiting list for housing all over the country. I thought I had a good idea. I thought we might form a housing association and try to obtain those houses from the Housing Executive, rehabilitate them and make them available for people. But having looked into it I discovered that, despite what one reads in the papers, Government finance has been reduced to such an extent that the formation of housing associations in Northern Ireland is no longer feasible. This removes an area where private enterprise can operate and where extremely good value for money can be obtained, with people using their own talents, skill and energies and, to a certain extent, their own money in bringing houses which are not by any means beyond repair back into the useable housing stock.
Thirdly, I would mention agriculture, which is by far the largest employer of labour in Northern Ireland. Ten per cent. of the entire workforce is still employed in agriculture and a further 4 per cent. is indirectly employed in the industries servicing agriculture. Up till the time when the common agricultural policy began to take effect, the remoteness of Northern Ireland, being as it is on the fringe of Europe, was recognised and we used to receive a remoteness grant. Since then, that is no longer the case and, for the most part, we, at the very tip of the Community, receive the same treatment as, for instance, the county of Kent which is, on a clear day, within sight of the mainland of Europe.
The result is that, despite the fact that the efficiency of farming in Northern Ireland is right at the top of the league throughout Europe—our margins are well above those of Great Britain in terms of grass production, and certainly in a totally different league table from some of the farms that I saw when I went to France last autumn—the prices that we receive for our produce are well below those in Great Britain, and the prices that we have to pay for our supplies are well above those in Great Britain.
So it means that however hard we work, however well we do, however efficient we are, we cannot win and, with the textile industry having declined, with the shipbuilding industry having declined, we see our largest single employer of labour in jeopardy. Quoting my own small example, my farming company used to employ 22 people. It now employs 16. But to do that we are having to live off reserves, and neither I nor any of my colleagues in farming who has to employ labour is confident as to how long we are going to be able to continue on that basis.
Turning now to the white elephants, I would quote, first, the Portaferry sewerage scheme. Portaferry is a lochside town in my own constituency. It was clear that a new sewerage works was required and when it was announced we were all pleased. Then we discovered that three things were going to happen. First, there was going to be a pumping station erected which would stand 9 metres high, right in the middle of the seafront of the town, spoiling one of the best

313
views in Northern Ireland. Secondly, in an imaginative way, the sewage was going to be pumped almost half a mile upstream, so that the tide would bring it back past the town on its way to the sea. Thirdly, the sewage was not going to be processed, but comminuted, which means churned up by the pumps.
All the people who knew Portaferry, such as the boatmen who have had a lifetime's experience of the tides and winds there, said that this would not work. We all said that the pumping station would be a disaster and an eyesore. But, no. The experts knew better. In the event, the pumping station went up and it was a disaster. After a few weeks, the pumping station was demolished. If it was not to the noble Lord that I wrote it was to his predecessor, asking whether he really felt that it was the best way of deploying public funds for buildings to be erected and then demolished in a matter of weeks. I did not receive an answer to my satisfaction.
The people who knew the waters around Portaferry said that the new outfall upstream would not work, because the shingle and the sand underneath it would be washed away by the tide. But, no. The experts knew better. In the event, the new outfall is still not working, because the shingle and the sand have been washed away from under the pipes. The sewerage system has been connected to the old outfall where it is going out in the centre of the town and the contract is, at the moment, £136,000 over and above the original estimate. The sum of £136,000 will not make or break the economy of Northern Ireland, but it is an example of one of the white elephants.
Another example is education. Rationalisation is of course necessary, but is it good expenditure of public money that so large a proportion, £842,838 out of £7 million, should be spent upon transporting pupils by bus to schools so far away from where they live because our segregated education system persists? I entirely agree, and have said so throughout, that it would be a disaster to impose integrated education on Northern Ireland, but I am sorry to have to say that I think Her Majesty's Government lost a valuable opportunity in failing to adopt more fully Professor Astin's recommendations which, in removing the Church's representatives' majorities from the management committees of schools, would have brought the integration of education a stage closer.
I shall not continue to quote examples, though there are others which I could quote. May I say, however, that what we are asking for in Northern Ireland is not favours but fairness. Household expenditure on average, per head, is 11·7 per cent. above that in Great Britain. Household expenditure on energy—heat, light, fuel, power—is 51·3per cent. above the national average. But the average household income is only 82 per cent. of the national average. So all we ask for is fairness.
I will not stray into the field of security or violence other than to say that I hope your Lordships will accept my assurance that on the evening when television news was giving the impression that the whole of Belfast was in a state of rioting, chaos, fire and violence, I and some of my colleagues went through the city. You would not have known that anything was happening at all. These instances were confined to very small areas. I am afraid that it would be difficult for those
314
who had not seen it personally to realise the extent to which those undesirable activities were confined.
I speak on behalf of the vast majority of peaceable and industrious people in Northern Ireland who are not spongers. They are people whose outlook on life and whose self-respect would preclude them from being spongers. They are not seeking charity. That is not their outlook. All they are saying and all I am saying is, "Please, give us a chance".
10.33 p.m.
Baroness Airey of Abingdon: My Lords, I think we should all be very grateful to the noble Duke for asking this Unstarred Question this evening, for giving us such an explicit and first hand description of the country which he knows so well and for telling us of the difficulties which have to be overcome. We have also been told this by the other noble Lords who have spoken so eloquently this evening.
I happen to believe—perhaps this is a feminine trait—that nothing succeeds like success. So may I be permitted for a few minutes this evening to speak about why I think that Northern Ireland has great attractions for industry. I think that we should spell this out loud and strong. There are great difficulties in Northern Ireland. We must not underestimate these difficulties, in particular unemployment. It is with unemployment in mind that I say that I believe we need most urgently to attract industry to that country. There are very great advantages. I think that every possible encouragement must be given to those who are working in danger. But we must remember that this Government have given more than that. They have actually given grants for building factories, which started at 30 per cent. and went up to 50 per cent., and that compares with grants given in this country of 22 per cent., even in the bad development areas.
Then, of course, there is the question—and I remember this so well from when I used to go there—of the difficulty of the expense of electricity and power. This has recently been mentioned by the Prime Minister in a speech in Northern Ireland, in which she said—and I quote:
"It is planned to bring electricity tariffs more closely into line with those in England and Wales, and keep them there".
I think that would make a great deal of difference to industry in the Province.
My experience in Northern Ireland, which at times was very happy, was of the courage and strength and vitality of the people and I believe that they have this strength and vitality—given encouragement—to create jobs and that it is our duty to help them and to carry on those already well-established firms which still exist.
I was particularly interested in the suggestion of advanced technology because, having for so long lived in the shadow of Harwell, I happen to have met a lot of scientists, and I believe that this country, like Northern Ireland, has a great talent for brain work and it may be that we should turn our minds from the old ideas of heavy industry to different ones, both for this country and for Northern Ireland.
I also remember with particular affection going to a small factory—I can hardly call it a factory because it was a place of such artistic talent and those noble Lords who come from Northern Ireland will surely

315
know it well. It is the small factory where they make Belleek—that lovely china. Some of your Lordships may have seen Arthur Negus on television a short time ago, examining treasures which were brought by people and he was telling them exactly what they were. One lady had brought a beautiful antique Belleek vase and I shall never forget the appreciation with which he touched the beautiful glaze and explained how the flowers were all put on by hand. I can assure your Lordships that it is exactly the same today and I know that many of the shops here in London who are supplying this beautiful ware cannot get enough of it for visiting tourists. This may be exactly the opposite end from advanced technology but I believe that something in between these two sorts of industry would be of great advantage to Northern Ireland.
There are to my mind several other attractions, and one is good industrial relations. Over a period of 10 years industrial relations in Northern Ireland have been 14 per cent. better than those in Great Britain. A large number of firms have in fact gone there. I believe that 37 American firms have gone there, and within the last three years no fewer than 13 American firms have done so, so that has been continuing despite the problems. There have been German firms and some French ones.
There are attractions for those who bring their families with them, because there are undoubtedly very good schools with dedicated teachers; there are also splendid hospitals where dedicated doctors and nurses tend without fear or favour the wounded and sick, and do not go on strike. So I think I should like to mention one more point, which has been mentioned this evening. I would ask those who have influence with people who are involved with television and the press to urge them to spare us past stories of troubled history and accounts of present violence. While we salute the bravery of those who have to face the danger, I pray that their children, with all the help we can give them, may be famous for creating peace and prosperity in their country.
10.41 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow a speech in such striking contrast with the normal catalogue of difficulties and obstructions with which we are apt to involve ourselves when we look at the problems of Northern Ireland. I say this with no disrespect to other noble Lords; I am constantly concentrating on the difficulties myself. It is a good thing to look at the positive side of the problem as well as the negative.
None the less, the House will be grateful to my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn for this opportunity to discuss the difficulties as well as the opportunities with which we are faced in the economic affairs of Northern Ireland. It is a subject which is too little considered in responsible circles outside Government and outside Northern Ireland. The Government have brought forward and implemented a whole range of measures, and a very significant sum of cash, in response to it. My noble friend, I know, fears that we have been so closely concerned with the day-to-day conduct of this process and perhaps so deeply inbued with traditional
316
responses to standard problems that we have lost sight of the full scope of the problem.
As a distinguished member of the timber industry, and one who lives among some of the most agreeable forests in the United Kingdom—as perhaps even the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, will remember, and perhaps he has visited them again since that distant time 30 years ago—my noble friend may feel that we cannot see the wood for the trees. In fact I think he is wrong, and I hope that your Lordships will agree with me at the end of this rather late debate.
First, let me assure him that the Government are aware, acutely aware, of the impact which the present recession has had and which it continues to have in Northern Ireland. No one in Government, or in Northern Ireland, needs to be reminded that the Province, with its heavy dependence upon traditional manufacturing industries and upon an agriculture sited on the very outer edge of the European Common Market, is especially vulnerable to any downturn in the economy. No one in Government, or in Northern Ireland, can fail to be anxious to reverse such a trend and to reduce the present deeply unsatisfactory level of unemployment. That has to be said, although it goes almost without saying.
The cost of the depression, in terms of personal unhappiness, in careers ended early and youthful ambitions frustrated and soured, cannot be counted in terms of money and it cannot be counted without regrets. But I do have to tell the House that any facile attempt to change this by suddenly multiplying Government expenditure without regard to the effect that it would have upon inflation would lead to disaster—the cure, my Lords, would be infinitely worse than the disease. The symptoms would be the same but they would probably be fatal. We all know the critical importance that limitation of public expenditure has in present circumstances. That is familiar ground. Not all your Lordships may agree with the economic policies of the Government, but I think they are at least well aware of them. My purpose, therefore, is not to re-state those policies yet again: it is merely to place the problem of Northern Ireland—to which my noble friend has very properly directed our attention this evening—into that context.
The United Kingdom was, when we came to Government, over-borrowed and heading for hyper-inflation. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and shares its difficulties. We have instituted measures that have staved off hyper-inflation and which will result in the eventual—I believe the not too distant—re-emergence of a soundly structured economy for the whole of the United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland, again is part of that United Kingdom. Having shared in its decline and its problems it will share in its recovery.
No special measures for the Province, therefore, that will militate against that general recovery can, in the end, bring the Province any long-term benefit at all. All proposals have, therefore, to be examined in the light of that fact. From that your Lordships might suppose that Her Majesty's Government had entirely ignored the special circumstances of the Province and meted out to it treatment the same as for tile rest of the United Kingdom, but that is far from the case. Let us look at the record. Let us consider first schemes

317
that apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, but which could bring most benefit where the need is greatest.
I would point first to the 2 per cent. cut in the minimum lending rate and then to the new measures introduced to encourage the growth of small firms—well and eloquently praised by my noble friend Lady Airey—included in these last is a loan guarantee scheme; tax relief for individuals starting up new businesses; an increase in the VAT threshold; and measures to ease the impact of corporation tax on small firms. In all this the Government have introduced more than 50 aids to help small firms since they came into office and in so doing they have done much to encourage, as my noble friend put it, the management talent that we have in the Province and to help small enterprises such as those of which we have just been talking.
I believe that small firms will provide the real engine for growth, and the lasting flexibility needed to strengthen the whole of the United Kingdom economy and expecially that of Northern Ireland. The Province, therefore, will benefit, at least proportionately, from the new measures introduced in this field by the Government. In addition to them, we have the efforts of the Local Enterprise Development Unit which has made a very significant contribution to job creation in the Province since its establishment in 1971 and has been favourably mentioned already this evening. I am convinced that we can look to the small firms sector to provide real growth in employment opportunities over the next decade.
I recognise, of course, that it will take that sort of timescale, and that is why we shall continue to provide encouragement to existing industry in Northern Ireland; and why we have made such vigorous and successful efforts to attract inward investment. I promised my noble friend to consider our special treatment of Northern Ireland as well as our general measures. In that context I have to say that we have available in the Province the most generous range of financial incentives of any region in the United Kingdom. These include grants towards capital investment of up to 50 per cent.—as the noble Baroness has rightly said—compared with a maximum in Great Britain of only 22 per cent. Some noble Lords will wish to compare these not with Great Britain but with the tax incentives available in the Irish Republic and would call for the introduction of similar measures to theirs in Northern Ireland. But these incentives that we have in Northern Ireland are additional to the normal tax system of the United Kingdom and that system is itself already geared to helping companies in the early years of a project. It does so by capital allowances and by stock relief. The Department of Commerce has recently produced a leaflet explaining these measures for the benefit of potential investors.
In continuing to make efforts to attract new inward investment to Northern Ireland, we do recognise that competition throughout the world for it is intense. It can be expected to increase as more of the newly industrialising countries seek to attract inward investment. Their low labour costs will give them a competitive edge over European producers. There is thus lively competition for internationally mobile investment, and jobs so generated can be very expensive. This calls for measured and selective judgment of the
318
projects which are most worth supporting and encouraging.
We shall be concentrating our efforts in areas where success is most likely to be achieved. We shall be looking for high growth, high technology sectors offering high value added, and jobs that last, and for companies which have characteristics likely to give them a secure future operating from a Northern Ireland base. In every case, however, we shall wish to apply stringent standards of investment appraisal, so as to ensure that the taxpayer is satisfied that Government funds are being sensibly deployed on his behalf; because, of course, he provides them. Although 1980 was a difficult year, over 7,000 new jobs were promoted, so I would not entirely accept the noble Duke's assumption that Northern Ireland is decreasingly able to attract investment from abroad.
The Government do give special responses to special circumstances. A good example, and one being introduced into Northern Ireland at this very time is the enterprise zone. This concept is an exciting one. I think that it is also innovatory. It could well lead to a real regeneration of employment opportunities in rundown city areas. The enterprise zone in Belfast, in particular, will, I believe, be suitable both for the development of small firms and for the introduction and attraction of new inward investment.
Regional economic development depends in large measure for its success upon the success which is achieved by its businessmen in selling their goods and services. We are at present in a buyer's market worldwide, and selling is no very easy job. But in a buyer's market, of course, selling, becomes a function of critical importance. Selling is the job of managements. Government departments cannot do it for them. But on the other hand, Government can give them constructive support. This is recognised at the national level in the facilities which are offered for the encouragement of United Kingdom exporters, and which are fully available to firms in Northern Ireland.
In addition, in Northern Ireland the Department of Commerce is developing a series of initiatives which are especially geared to Northern Ireland's regional needs. This programme has been agreed with industry and with representatives of industrial organisations. It is geared mainly to helping Northern Ireland firms to maintain and develop effective trading relationships within Great Britain, and to maximising the trade opportunities which are available in the markets of Western Europe. That answers queries given to me this evening by a number of noble Lords. Through this combination of regional initiatives and of national facilities, the Government have provided for industry in Northern Ireland a comprehensive service of trade support.
I have already voiced the profound concern of Her Majesty's Government for the level of unemployment. That brings me to the third element of our response to Northern Ireland's economic difficulties: specific measures to alleviate unemployment, which are of great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Blease.
As I recently told the House in answer to a Question by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, an additional £9·4 million has been provided for this purpose in the current financial year. This will increase training under the Youth Opportunities Programme by 3,000

319
places and means that now 10,000 young persons can avail themselves of a wide range of opportunities. This additional expenditure is also intended to prolong the life of the Job Release Scheme and the Temporary Short-Time Working Compensation Scheme. A completely new scheme already mentioned this evening the Action for Community Employment Scheme, was introduced on 1st April to enable suitable sponsors to promote projects of community value.
All in all the Department of Manpower Services in Northern Ireland is responsible for employment and training schemes benefiting over 32,000 adults and young persons. None the less we recognise that real permanent full-time employment must be our prime objective, and that is what—within existing financial constraints—we are seeking to create. I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, because he will recognise that we have here a judgment of priorities: how much to spend on palliative measures and how much to spend on the cure.
Manufacturing is not the only industry in the Province. We also have an agricultural industry that employs 10 per cent. of our workforce directly and a further 3½ per cent. indirectly. I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, said about the level of employment in his own agricultural enterprise, and would only mention in passing, in reference to that case, with which I am not familiar, that while, of course, there has been a marked decline in employment there, he and the rest of this House will be aware of the steady drift from the land which has resulted from changing economic circumstances, mechanisation and an increase in the size of units of farm holdings, which has affected the United Kingdom for a very long time.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, has a close interest in agriculture—as, indeed, do I. He will be aware that as a result of an approach by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Agriculture, the European Community Council of Ministers approved a number of special measures to help Northern Ireland: a development programme for the less favoured areas worth up to an additional £4 million per annum over the next 10 years; additional grant aid for improving the handling of feedingstuffs worth £1 million per annum over the next 4 years; and a package of measures to aid development of the beef industry worth approximately £4,300,000 per annum over the next two years. These measures include payment from FEOGA which will double the existing suckler cow subsidy and a 50 per cent. FEOGA grant to aid beef performance testing, artificial insemination, liming the pasture and first time silage makers.
Beyond that and to honour his undertaking to the farmers to provide up to £10 million of extra aid, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is planning to make a further £5,700,000 available in 1981–82 to aid the milk, pig, egg and poultry industries. The allocation of this money is currently under consideration. These measures are once again special to Northern Ireland. But noble Lords should not forget that Northern Ireland farmers will of course also benefit from the 9·5 per cent. average increase in European Community prices agreed by the European Community Council of Ministers for the year 1981–82.
My noble friend has called for us to examine further
320
ways and means of processing Northern Ireland's agricultural produce. I think the phrase he used was to add greater value to it. He and I are at one in that matter. I can tell him that the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Development Agency are in the course of mounting a campaign designed to encourage joint ventures between Northern Ireland food processing companies and partner companies abroad.
We have in mind in particular the creation of partnerships with major food marketing companies in Europe, who will be seeking sophisticated products for distribution through their established networks. These products can be produced in Northern Ireland; they will undoubtedly be capable of adding value to the Province's basic agricultural output. And their addition to the existing product range of the Northern Ireland food processing sector should be a valuable means of securing employment.
I have catalogued the means by which Her Majesty's Government are supporting the economy of Northern Ireland. Some of these means are common to the United Kingdom; others—and the list is impressive—are special to the Province's needs. Not all of them are entirely conventional, but my noble friend, I know, would have us go further. He would have us, I believe, introduce special fiscal measures, and I listened with deep interest to what he had to say on this subject.
He will, I know, appreciate that the question of tax concessions is not a matter for Northern Ireland alone. Taxation matters must be looked at in the context of the United Kingdom as a whole. There is the question of regional policy, and the proposal for tax incentives special to Northern Ireland would certainly not escape the covetous notice of the other regions of the United Kingdom. But we do not have to consider only the regional policies of the United Kingdom. There is also the regional policy of the European Community,
My noble friend will realise that the path he proposes we should tread is fraught with difficulty. While I would not reject his suggestion out of hand I can give him no encouragement to expect anything in the immediate future. He will however recall, and perhaps be encouraged by, the undertaking of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the structure of corporation tax more generally, and this review is now in hand.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, are both anxious, understandably, about the image of the Province abroad, and reference has been made to the media as well. I share the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, of having been in an apparently peaceable city when the media would have us suppose that it was in a state of complete riot. It is of course a fact of reporting that the reporters and the cameras report only the action and not the inaction. The photographers frame the bodies of people in the streets without including the edges, so that one has an idea of an infinite mass of people infinitely engaged in infinite damage. The situation is not like that.
Lord Dunleath: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that, my Lords; but may I ask him, as he seems

321
to have moved on from the area of job creation, why he is running down Enterprise Ulster?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord replied most courteously to my intervention by saying that if I bided my time he would reach that point. I echo his reply. To revert to the question of the exaggeration of the difficulties of the Province which take place through the lens and typewriter, noble Lords should know that the Department of Commerce maintains 17 industrial development representatives abroad, who visit selected companies to explain at first hand what conditions in the Province really are, and in the past year alone these representatives have interviewed no fewer than 1,500 companies.
I would not deny that the image of Northern Ireland abroad has taken its toll in terms of potential job promotion. However, the situation has been improving, since increasing numbers of foreign industrialists are one again visiting Northern Ireland to ascertain for themselves the true facts. The worldwide publicity associated with recent deaths will not have helped Northern Ireland's image as a possible location for mobile industrial development, but I believe that the spirit, resilience and level-headedness to which my noble friend Lady Airey referred will prove itself superior to this disadvantage.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, is anxious for a coherent Northern Ireland industrial strategy and for and end to what he sees as the exclusion of many non-Government agencies from the sacred circle of Government industrial planning. To direct your Lordships' attention to the second point first, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already announced a decision in principle to amalgamate the Department of Finance and the Department of the Civil Service in order to secure a more effective control over resources.
In addition, other studies are in progress concerning the responsibilities of other Northern Ireland departments. It was announced as recently as April 1980 that the existing arrangements for industrial developments were being retained. It is inevitable that these new studies—and I invite close attention to this—must embrace the Department of Commerce, the Northern Ireland Development Agency and the Local Enterprise Development Unit, and I hope that noble Lords who feel we have become fossilised in a particular attitude on this will be reassured.
As to the industrial strategy, I have already shown that the Province cannot have an industrial strategy which is different from that of the United Kingdom as a whole. It is self-evident that the opportunities of Northern Ireland to prosper will depend more than anything else on the restoration of the national economy. However, my honourable friend the Minister of State for Commerce, Mr. Butler, has, I know, been engaged in very useful discussions with the Northern Ireland Economic Council, the Northern Ireland Development Agency and LEDU in the Industrial Development Consultative Forum. Those discussions have included consideration of the framework within which industrial development can best be pursued, and I think that body and the consultations in which it is engaged must at least be a partial answer—probably a quite substantial
322
one in the event—to the noble Lord's wish for a coherent strategy.
If your Lordships will forgive me, I shall reply in writing to a number of points that have been made. I would say in passing what an interesting idea my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn had in a sort of international Pinkertons to trace émigré Ulster talent, and I shall certainly consider his ingenious idea of reversing the brain drain, as he called it, by establishing an American research faculty on an Ulster campus, which was a slight change in emphasis of the proposal he mentioned earlier of a light industrial research unit in a similar place. I will of course have to draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Commerce to his equally innovative idea for a sort of combined industrial cadet force.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, rebuked Her Majesty's Government for the reduction in money available to housing associations. I want to spend a little time rebutting charges, and I would refer the noble Lord to the answer given by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on 3rd March (col. 995 of the Official Report) in which he showed that the money for housing associations was in fact being increased from £13 million to £19 million—not a substantial reduction, my Lords. On a smaller scale we have the Portaferry sewage treatment plant. I do not intend to look at this in detail—not even in theory—but I should not wish to leave the House with the impression that the noble Lord's letter was not answered, although I cannot tell the House why he found it so unsatisfactory and I do not think he will find the time to do so either.
As to the Astin Report, that requires another debate but I will simply say, with the greatest respect, that I feel it is rather facile to imagine that there is an economic motive for adopting the recommendations of the Astin Committee because it would save transport; in fact, if the noble Lord works it out he will see that the children would have to travel further.
Lord Dunleath: The noble Lord has missed the point, my Lords.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, has missed the point.
As to Enterprise Ulster, jobs which depend on continued public expenditure year after year are not secure jobs. The Government's aim is to create the conditions in which enterprise can flourish and where, often with a very modest one-off public sector contribution, new, permanent and secure jobs can be brought into being in the private sector. We should not in any case be comparing the cost of Enterprise Ulster jobs with that of unemployment but rather with the cost of bringing into being jobs in profitable enterprises. A number of such enterprises have been mentioned already this evening. It is a question of priorities, and I believe I have the support of at least some of your Lordships' House in feeling that it is more important to deal with a cure than with a palliative.
On the question of electricity, the noble Baroness, Lady Airey of Abingdon, reminded us that on 5th March the Prime Minister clearly recognised the importance of energy costs and made a commitment. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for

323
Northern Irleand is expected to make a statement tomorrow on the detailed arrangements to achieve this.
I believe that I shall weary your Lordships if I do more than conclude. My noble friend asked me whether Her Majesty's Government would introduce special and innovatory measures to aid the Northern Ireland economy. I have catalogued—perhaps not briefly enough—the measures which we have introduced already, and I believe the list is not insignificant. Indeed, many of the measures are special to the Province; I have reason to know because quite a proportion relate to one of my own departments. Some of them are indeed innovatory. They do not include the fiscal devices which my noble friend recommended; but certainly I will read, as I have listened, with close attention all that he and other noble Lords have said on this and other subjects, and I will draw their remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State.
The Government are never deaf to new ideas and I hope that I have said enough to show both my noble friend and your Lordships' House that this Government are committed not only in words but also in deed to the economic recovery of Northern Ireland. That commitment is urgent to the future of the United Kingdom.

Peterborough Development Corporation Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
  ELECTRICITY AND GAS METER READING
  ELECTRICITY AND GAS METER READING
  THE CONCESSIONARY COAL SCHEME
  THE CONCESSIONARY COAL SCHEME
  THE COMMON FUND AGREEMENT
  THE COMMON FUND AGREEMENT
  DEER: REVIEW OF SCOTTISH LAW
  DEER: REVIEW OF SCOTTISH LAW