Sitting of 5 November 1981

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

  Mr. Speaker's Rulings
  Mr. Speaker: I have a brief statement to make about Mr. Speaker's private rulings—that is to say, rulings given in correspondence but not announced to the House.
  Following representations which I have received from the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), I understand that it is a source of great inconvenience to hon. Members that there is no full and accurate record available of private rulings by past Speakers, although such rulings may nevertheless be called into precedent. I have decided, therefore, that in future, when I give a private ruling which in my judgment is of general interest or could serve as a precedent for the future, the substance of the ruling will be published in the Official Report immediately before replies to written questions. In this way, there will be an accurate public record of all such private rulings in a form in which it is intended that the rulings should be preserved. I hope that hon. Members will find the new procedure helpful.

  Business of the House
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business announcement.
  THURSDAY 12 NOVEMBER—Supply [1st Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on encroachments on local government autonomy, which will arise on an Opposition motion.
  FRIDAY 13 NOVEMBER—Debate on the Government's measures to help small businesses, which will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
  Mr. Charles R. Morris: Is the Leader of the House aware of the reports in the national press today of helicopters being used in the course of an industrial dispute affecting my constituency and the premises of Laurence Scott Ltd? Will the right hon. Gentleman make time available next week for a statement by the Home Secretary indicating the part played by 150 policemen of the Greater Manchester police authority in the use of helicopters in the dispute? Is he further aware that it is widely believed that the pilot of the helicopter breached the air regulations appertaining to the use of helicopters in heavily urbanised and built-up city areas? In those circumstances, why on earth did the police co-operate in a breach of the air traffic regulations governing helicopters?
  Mr. Pym: I cannot comment on the details of the incident, but I give the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking that I shall convey his request to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had a brief Business Statement today. I propose to call those hon. Members who have risen to ask questions and then to move on to the application under Standing Order No. 9.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Although the Leader of the House has not managed to squeeze it into the business for next week, will he recognise the importance of having an early debate on the report of the Select Committee on Agriculture on animal welfare and other documents on the subject that are arousing public interest?
  Mr. Pym: I shall bear that request in mind.
  Mr. Peter Emery: Has my right hon. Friend studied the report of the Select Committee on Procedure (Supply) and its recommendations? As the Queen's Speech presages somewhat less legislation this year, may we be assured of a debate on that report as soon as possible, with the possibility that we shall be able to proceed this Session with one of the Committee's recommendations,—if it were accepted by the House—rather than wait until next Session?
  Mr. Pym: My hon. Friend draws the attention of the House to an important report. It is in my mind to have a debate at some point, but I cannot at present say when. I should like the House to express an opinion about the report, and I shall arrange a debate at some stage.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House assure us that next week, either on Thursday or Friday, although preferably not Friday, a statement will be

  115
  made on the renegotiation of the multi-fibre arrangement? On 10 November the Brussels Council of Ministers will meet to discuss the textile negotiations. As the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt appreciate, the negotiations are vital to both the Lancashire and Yorkshire textile industries. It is important, therefore, that a statement is made to the House by a Minister, because Ministers have changed their positions since representations were last made by an all-party textile group and we should be kept up to date on the negotiations that are taking place.
  Mr. Pym: I appreciate the importance of the subject. Indeed, we had a day's debate on it last Session. I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's request to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.
  Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend will be aware of today's report by the Scottish Law Commission on the principles and financing of divorce. The implications of the report for the Commission that is considering the English and Welsh provisions for the principles and financing of divorce will obviously be of some importance. Will he ensure that as soon as the decision by the English Commission is revealed he will allow a full day's debate on this matter?
  Mr. Pym: I shall keep that request in mind. At this stage I cannot give any undertaking, but I note what my hon. Friend has said.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement by Alexander Haig that a nuclear bomb demonstration will occur somewhere in Europe? May we have a statement next week on the Government's response?
  Mr. Pym: I doubt whether there will be an appropriate opportunity for such a debate, but no doubt hon. Members will have noted what has been said on this important issue. Up to a point, this might be relevant to the debate on the Loyal Address in reply to the Queen's Speech, which is now before the House.

  Security
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
  "the lack of public confidence in the British security service, in view of recent revelations about the espionage activities of Mr. Leo Long".
  I promise, Mr. Speaker, that I shall be brief. It goes without saying that the matter is specific. I submit that the degree of public confidence in the security service is important enough to merit urgent consideration.
  The House last debated these matters in November 1979 and was assured by the Attorney-General, and confirmed in a subsequent reply to me by the Prime Minister, that since the Second World War only one case of immunity from prosecution had been granted to a self-confessed traitor. That was in the case of Anthony Blunt. But now another self-confessed traitor, Mr. Leo Long, has appeared on the scene, and for some reason or other he has not been prosecuted.
  It is important to debate these matters, because it would bring the law into disrepute if the public gained the impression that there was one law for the old boy network of traitors and another law for the rest of us. It is also important to realise that in one of his public statements Mr. Long said that some of his former contacts could still hold important positions. It could well be that some of them could still be employed in the security service in positions where they could betray the trust bestowed upon them.
  It is important that the House allay the suspicions of people outside who may be afraid of a massive establishment cover-up. People are asking how many more traitors will come crawling out of the woodwork of the British establishment. This is causing considerable damage to our credibility both at home and overseas, to such an extent that our security system must be the laughing stock of the world.
  In view of the unsatisfactory responses that the House received the last time that it discussed these matters, it is important to discuss them again so that we can hear the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth from the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
  "the lack of public confidence in the British security service, in view of recent revelations about the espionage activities of Mr. Leo Long".
  I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in that order but to give no reasons for my decision.
  I have given careful consideration to the hon. Gentleman's representations, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILLS PRESENTED
  CIVIL AVIATION (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Secretary Biffen, supported by Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Jenkin, Mr. Secretary Howell, Mr. Leon Brittan, Mr. Secretary Tebbit and Mr. Iain Sproat, presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to the financial limits applying to the British Airports Authority and the British Airways Board; and to make amendments designed to facilitate, or otherwise desirable in connection with, the consolidation of certain enactments relating to civil aviation; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 1].
  HOUSING (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Secretary Younger, supported by Mr. Malcolm Rifkind and Mr. Nicholas Ridley, presented a Bill to amend section 25(1) of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 2].
  NUCLEAR INDUSTRY (FINANCE)
  Mr. Secretary Lawson, supported by Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Humphrey Atkins, Mr. Secretary Biffen, Mr. Leon Brittan, Mr. Hamish Gray, Mr. John Moore and Mr. David Mellor, presented a Bill to alter the financial limit imposed by section 2(1) of the Nuclear Industry (Finance) Act 1977 in relation to British Nuclear Fuels Limited: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 3].
  CURRENCY
  Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne, supported by Mr. Secretary Biffen, Mr. Secretary Lawson, Mr. Leon Brittan and Mr. Nicholas Ridley, presented a Bill to replace section 1(1) of the Decimal Currency Act 1967 so as to sanction references to the new penny as the penny: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read the Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 4].
  SHIPBUILDING
  Mr. Secretary Jenkin, supported by Mr. Secretary Prior, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Biffen, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Mr. Norman Lamont and Mr. John Wakeham, presented a Bill to raise the limits imposed by section 11 of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 in relation to the finances of British Shipbuilders and its wholly owned subsidiaries; and to provide for extending the period in relation to which schemes under the Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments) Act 1978 operate: And the same was read a First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 5].

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That—
  (1) Standing Order No. 6 (Precedence of Government business) shall have effect for this Session with the following modifications, namely:—
  In paragraph (2) the word 'twelve' shall be substituted for the word 'ten' in line 5; and in paragraph (5) the word 'eight' shall be substituted for the word 'ten' in line 30;
  (2) Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 22nd January, 29th January, 5th, 12th, 19th and 26th February, 2nd, 23rd and 30th April, 7th and 14th May and 9th July;
  (3) Private Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence over Government business on 27th November, 4th, 11th and 18th December, 5th, 12th, 19th and 26th March and ballots for these Notices shall be held after Questions on Wednesday 11th November, Wednesday 18th November, Wednesday 25th November, Wednesday 2nd December, Wednesday 17th February, Wednesday 24th February, Wednesday 3rd March and Wednesday 10th March;
  (4) On Monday 14th December, Monday 15th February, Monday 17th May and Monday 5th July, Private Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence until Seven o'clock and ballots for these Notices shall be held after Questions on Thursday 26th November, Thursday 28th January, Thursday 29th April and Thursday 17th June;
  (5) No Notice of Motion shall be handed in for any of the days on which Private Members' Notices have precedence under this Order in anticipation of the Ballot for that day.—[Mr. Pym.]

Orders of the Day
  Debate on the Address

    SECOND DAY
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [4 November]
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
    Most Gracious Soverign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament—[Mr. Michael Shaw].
    Question again proposed.

    Foreign Affairs
    2.47 pm
    The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): It is a long time since I addressed the House on the subject of foreign affairs. However, I am glad that this debate is taking place so early in our consideration of everything contained in the Gracious Speech.
    Naturally, and understandably, we here, and those whom we represent, tend to concentrate much of our attention and time on problems that are both near at hand and immediate. The problems of inflation, taxation, employment, the Health Service and so on were rightly debated time and again in the last Session, and I have no doubt that they will be debated time and again this Session.
    In contrast, the Government's foreign policy seems of less immediate application to our daily lives. It seems to offer less scope for dramatic debate and fewer opportunities for instantaneous decision. But, in fact, it is just as vital to our well-being as any of the matters that I have mentioned—indeed, more so—for if over a period of time any British Government were to neglect our foreign policy or were guilty of faulty judgment or carelessness we would one day wake up to find that our security had disappeared, that our trading opportunities had been damaged beyond repair and that no domestic scheme for improving the lot of the people whom we represent could possibly be put in to effect.
    It seems to me that foreign policy is a network of interlocking responsibilities. There is the responsibility, first and foremost, of the Government to this House, and through it to the electorate, for the defence and promotion of the nation's interests. We also have a responsibility to our friends and allies on whose co-operation we rely and who in their turn are entitled to rely on our co-operation. We also have a responsibility to the world, because it is our duty to work as best we can towards the prevention of suffering and the advancement of peace.
    Our first responsibility as a Government must be to promote the security of the nation. In some periods of history there have been doubts about where any threats to that security might come from. I do not believe that that is true today. There are no such doubts. Peace has been maintained in Western Europe, and the preservation of our security and the maintenance of peace depend almost entirely on the Western Alliance and how it handles its relations with the Soviet Union.
    120
    The importance of this issue is widely understood. The march that took place in central London two weeks ago bears witness to the strength of feeling on this subject. It is one of our most precious freedoms that people should be able to express their feelings peacefully in this kind of way and to know that the Government of the day will hear what they are saying. We all know that this type of demonstration does not happen in the Soviet Union and its satellites, but not many of us in the House believe that that is because their peoples are entirely satisfied with what is going on.
    The Government were impressed by the intensity of feeling in favour of peace, but although we intend to intensify our efforts in favour of peace in Europe, we are not prepared to adopt some of the solutions that were being put forward. All of us in the House share the widespread concern outside at the horror of war. Of course we do. But our strategy of deterrence is designed to prevent war. We owe a duty to the people of this country to beware of apparently simple solutions which might, paradoxically, increase the risk of war.
    The unilateral renunciation of nuclear weapons or, taking the extreme, withdrawal from NATO would weaken our security by damaging our ability to deter aggression. As I said, it is deterrence that has prevented war in Europe for 36 years. As long as we remain strong and determined there is no reason why an enemy should ever wish to wage even a limited war against us, but once we appear to be weakening or flinching in our resolve to defend ourselves the temptation to threaten or to blackmail will grow. That will be a threat to our peace and to that freedom that we have defended against all corners for so many centuries.
    That was well recognised by th right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) when he made the memorable statement that
    "once we cut defence expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled, we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders."—[Official Report, 5 March 1969; Vol. 779, c. 551.]
    I agree with him.
    One of the things that the advocates of unilateral disarmament do not realise is that they are actually weakening the possibilities for the arms controls which they and we so much desire. It is only if each side realises that the other is able and willing to maintain an adequate military response that it will be prepared to negotiate. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, why should the Russians come to the negotiating table if they know that if they do not and just sit on the sidelines and wait the West will reduce its armaments in any case? The incentive to come and negotiate just will not be there.
    That is why, in the Government's view, their so-called double decision on theatre nuclear forces was right. We had to show the Soviet Union that we were not prepared to allow it to maintain superiority in this domain, but at the same time we declared our readiness to enter into negotiations designed to avoid a costly and dangerous arms race.
    The Soviet Union has been making unprecedented efforts to achieve great superiority in long-range theatre nuclear weapons. NATO's capability in that area is limited, but if deterrence is to be maintained in the face of the Soviet Union's deployment of SS20s—still proceeding at the rate of one a week—we have no choice but to modernise our own forces.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in all fairness, agree that the "heap of cinders" to which he has just referred is as likely to result from an escalating arms race as it is from an imbalance between the two sides?
    Mr. Atkins: No, I do not agree. That, I think, displays the difference between us. I think that an imbalance between the forces on each side would be more likely to produce the heap of cinders. Indeed, that was the opinion—admittedly some years ago—of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East.
    The modernisation that I was speaking of, with all the expense that that involves, could, in ideal circumstances, prove unnecessary. That point was made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. There is what has been called the zero level outcome. In other words, the Soviet Union would dismantle and withdraw and destroy all its relevant long-range theatre nuclear missiles, wherever they might be, and we would not deploy ours.
    I do not know—none of us knows—whether the Soviet Union would contemplate such an outcome, but discussions on the limitation of theatre nuclear weapons are about to take place. They start, as the House knows, on 30 November. On our side, we are having intensive consultations in the Alliance to prepare for those negotiations. We are agreed on our side that the object of these negotiations is to establish equal ceilings for the United States and Soviet Union, and at the lowest possible level. But theatre nuclear weapons are only one part of the problem.
    Mr. Denis Healey: I have not yet had a chance to see the full text of Mr. Haig's remarks yesterday, but, according to the report in The Times, he accepted the zero option as the best outcome of the negotiations. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Her Majesty's Government take the same view?
    Mr. Atkins: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to what I said a moment ago. What we are seeking, and will continue to seek is equal ceilings at the lowest possible level. If that possible level turns out to be zero, no one will be more pleased than Her Majesty's Government and, I hope, hon. Members on both sides of the House and the British people. We do not know yet whether that can be achieved, but everyone is entering the negotiations with that idea in mind.
    There are, of course, other facets of the problem. There are the strategic weapons, the numbers of which we hope to bring under negotiated control. When the American Secretary of State and the Soviet Foreign Minister met in September, they discussed that matter.
    We in the House have always supported the SALT process, and we strongly hope that negotiations about strategic arms will produce reductions—I stress reductions, not just limitations—by the United States and the Soviet Union. We hope that these discussions will take place very shortly after the theatre nuclear force reduction discussions in November. We hope very much that these can go in parallel, because our objective in both sets of discussions is the same.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: The Government continue to talk about the deterrent. We have Polaris as the deterrent. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the reduction of ceilings. Why are the Government embarking
    122
    on the purchase of Trident, at massive cost? If Polaris works as a deterrent, why do we need Trident, which is at least 10 times more powerful than Polaris? Why should we increase that ceiling and at the same time argue that other ceilings of theatre strategic weapons as between the Soviet Union and the United States should be reduced? Should we not reduce our own ceiling?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to what I said, or perhaps he did not understand it. We need to demonstrate our determination to defend ourselves. The Soviet Union consistently spends enormous sums on its defences, deploying the most modern and enormous weapons against us. There are two choices in the face of a threat. One can say "Never mind. I do not think he will ever do it." Alternatively, by having a deterrent of one's own one can make sure that he will not do it. Successive Governments in this country have followed the second course, which has produced peace in Europe in a very difficult situation for 36 years. The Government do not think that this is the time to abandon that course.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Did my right hon. Friend see a letter in a recent edition of The Economist, in which a survivor of the atom bomb dropped on Japan said that he and relatives who had gone through the experience did not believe that had Japan possessed a nuclear weapon the United States and its allies would have dropped the bomb on Japan? Does my right hon. Friend agree with that view? If he does will he propound it more strongly throughout the country?
    Mr. Atkins: I cannot tell what the Americans would have done 35 years ago. There is no doubt that the policy of deterrence followed by successive Governments, including the Government supported by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) for so many years, has produced peace. What we seek in all these negotiations is a reduction in the levels. I do not believe that any hon. Member believes that approach to be wrong.
    We are not direct participants in the SALT meetings, but we take great care to make sure that the Americans are aware of our preoccupations and points of view. The United States takes account of our views as it prepares for negotiations. We, on the other hand, have been directly involved in proposals for a conference about new measures to build confidence and security in Europe. These proposals are being discussed at the CSCE review conference, which resumed recently in Madrid. We believe that provided such measures satisfy four basic criteria—they must be mandatory, verifiable, militarily significant and applicable to the whole of Europe, including that part of Russia as far as the Urals—they could significantly enhance confidence and reduce tension in Europe.
    All that adds up to a serious programme which, if successful, as we hope will be the case, will ensure our security at a lower level of expenditure and retain the deterrent effect of our Armed Forces without engaging in an exhausting, dangerous and expensive arms race. It is, in our view, the intelligent and responsible reaction to the widespread concern about nuclear weapons and the desire for peace expressed at last month's demonstration.
    We intend to work patiently and persistently with our allies. We shall not engage in futile unilateral gestures, because we do not believe that they are anythng but dangerous. We note, incidentally, that our friends in the

    123
    world have not asked us to reduce or renounce our nuclear weapons. We note also that President Mitterrand sees no contradiction between his determination to transform French society along Socialist lines and his determination to maintain and, if possible, enhance the effectiveness of France's defences.
    Arms control is one of the most important aspects of relations between East and West, but it is also important to have regard to other matters. It is vital that the Soviet leadership knows what the West thinks about international issues.
    Mr. James Callaghan: If the right hon. Gentleman is leaving the question of disarmament, may I say how much we welcome the change in language? At least, the peace movement seems to have altered the Government's tone on these issues. That is welcome and needs support. I should like to raise a specific issue. It is one that I have raised before and to which the Government, I believe, have not addressed any attention. It relates to the prospect of a comprehensive test ban treaty at least between the Soviet Union, the United States and ourselves. I have referred to this question on previous occasions, because when the Administration that I led were in office we had detailed discussions with those other two countries. We had reached a very advanced stage.
    The difficulty then was being caused by the Soviet Union, which wanted a larger number of inspection and monitoring stations than seemed reasonable. However, that was two-and-a-half years ago. President Carter's Government were not particularly enthusiastic, although they were ready to go along with the idea. I have had no indication that the Government have pushed this matter. The initiative came from us. I wish to see it followed up. Is it not clear that if nations cannot test their weapons there is much less of an attraction in devising new weapons and modifications of weapons? To get rid of the testing is therefore an important step on the way to disarmament and to a greater measure of confidence between the nations.
    Mr. Atkins: The right hon. Gentleman has much greater detailed knowledge and wider experience of these matters than I possess. This issue is not dead. It is a subject of close discussion between ourselves and the American Administration. There are different Administrations in this country and in the United States since the right hon. Gentleman was in charge of these matters. We believe that progress on this front is important. This is not the easiest of tasks, as the right hon. Gentleman knows better than I, but all of us would like to see progress. I can only say that we are closely in touch with our American allies. We are putting forward ideas and pressing the United States to engage in this process, which must be to the benefit of all.
    I had been about to say that it is important that the Soviet Union knows and understands what the West thinks about major international issues. My right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary visited Moscow in July to talk about Afghanistan, and he had a further meeting with Mr. Gromyko in September. If the Soviet Union had realised in advance what would be the reaction to the invasion of Afghanistan it is on the cards that it would have thought twice about doing it. That is why we regard it as important that the Soviet Union should
    124
    know clearly, without any equivocation, that it is our belief that Poland should be allowed to settle its own affairs without outside interference.
    A harmonious and unified Alliance depends primarily upon two things. It depends upon the relationship between Europe and the United States, and it depends also upon the harmony and cohesion of Europe itself. Some Opposition Members speak at times as if a stronger voice for Europe in the world, which they want, had nothing to do with the European Community, which apparently they do not want, although we are not absolutely sure about that.
    I assure hon. Members and, if necessary, right hon. Members on the Opposition Benches that the Community is at the basis of all the progress that has been made towards making Europe once more a force in the world. Membership of the Community has been expressly recognised to be the basis of political co-operation among the Ten. There is no way in which we could renounce the Treaty of Rome and yet continue to enjoy the benefits of political co-operation with our nine partners. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] The question is asked "Why not?". Because that is what the Nine say. It is one reason why the Government intend to work to make our membership a success.
    We have never said that the Community is perfect. Its policies need to be improved and developed. In particular, as hon. Members know, there is need for a solution to its budgetary problems. Because of our current Presidency of the Community, it falls to us to chair the meetings where these problems are being discussed. I do not propose to enter into details now. This topic was discussed fully in the House exactly a week ago.
    One of our principal objectives will be to achieve a lasting solution to the budgetary problem which will ensure that, as one of the less prosperous members of the Community, we do not remain almost the largest net contributor. However, we do not see this as just a British problem. The interests of the Community as a whole require that there should be a satisfactory and durable settlement.
    Nor is it just a matter of the budget itself. If the Community is to meet the problems and the challenges of the 80s, in particular the enlargement of the Community, it needs to reach agreement on a broad package of reforms. These must cover, among other things, the common agricultural policy. The Community's aim is that appropriate guidelines on all these elements—budgetary matters, the CAP, and policies other than the CAP—should be agreed at the European Council to be held in London later this month. It is clearly in the interests of all that progress on this matter should not be delayed, because until restructuring is completed, the Community will find it hard, if not impossible, to move forward to tackle new tasks with the vigour that is needed.
    It has been gratifying for all who believe in the European Community to see that, in parallel with discussions over the budget in these matters, progress on foreign policy co-operation has been proceeding. Thanks to a series of decisions taken in London last month—the so-called London report—the process of political co-operation should in future function more smoothly, more swiftly and more effectively than before. Political cooperation can only be a complement to national foreign policies, but the more we can work in unison with our partners the more effectively we are likely to pursue our common objectives. On this, the House should note that

    125
    the Government have established a good relationship with the new French Government, for example at the summit in London in September, and we look forward to our bilateral summit with the Italians next week, and with the Germans the week after.
    We must not forget that we have friends outside Europe and North America. Japan, for instance, in conjunction with other allies, has been contributing significantly to the promotion of Western interests throughout the world. Although there remain problems between the Community and Japan in commercial relations, we nevertheless welcome Japan's growing readiness to assume international responsibilities.
    The search for a comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israel problem has been much in the papers during the past few weeks.
    Mr. Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the news, which I believe came through only at lunch time, that the attempt by the Socialist and Labour Members of the European Parliament to block the payment of £840 million of EEC aid to Britain has been sensibly overturned by Conservative Members and their supporters? Thus, the Labour Party's attempt to block European funds coming to Britain will not work.
    Mr. Atkins: That is my information, and I am delighted that it has happened. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was largely responsible for negotiating for us with the Community the terms under which we would get refunds. In my view it is extraordinary for a Member who subscribes to the Labour Party actually to vote against the United Kingdom getting its money back. I am delighted to hear and confirm that that Member's suggestion has been overturned, and that we shall get the refunds that my right hon. Friend negotiated.
    Mr. Allen McKay: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot undertand why there was a vote against the payment, I shall enlighten him. The money was intended for regional restructuring, not for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Atkins: The truth is that, under the arrangements negotiated by my right hon. Friend, this country was entitled to the return of some money that we had contributed. A member of the Socialist Party in the European Parliament voted against that, and the country can make of that what it likes.
    Mr. James Johnson: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the European theatre, will he say what hopes he has, if any, of negotiating a common fisheries policy in November?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) and I have known each other for many years, and he knows that I am not a pessimist. We can make progress, just as we have made considerable strides over the past few months. The matter is not yet resolved. I freely admit that these matters take time, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, taking the chair at the Fisheries Council, made a number of advances. I cannot predict precisely when the final settlement will come, or what it will be, but we are determined to get a satisfactory outcome. Judging by the performance so far, I believe that I am justified in expressing optimism.
    126
    The Arab-Israeli problem is not totally removed from Europe. This is a matter on which Europe is particularly well qualified to exercise a collective influence. We are united in our approach to the Middle East. We in the Community, are all firmly committed to the State of Israel, and we can never forget the circumstances which led to its creation. However, in our view it is vital that justice for the people of Israel should be matched by justice for the other peoples of the region. That is why our efforts have been and will continue to be concentrated on the Palestinians as well as on Israel's security.
    We were glad that the principles first enunciated by the Ten at Venice are now attracting widespread support. The more specific but broadly compatible principles put forward by Prince Fahd of Saudi Arabia could also mark an important step forward. He, too, accepts the rights of all States in the area to live in peace. My right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary is at present in Saudi Arabia, where he is discussing just these questions.
    Mr. Norman Atkinson: The Foreign Secretary should be in the House of Commons.
    Mr. Atkins: He is in the House of Lords.
    Sir Hugh Fraser: As I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware, there is a difference between the Venice declaration, which referred to specific guarantees to Israel, and the Prince Fahd declaration, which makes no specific or implicit reference. In that case, the Fahd declaration is about as practical a propaganda point in the Middle East, as was the Rogers plan which was produced some four years ago, and it will be rejected.
    Mr. Atkins: My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) is being a little pessimistic. I did not compare the Venice declaration with Prince Fahd's eight principles. They are not the same. Nevertheless, Prince Fahd has suggested eight ideas, including the recognition of the rights of all States in the area to live in peace. That is something on which we must build, and that is why my right hon. and noble Friend is there seeking to build on it.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Atkins: I should like to explain a little more about the Government's views on what should happen now before I give way to the Liberal spokesman.
    The fact that we regard the Palestinian problem as a central issue does not mean that we do not support Israeli withdrawal from Egyptian territory is accordance with the Camp David agreements. We do. This is why four Governments of the Ten are considering whether to respond to the American request to participate in the peacekeeping force in Sinai. That request is being considered. The decision is a difficult one. It is our view that to participate in the peacekeeping force in Sinai would be fully compatible with the Venice principles and with Security Council resolution 242. We would consider playing a part in any guarantee designed to facilitate Israeli withdrawal from occupied Arab lands. President Sadat has been tragically assassinated, be we can still work to restore the territorial integrity of the country which he led with imagination and courage.
    Mr. Johnston: The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) said that the Saudi proposal did not contain any implicit recognition of Israel. I think that the

    127
    Lord Privy Seal will agree that the Foreign Secretary has gone on record as saying that it contains an implicit recognition of Israel. Perhaps it would advance the whole argument more if we recognised that the difference between "explicit" and "implicit" is not terribly real.
    Mr. Atkins: I accept that. There is not an explicit reference to Israel, but I think that all of us who read what is contained in the eight principles realise that there is an implicit acceptance of that.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Atkins: I think that I ought to get on with my speech. I have given way about 10 times. If the hon. Gentleman is kind enough to allow me to do so, I should like to move on from the Middle East to other issues which occupy the European Community, which, although they are not to do with the Middle East, are, nevertheless, fundamental to peace.
    A little while ago I mentioned Afghanistan. We intend to continue to emphasise the importance of a negotiated Soviet withdrawal and the return of Afghanistan to independence and non-alignment. The Ten, as the House knows, have made proposals which remain on the table as a practical way of achieving these ends. The world must not be allowed to forget that there are 85,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan, that there are 2½ million refugees from Afghanistan in Pakistan, and that the Government in Afghanistan exist totally dependent on Soviet support. Our fundamental objection to this Soviet military presence is undiminished, and we maintain—all 10 of us—that its withdrawal would remove a major obstacle to improved East-West relations.
    In Cambodia we are faced with continuing aggression by a powerful neighbour against a weak and much tried people. We welcome the close co-operation over this issue which has taken place between the Community and the Association of South East Asian Nations. It is the Government's belief that the countries of ASEAN are destined to play an increasingly significant role in the world, and, for our part, we intend to foster our relations with them and encourage them as much as we can.
    Mr. Tony Marlow: Perhaps I may take my right hon. Friend back to the Middle East. Will he confirm that it is the Government's policy that all Israeli settlements on Arab lands, be they on the West Bank or in Gaza, should be removed at some stage, and that the acquisition by Israel of East Jerusalem is not legal and should not stand?
    Mr. Atkins: The current apparent policy of the Israeli Government of establishing new settlements is not at all helpful at present, because we are seeking to get a resolution of all of these problems. If they continue to establish new settlements, it will be, to put it mildly, unhelpful.
    I have been speaking for longer than I meant to speak. I wish to refer to Southern Africa, where our specific colonial responsibilities were satisfactorily concluded some time ago, although, not least through our membership of the Community and the United Nations Security Council, we retain a close interest in the area as a whole.
    128
    One of the most important current issues is Namibia. We are greatly relieved that, after a period in which there were serious doubts whether the Five would be able to make progress, there are now signs of movement. A team of senior officials has been visiting a number of African capitals, and continues to do so, on a tour aimed at presenting a set of constitutional principles to guide the Namibian constituent Assembly. The reactions have so far been generally encouraging. The exercise is intended as a first step towards building the necessary confidence so that the United Nations plan can be implemented. We believe that an internationally recognised settlement in Namibia would make a tremendous contribution to peace and stability in Southern Africa.
    We have no illusions about the difficulties. There are plenty of those. But, while there remains a hope of progress in this way—and there does—it is our duty to do all that we can to further it, because the alternative is an increasing cycle of violence which we must do all that we can to avoid.
    I turn to South Africa itself. Partly as a result of our long historical connection with that part of the world, we have a particular interest in seeing and hoping that South Africa will move towards a system of government based on the consent of the South African people as a whole.
    Understanding between developed and developing countries is not always easy to achieve. We are lucky that the Commonwealth can provide us with a special degree of insight. Anyone who questions the value of the Commonwealth should ask himself what he would think if it were another major European nation that had the privileged position that we have in an organisation covering so many and varied countries. Just imagine how envious we would feel if it were another European Head of Government who attended meetings such as the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Melbourne. Forty-one countries attended, including 30 presidents and prime ministers. There was discussion of the world political and economic situation and on Commonwealth co-operation. There was a wide exchange of views, which greatly enhanced our understanding of each other's problems and led to a meeting of minds on many issues.
    The Commonwealth is one important aspect of our relations with the developing world, but we intend also in the coming year to play our part in developing the ideas exchanged at the recent summit meeting at Cancun, in Mexico. Some people have expressed disappointment that Cancun did not lead to more spectacular results. That shows a misunderstanding of the occasion. It was, after all, a limited gathering, and the leaders present were not in a position to commit those who were not present. The purpose was to achieve a degree of agreement on priorities and objectives and to give a lead in the search for solutions to a wide range of problems. All the participants at that meeting felt that it succeeded in doing that. We hope that the constructive atmosphere that prevailed will set the tone for future developments.
    It was particularly welcome that there was consensus for the need for renewed efforts to launch global negotiations in New York, in circumstances offering a prospect of real progress. Let those who criticise the performance of the developed world ponder the fact that President Reagan attended and played a full part in the summit while Brezhnev was invited but refused to come.

    129
    As the House knows, our national resources are necessarily limited. That is why, in the matter of aid, we rightly take great care to see that the recipients are the most deserving and that our aid gives good value for money. We have to be meticulous in our choice of priorities. It is just the same in our foreign policy as a whole. We have to identify our interests accurately and set a correct order of priorities.
    For us in this coming year, our main priority will be to work in co-operation with our European partners and the United States for security in Europe, within which we can rebuild our national fortunes. The Gracious Speech, which we are discussing today, was quite clear on this point. It said:
    "My Government regard the security of the nation and the preservation of peace as matters of the first importance. Increased resources will be devoted to defence and the most efficient use made of them. My Government will continue to play an active role within the North Atlantic Alliance."
    We intend to face up to this responsibility and not shirk the various duties that it will entail. Certainly we must not overestimate Britain's power and influence, but it would, nevertheless, be a mistake to act, as Opposition Members sometimes suggest, as if we were no more than a tiny, isolated island. It would be irresponsible for us not to make our contribution in those areas in which, by ourselves or with others, we can do so. Where there is a role to play and others look to us to play it, we in the Government recognise that it is our responsibility and in our interest to do so.
    3.30 pm
    Mr. Denis Healey: I congratulate the Lord Privy Seal on his first appearance in his new role. I warmly endorse his opening remarks about the importance of foreign policy. I cannot help believing that when he went through the ritual recitation of his Foreign Office brief his energy was less thrusting and his panache a little less sparkling than that of his predecessor. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) set a standard in these matters that is not easy to match.
    It is six months since the House last debated international affairs. None of the major dangers that we discussed then has been reduced significantly. Indeed, some have increased in worrying ways. The House must be particularly concerned at the continuing disarray in Washington.
    When I spoke six months ago I referred to the unresolved conflict between the conservative ideologues and the conservative pragmatists in the new Republican Administration. If anything, that conflict is worse today than it was six months ago. Secretary of State Haig complained a few days ago of a mind-boggling guerrilla war being waged against him by an unnamed official in the White House. It might have been the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) talking.
    I fear that the result is growing confusion in the world about American policy on some major issues, such as our relations with Europe, the Middle East, Africa and the Third world in general. That uncertainty and confusion is profoundly damaging and disappointing to those who believe that world peace depends upon close co-operation between Europe and a United States Administration who know their mind. I believe that all parties in the House take that view.
    The British Government have a major responsibility in helping to organise our European friends to exert as much
    130
    influence as possible on the side of the pragmatists in the continuing argument in Washington. I shall discuss what that might imply in relation to some of the major issues in the Gracious Speech—Namibia, the Middle East, North-South relations and disarmament.
    One part of the world has been ignored by the Lord Privy Seal and by the Gracious Speech. I refer to Central America. In the last six months the tragedy in El Salvador has increased. An estimated 30,000 men, women and children have been killed by security forces there since the beginning of the year in circumstances of appalling brutality. It must be obvious to us all that there is no solution to the problems of that unhappy country in continuing civil war. A negotiated settlement is vital.
    The Opposition welcome warmly the decision by the Governments of Mexico and France to recognise the Revolutionary Democratic Front as a valid party to such negotiations. I appeal to the Government to ensure that Britain does the same. After all, they argue, rightly, that the PLO should be involved in negotiations on the future of Arab-Israeli relations. Similar arguments apply to the recognition of the Revolutionary Democratic Front in El Salvador as an essential party to a negotiated solution there.
    El Salvador is not the only country in Central America about which there are grounds for deep concern. There is growing external pressure on the Governments of Nicaragua and Grenada. The Governments of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras are involved in that pressure. Guatemala is also exerting continuing pressure on the newly independent Commonwealth country of Belize. Some recent remarks by Mr. Haig, particularly at a press conference on 30 October about Cuba, have a disturbing ambiguity. We must tell the Americans that if they, like us, reject the Brezhnev doctrine in Afghanistan, we cannot accept some form of Reagan doctrine as governing United States relations with its neighbours in Central America and the Caribbean.
    I do not for one moment suggest that direct intervention by American forces is likely, but the United States Administration permit the training on United States soil of terrorists from those countries. Supporters of the Somoza regime, the Trujillo dictatorship, and of the extreme Right wing in El Salvador are able to train terrorists and death squads on American soil, particularly in Florida. I cannot believe that an Administration who have declared themselves to be against international terrorism and have argued, rightly or wrongly, that the Soviet Union is behind a great deal of international terrorism should permit the training of terrorists on their soil for use in countries bordering on the United States. Britain has influence in this area. France is trying to exert her influence. I hope that we shall follow that example.
    In our relations with countries we cannot be indifferent to their records on human rights, any more than we can be indifferent to the human rights record of the regimes in Eastern Europe. Under the Helsinki agreement we have formally committed ourselves to being concerned with human rights in Eastern Europe. My right hon. and hon. Friends were deeply concerned about the Government's apparent strengthening of relations between Britain and the regime in Chile and particularly the recent decision to sell warships to that country. I tell the Government, and warn the Government of Chile, that when we return to power we shall restore the ban that operated when we last controlled our affairs.

    131
    We must be deeply concerned about the deteriorating situation in Turkey, and particularly the sentencing of the former Prime Minister, Mr. Bulent Ecevit, to a term of imprisonment, purely on the ground that he dared to criticise the Government. I do not know whether it is true, but this morning I read that one of the European Community Commissioners has warned the Turkish Government that £290 million of aid from the Community to Turkey might be frozen in consequence. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the United Kingdom Government are supporting that initiative by the Commission.
    I come now to the major issues in the Queen's Speech—Namibia, the Middle East, North-South relations and disarmament.
    In relation to Namibia, I agree that some useful steps have been taken by the Western Contact Group in recent months to repair the damage caused by the South African sabotage of the United Nations process in January. I welcome the fact that the new proposals have been endorsed by the Governments of Nigeria and Angola, and that the SWAPO has made important concessions to help the agreement along.
    One must be disturbed at the prospect of long delays in phase 2 of the proposals before elections can take place. According to a statement made a few days ago, the elections have been deferred to about the middle of 1983. To be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), I can only agree with what the Lord Privy Seal said. I do not believe that the Foreign Secretary should be in the House of Commons at this moment, though I have no doubt that many of the Prime Minister's friends or enemies wish that he were.
    Mr. Norman Atkinson: The Foreign Secretary should be a Member of the House of Commons.
    Mr. Healey: That is another matter. That is not what my hon. Friend said. It seems that there will be long delays before phase 2 is concluded. The Foreign Secretary said that delay in achieving independence for Namibia could push Angola further towards the Soviet Union and consolidate the position of the Cuban forces in Angola. I hope that we shall maintain maximum pressure on the South African Government to accelerate the process.
    While speaking at the United Nations Assembly the other day the Foreign Secretary said:
    "'Within South Africa itself … virtually none of the expectations of worthwhile change in recent years have been fulfilled … Reforms promised by the South African Government, mostly still not implemented, do not deal with the fundamental problem of meeting the political, as well as the social and economic, aspirations of Black, Coloured and Asian South Africans'. Without an early move towards government by consent and the abandonment of … apartheid the trend in South Africa could only be one of accelerating conflict and violence."
    We warmly support those remarks. I hope that the attitude of the Government towards the South African Administration, especially on the question of Namibia, will reflect the Foreign Secretary's views.
    I come next to the critical question of the Middle East. It is critical, because there is no part of the world more pregnant with the possibility of conflict that might lead to world war. Again, we must record that the United States
    132
    Administration, nearly a year after the election that gave President Reagan office, still find themselves without a policy in the Middle East.
    The tragic murder of President Sadat, which we all deeply regret, led to many panic improvisations of new commitments by United States spokesmen in television interviews. They include a commitment not to allow Saudi Arabia to follow Iran—whatever that means—to treat Egypt as America's foremost ally in the Middle East—I do not know how the Saudis and Israelis will look at that—to give total support to President Mubarak and defence aid to the Sudan. That is not the way in which a great power should develop its policy towards such an important and complex part of the world.
    The murder of President Sadat has put the problem of Palestine in the centre of the stage. The European initiative, which had been flagging over recent months, has suddenly revived in importance. Prince Fahd's eight-point plan had undoubtedly attracted wide support in the Middle East. Although in some respects I find it unsatisfactory, the plan could, with skilful diplomacy, be rendered compatible with the European initiative.
    I accept that it is difficult to make progress on the Palestine problem until the Israeli withdrawal from Sinai is completed. It is vital that the withdrawal should take place as promised next spring, because the survival of President Mubarak will depend upon it. When that time comes, we must accept that a solution to the Palestine problem will become the No. 1 item on the agenda and that no solution is likely to be possible unless it involves the Palestine Liberation Organisation.
    That is not simply the view of an imperialist atavist, as the Prime Minister of Israel described the Foreign Secretary the other day. It was the view of President Sadat and he pressed it strongly, in public and private, on his visit to Washington shortly before his death.
    As I understand it, the PLO was party to the ceasefire in the Lebanon, along with Israel. In practice, whatever is said, and whatever the formal positions may be, the PLO was accepted by the Israeli Government during those negotiations as what the French call an "interlocuteur valable"—a valid negotiating partner.
    All of us understand the deep and justified concern of all Israelis—not just the Israeli Government—over some of the statements by leaders of the PLO in the past, and even in the recent past. However, the Fahd plan—which was to some extent drafted by representatives of the PLO—implicitly opens the way to the conditional recognition of the State of Israel. Prince Saud, the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, said yesterday—I heard it on the news at one o'clock today—explicitly and for the first time, that the plan implied the recognition of the State of Israel once a settlement was achieved under its provisions.
    No one would support a settlement of the Palestine problem that destroyed the security of the State of Israel. I have repeatedly made that clear. However, Israel cannot rely on security for long if the Palestine problem remains unresolved. A solution must be found that is compatible with Israel's security. It cannot be found without involving the PLO in some way. Developments following Prince Fahd's proposals have at least let in a chink of light on a solution.
    Mr. David Crouch: I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman with great interest, because I, too, met President Sadat, both in London and in Egypt. I have

    133
    met him over a number of years. He told me that the occasion of the settlement in the Lebanon, when the Israelis and the PLO were brought together—if not in the same room, in the same discussions—was the biggest breakthrough that he had seen in his 11 years as President.
    He went on to tell me that he felt that a solution to the Palestinian problem should still be built on the basis of Camp David. Perhaps Camp David is now passing from the scene with the death of President Sadat. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the settlement of the Palestinian problem, along with the recognition of the establishment and stability of the State of Israel, will be resolved through Prince Fahd's declaration, rather than through Camp David?
    Mr. Healey: In the interests of world peace I do not wish to give too many hostages to fortune or to embarrass the Government more than is necessary. The British ambassador in Riyadh was reported as saying the other day that Camp David would come to an end with the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Sinai. I do not wish to embarrass the Minister of State by asking whether he endorses that statement. I can see that he is not anxious to be embarrassed.
    It seems unlikely that a solution, certainly of the West Bank problem, can be found without the involvement of Arab Governments—for example, at the very least the Government of Jordan—who are not prepared to follow the Camp David line. The European initiative and the Fahd proposals offer a way forward that perhaps the Camp David process does not or will not offer after the withdrawal from Sinai. I go no further than that.
    I wish to raise a question about the proposal to contribute British forces to the peacekeeping force in Sinai after the Israeli withdrawal. That situation is odd. The Government have said that, in principle, they are ready to produce forces. The Israelis have rejected forces contributed by any Government who do not treat their presence in Sinai as part of the Camp David process. The Arab Governments have rejected contributions from any Government who regard the presence of their troops as part of the Camp David process.
    I am not clear, however, that either the Israelis or the Arabs want British forces in the Sinai. The only Government who do are the Government of the United States. That is where the pressure for a British contribution is coming from. I suggest with temerity that it would be a great mistake in that situation to offer forces for Sinai unless the United States first moved towards a more coherent and constructive policy in the Middle East.
    The American desire to have friendly forces with its own forces—although only token forces—in the Sinai gives us in Europe and our Commonwealth friends such as Australia and New Zealand, which I understand have indicated a willingness in principle to contribute forces, an opportunity to get American policy more constructively focused in the Middle East. It would be a mistake to let the opportunity pass by contributing forces unconditionally before progress had been made in that direction. If the Lord Privy Seal announces to the House a contribution without an associated undertaking from the United States Administration, it will be looked at sceptically by some of us on the Opposition Benches.
    Let me say a word or two about North-South relations. It will not do for the Government to pretend that Cancun was anything but a dispiriting charade. It is no good the
    134
    Lord Privy Seal saying that they could not make decisions for countries that were not represented there. They did not even take decisions for themselves, as the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) pointed out to the Prime Minister in the House last week.
    The central problem again was that the United States Administration adopted a posture incompatible with progress. The first aspect of that was the macabre pretence that the magic of the market place—as it was called—which has already condemned millions in the Third world to starvation, could solve all their problems. The second was the persistence in the United States of an economic policy based on high interest rates and a strong dollar, which has put appalling new burdens on the Third world.
    The OECD estimates that the Third world debt is up 15 per cent. to $524,000 million and that interest service on the debt is up 22 per cent. this year to $111,700 million. A burden like that is a direct imposition on countries that cannot afford to carry it. American interest rates and financial policy impose terrifying burdens on us all by increased deflation and increased inflationary pressures, but many Third world countries will find it impossible to maintain their living standards, which are already below the absolute poverty line, unless a way can be found to finance the increased burden of debt.
    Private banks are increasingly reluctant to lend to many of them. They are badly over-exposed. Even some of the most robust and confident American banks, such as Citibank, are drawing in their horns. The IMF and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development are running short of resources, yet the American Administration will allow neither an increase in quotas nor an increase in SDRs to increase their resources.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer finally and timidly alligned himself with other European critics of high interest rate policies in the United States. It is a wonderful example of Satan rebuking sin, but is welcome none the less. However, no new initiative has been taken at the bank or fund meetings by any country—although I understand that the French Government tried—because of the certainty that it would meet resistance from the United States Administration.
    To turn the Lord Privy Seal's opening remarks on their head, this is an area where economic policies must be an integral part of foreign policy. The failure of the Treasury to press for useful initiatives undermines not only British foreign policy but Western policy. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will turn his attention to the problem with more vigour than he has done in the past.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's strictures. Had there been a Labour Prime Minister at the summit committed to protectionism, how would that have been received?
    Mr. Healey: No doubt it would have been badly received, but as no Labour Prime Minister would adopt a policy of protectionism towards the Third world—as we have made clear repeatedly in our statements—the question is hypothetical and does not deserve further discussion.
    I turn to by far the most important problem, about which the right hon. Gentleman had a little to say—negotiations on arms control, particularly on the

    135
    limitation of theatre nuclear forces. I am delighted that one of the right hon. Gentleman's first actions on coming to the Foreign Office was to tell the Atlantic Treaty Association in London on 2 October:
    "No sane person on either side wants ever-escalating numbers of increasingly sophisticated and costly weapons."
    We all agree with that, yet sane people on both sides are engaged in that insanity.
    Although the numbers of nuclear weapons on each side are already many times greater than could be used for a rational political or strategic purpose, both sides continue to accumulate them at heavy cost to their economies. Against that background, it is easy to understand the growing strength of the unilateralist movement in democratic countries in Europe and elsewhere. As far as we know, it does not exist in any country east of the dividing line in Europe.
    However, it is not only the accelerating arms race that fuels the strength of the unilateralist movement. In a long period of concern with these affairs, I have noticed that unilateralism always rises where confidence in the wisdom of the American leadership is falling. I regret having to say these things. I have had personal friends in Administrations of both the great American parties over the past 30 years and I have friends in the present Administration. However, the possession of unimaginable destructive power imposes, or should impose, special responsibilities. One must speak softly when one carries a big stick.
    The theatrical belligerence of rhetoric of some American leaders in the past 12 months is particularly disturbing when allied with carelessness and confusion in discussing the question of how the weapons might be used in an emergency. Unfortunately, in the past 12 months we have seen far too often a combination of belligerence of rhetoric with carelessness and confusion in defining the roles and purposes of the weapons.
    However, we must not allow a fully justified concern over what the United States has said and done over the past 12 months to blind us to certain elements in the Soviet position which are well established and which were put to me and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when we talked to Chairman Brezhnev and members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in Moscow the other day.
    First, under its present leadership Russia is not and never will be unilateralist. Mr. Brezhnev stressed that point strongly. Secondly, Russia has a large and growing nuclear armoury. For example, the SS20 missile is a weapon with no present analogy on the Western side. Thirdly, we were told by a defence expert that the Russians believe war in Europe would involve the use of nuclear weapons. We were told that explicitly by Mr. Brezhnev, who wrote in the German magazine Der Spiegel that any nuclear war in Europe would become global.
    An excellent article in The Guardian today states that the Soviet Government have engaged in very substantial and expensive civil defence programmes in order to give them a chance of surviving a global nuclear war. The idea that a State can successfully plan the survival of global nuclear war, in which present armouries are used, is an illusion. However, that is not an unnatural illusion in a nation which has survived occupation by the armies of
    136
    Napoleon and Hitler. The Russians are experts in survival. It is a part of their tradition which they are bound to be slow to abandon.
    The fact that Russia clearly contemplates the possibility of nuclear war, trains her military and civil populations to deal with the consequences of such a war and accumulates such a vast nuclear arsenal must affect our consideration of the background of this issue, as must recent decisions and statements of the United States Administration—by President Reagan, Mr. Weinberger or Mr. Haig. My comments do not imply a belief by myself or anybody I know in Western Governments that Russia is planning a nuclear war in Europe. Of course, Russia is not doing that. The Prime Minister stated that yesterday. If we were to handle our role unwisely, it is not impossible that a war in Europe will occur. That is the question we must consider with all the objectivity that we can command.
    Should there be a nuclear war, the United Kingdom would not escape its consequences whether she were nuclear or neutral. I have often said that strontium 90 does not respect conference resolutions or declarations of neutrality. That is why our old friend, Lord Noel-Baker, wrote in The Guardian a week or two ago:
    "In 70 years I have never myself urged unilateral disarmament by Britain because it would not save us from extermination by the fall-out from a United States/Soviet nuclear war."
    That is why Lord Noel-Baker has always been a multilateralist, as I am.
    The real question is whether we can now move towards effective multilateral disarmament. If we fail to move, we may find the arms race embarked on another spiral in which technological surprise may destroy some of the stability which we have enjoyed in the last 30 years.
    Mr. Norman Atkinson: My right hon. Friend is dealing with a matter of immense principle. It is important that we understand clearly what we are saying. First, I presume that my right hon. Friend does not renounce unilateral decisions in relation to Trident. Secondly, I take it that he does not dispense with the argument that it may be necessary to take a unilateral initiative to restrict the use of British territory for the installation of cruise or similar missiles.
    Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend knows well that, like many Conservative Members, I oppose the Trident decision. I suspect that the Government will abandon the project, having discovered that it will cost twice as much as when they took the initial decision. I also strongly oppose the deployment of the neutron bomb in Europe. I would not wish British troops to have the neutron bomb. I believe that there may be other unilateral initiatives which could play a role.
    However, I do not believe that the expulsion of American bases from Britain would contribute to peace. That would destabilise the situation in Europe and increase the danger of war. My hon. Friend knows that that is my view—I have expressed it on many occasions.
    We now have a chance to start the process of multilateral disarmament by an agreement on long-range theatre nuclear forces. Specifically one thinks essentially of the Soviet SS20s—175 of which have already been deployed—and the cruise and Pershing 2 missiles. In 1979 NATO decided to start deploying the cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe. Their deployment should be concluded in about seven years.

    137
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) spoke persuasively yesterday about the "zero option" as the right objective in disarmament negotiations. I believe that that is by far the best objective to set ourselves. I am delighted that the German Government have supported that objective.
    As for Mr. Haig's notorious remarks, The Daily Telegraph quotes him as saying:
    "The aim of these Geneva talks is a verifiable agreement bringing significant reductions on both sides leading to equal ceilings at the lowest possible levels. Levels which ideally could be zero. In other words, NATO would be prepared to abandon its plan to deploy Cruise and Pershing missiles in Western Europe if Russia dismantled its entire force of SS20 missiles aimed at the West."
    I cannot understand why it was necessary to drag out of the Lord Privy Seal an admission that such an objective was sensible. If that is the objective, it must be proclaimed. Western Governments must start now to argue for it with their own people and with the Soviet Union. The zero option raises difficult problems for both sides, but fewer obstacles for the West, which, after all, does not yet have any weapons deployed, as does the Soviet Union.
    One problem that the West has faced continually on the armaments argument has been the genuine uncertainty among those who study the matter. I hope that I am one of those. The uncertainty is whether the deployment of the proposed cruise and Pershing missiles would strengthen or weaken the credibility of the American deterrent. I have often felt, as I said on one occasion, that in some aspects one can see the Western proposal as another form of artificial dissemination. That was the description used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) and me when we went to Washington to bury the MLF in 1964.
    The multilateral nuclear force was a similar proposal which appeared to give the Europeans a nuclear deterrent of their own without actually giving it. That had one great advantage over the current proposal, in that the weapons were based at sea. If the weapons became targets for Soviet pre-emption, fewer people on the Western Europe territory would be involved.
    Mr. Haig was in difficulties, when giving evidence yesterday, in explaining why it was good for the Americans to deploy cruise missiles in submarines, but not good to deploy them in submarines for Europe. Perhaps the Minister of State will explain the inwardness of that distinction when he replies. Nevertheless, the fact is that a decision to deploy them has been taken and I can see that the political implications of changing that decision unilaterally could be damaging for the West, although it is important that we should think honestly about the strategic role of those weapons before we become so committed to them that we cannot withdraw.
    Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Healey: Let me finish this point. The Soviets have a major problem. They have deployed the weapons and the West cannot be satisfied with redeployment. We would have to insist on their being dismantled, as were the SS5s and SS60s which they are replacing. In addition, we must admit that the Russians believe that they have a problem with China to which some of those weapons may be relevant. There seemed to be some scope in Mr. Haig's words yesterday for allowing something there.
    I believe that the Russians are deeply concerned about the trend of American policy under the new
    138
    Administration. They desperately want to get back to what the see as the golden age of co-operation with President Nixon and Secretary Kissinger, and they might be prepared to pay a price to achieve that. That is why believe that the zero option is a practicable objective, provided the thrust and pressure on Governments on both sides is in favour of reaching agreement on disarmament, rather than allowing the whole pocess to dribble away in logic chopping about the precise number of weapons to be counted and the balance on each side in one set of negotiations as against another.
    There is a chance of making genuine progress, provided the West goes all out for the zero option. However, we must admit that agreement, even on long-range theatre nuclear forces, would be only the first step. We must have a resumption of talks on strategic arms limitation as it is defined by the Russians and Americans. I hope to goodness that we can also get talks on mutual and balanced reductions in conventional forces. I have much sympathy with those who argue that all the dilemmas could be overcome if the West's conventional position in Europe were capable of balancing the Soviet conventional position.
    We must support action in those areas by progress on confidence-building measures. Again, I cannot understand the delay here. President Brezhnev made it clear to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale and myself that the Russians are prepared to extend those measures to the Urals, provided we extend them to the western frontiers of Europe and the seas immediately adjacent.
    Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and I appreciate the authority and experience with which he speaks on these matters. However, does he not believe that in talking about the zero option as a real possibility he is holding out a fantasy which he must know is incapable of achievement? Why should the Russians agree to the zero option when, as the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, the number of SS20s has increased from 40 or 50 to 200 in the past two or three years?
    Mr. Healey: There are three reasons. The first is that the Russians offered in October 1979—before the West decided to deploy and when they had only about 20 SS20s deployed—to reduce the number if the West did not go ahead with its decision. What a pity it is that we did not take up that offer.
    Secondly, the alternative to reaching agreement is the continuation of an arms race which, by definition, neither side can win but which could destabilise such military stability as we enjoy and would certainly be extremely costly.
    The third reason is less tangible. The Soviet Union is being run by a lot of men in their seventies who were brought up and entered public life during Stalin's purges before the war, and who went through the horrors of the anti-Hitler war and Stalin's mad years. They will leave the scene in the next few years and will be replaced by men 20 years younger. The generation who would now be in their sixties were killed in the Second World War. The most striking discovery that any visitor can make in Russia is that there are no leaders in their sixties. There are old men in their seventies and a lot of younger men in their fifties. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Leader of the Opposition?"] Ah, but what a young man!

    139
    Seriously, that is one of the most critical elements in the present situation. The older men are desperately anxious to leave behind some predictability in external affairs. They know that Russia's internal problems, in the political area with the minorities, in the diplomatic area on their Eastern Europe frontier and in the economic area where their performance has been appalling in recent years, will be difficult to handle if the external environment is unstable.
    I believe that the Russian leaders want to establish a better relationship with the West, such as they established with Nixon and Kissinger. Of course, I cannot guarantee that that will succeed, but it is a rational objective for negotiations and such a simple objective is always easier to achieve than is something that depends on a nice balance of how many reductions are made on each side and where they are made. That is what I believe. I could be wrong, but it is a sensible objective and I hope that the Government will press it with force.
    Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Healey: No.
    Mr. Cryer: My right hon. Friend gave way to a Tory.
    Mr. Healey: We must enter the negotiations with a determination to make genuine progress, and to make it fast. Britain can play a key role, particularly through our influence with our friends in Western Europe.
    Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Healey: No.
    Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Healey: Very well.
    Mr. Cryer: My right hon. Friend is talking about reductions on both sides. Does he agree that in this difficult world we need verification of arms reduction—the frequent cry of the Prime Minister? Is not the danger in the installation of cruise missiles that they are the least open to verification and that their siting in this country would exacerbate that problem and, therefore, the arms race?
    Mr. Healey: I do not believe that that is a major factor. It is difficult to verify, for example, how many missiles can be fired from every SS20 site. There is already some evidence that they may all be reloadable. But we do not know. Verification is a difficult problem in all these areas, although what are called in the trade scientific means of verification—spies in the sky and so on—make verification much less of a problem than it used to be. The most difficult area of verification is submarine-based missiles. It is impossible to track their movements in the oceans. It has been impossible for the past 30 years and is likely to remain so for many more years.
    I apologise for having spoken for so long, but I have given way to a number of hon. Members. We must enter the negotiations with a determination to make genuine progress, and to make it fast. We can play a critical role in bringing the negotiations to success. Despite all the obstacles I have referred to, I do not believe that success is impossible if statesmen show imagination. Indeed, it may be easier for President Reagan to reach such agreement than it was for any of his predecessors.
    4.18 pm
    Mr. Julian Amery: I suppose that the greatest service that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) ever did his country was when he and Admiral Mountbatten persuaded the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) at a memorable weekend after Labour's political victory in 1964 to retain our Polaris independent deterrent.
    I was glad that although the right hon. Member for Leeds, East made various efforts to identify himself with what might be called the Brandt-Kreisky-Palme line, he still kept flying a tattered banner of belief in deterrence power until we have genuine multilateral disarmament. I congratulate him on that.
    I hope that you will not think it inappropriate, Mr. Speaker, if I pay tribute to the late President Sadat. In my opinion, he was one of the most noble and heroic statesmen of the last decade. In his early life he opposed Britain in Egypt. Later, with President Nasser he worked closely with the Russians and, indeed, in Aden, again against us. When he came to power he reassessed the circumstances and expelled the Russians from Egypt—there were 20,000, so that was an act of enormous courage. He made peace with the Israelis, who had been his country's enemies for 20 years. He realigned Egypt with the West. All those were acts of statesmanship. His nobility of character was shown when he lifted up the fallen Shah of Iran when other Governments who had much greater obligations to imperial Iran had rejected him.
    I mourn the loss of President Sadat. He was a great man and a great patriot for Egypt. He recovered nearly all the territories that his predecessor had lost, and, while not yet reintroducing democracy, he considerably liberalised the economic and censorship system.
    We must remember that Egypt is the most important of the Arab countries by virtue of its population, its culture and, above all, by virtue of its geographical position. It was not for nothing that Napoleon called it
    "the most important country in the world".
    The money may have moved to the Gulf, but the key to the Arab world will remain in Cairo. It is vital to our interests and aims and those of the whole free world in the Middle Eastern area that we should work closely with President Sadat's successor, President Hosni Mubarak, who was Sadat's right hand and knew his views and designs perhaps more intimately than anyone in the world.
    At the moment Israel is rather unfashionable. In United Nations circles it is labelled with South Africa. I was shocked that our friends in the Foreign Office could not field a proper representative to attend General Dayan's funeral. After all, he lost his eye fighting for Britain dressed as an Arab against the pro-Nazi Vichy French. There is no reason why we should be ashamed of this so long afterwards. He was the chief of the Israeli staff who co-operated with us in the most successful branch of the Suez operation.
    Having paid tribute to President Sadat and having talked about Israel being unfashionable, I also pay tribute to Mr. Begin. His rhetoric is strident and he upsets many of us much of the time. But he was the man who paid for peace in the hardest currency that exists. He paid for it in land. He bought peace by handing back territory. If his calculation proves mistaken, he will be held seriously accountable by his people.

    141
    When I consider those two figures—the late President Sadat and Mr Begin—it seems clear to me that we would be foolish to base our Middle Eastern policy on anything but support for Camp David. It is the cornerstone of Middle Eastern security in the Levant, Israel, Egypt and the opening to the Red Sea. It is from that hinge that the Americans have been able to develop an understanding with the Sudan, Somalia and Oman which I hope, now that the AWACs deal has gone through, will extend increasingly to Saudi Arabia. There may be differences in the words in the communiques which are issued, but increasingly as a result of that deal, if the deal means anything—President Reagan has put everything possible into it—the Saudis must now draw ever closer to the Americans, and they were already quite close. The Israelis were wrong to criticise the AWACs deal. They should realise that there is a corollary to
    "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"
    which is
    "the ally of my ally is my friend."
    I am glad to see that we are proposing to contribute some forces to the contingent that will police the Sinai. I read in the papers today that my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary had said that that contingent would
    "not be associated with Camp David."
    Have words lost their meaning? Camp David is more about Sinai than about Palestine. Surely, the only point of sending troops to Sinai is to make sure that the Sinai part of the Camp David agreement is maintained. It would be silly to think that such blatant hypocrisy would have the faintest impression, even on the most backward souks in the Middle East. Camp David is not yet dead. None of us knows whether it can be revived. However, we should weigh our words about it carefully.
    My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary damned Camp David with faint praise at the beginning and later denigrated it. I criticised this at the time as unnecessary. Perhaps it was worse than that. Political assassinations do not come out of a clear sky any more than do thunderbolts. They come out of a climate which is built up, in which the potential murderer feels that the tide of history is on his side. Islamic fundamentalism and the propaganda of the PLO were the most important factors. But I ask my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal to consider carefully whether our denigration of Camp David did not give an element of responsibility to all those, such as Yasser Arafat, who were calling publicly for the murder of President Sadat and whose followers danced in the street after the event.
    Now that my right hon. Friend is returning to us he will tell us about Prince Fahd's plan. That is not an alternative to Camp David, but it might be an extension. As an opening bid, it could be a basis for discussion, as an impressive leading article in The Times today proposed. However, I have three reservations. The plan appears to have been approved by Chairman Arafat, who as I said called for the assassination of President Sadat and publicly rejoiced in the event. Therefore, that must give us reason for caution.
    The eight-point plan is still only a draft. It has to be submitted to the Arab conference in Morocco in the next few weeks. We do not know what will come out of it. Then, guidance was given to the press by the Saudis, which suggested that the Soviet Union might be brought into the final settlement. I thought that the great triumph
    142
    of President Carter and of President Reagan was that they had dislodged the Soviet Union from almost every part of the Middle East except for Syria, Aden and Libya.
    I suspect that the American perception of the Middle East is right. The Americans' view is that Soviet imperialism is the major threat. Without it the Palestinian problem would be one of many—the Kurdish problem, the Iran-Iraq problem, the Sahara problem and many others. As it is, the Palestinian problem is important, because the failure to solve it makes it a vehicle for the extension of Soviet influence. However, it has been less of a problem than I feared, partly because the PLO depends on the money that it receives from the Arab conservative States, and partly because there is a growing respect for American power and a recognition that when a country such as Egypt turns to America, it has real backing.
    The Palestinian problem is important and calls for a solution, but not a solution at any price. We should not fall for a solution of the Palestine problem that will be more favourable to the Soviet Union than if we were to leave the problem unsettled.
    In democracies the lives of Governments are short and are measured by four or five-year periods. Therefore, there is a tendency to try to find solutions. They do not feel like that in the Kremlin or in the Vatican.
    Namibia is another case in point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) wrote a powerful article, which appeared in this morning's edition of The Times. He said that a solution in Namibia would be the acid test of our relations with the black States. That could also be said about the Palestinian problem. We have had the problem of Palestine on our hands for more than 30 years, and we have had the Namibian problem for about as long. I am not convinced that they are the acid tests. The Palestinian problem has not prevented half the Arab countries from being friendly towards us, although we have not solved it. Many African countries remain friendly to us through aid or trade.
    On the face of them, Mr. Crocker's proposals seem to be reasonable. On paper, the safeguards are pretty good. The problem is how to enforce them. Many years ago I negotiated a constitution for Cyprus with Archbishop Makarios and Dr. Kuchuk. The only way that we could convince those two that safeguards were enforceable was by giving Turkey and Greece—as well as Britain—the right to intervene if the constitution were broken. The Greek Cypriots broke the constitution several times. Ultimately the Turks intervened and the results are there for all to see.
    It is not altogether surprising that the different political parties in Namibia—both white and black—are anxious about the enforcement of those splendid safeguards in the Crocker proposals. They look across the border to Zimbabwe. It is too early to pass judgment on what is happening in Zimbabwe, but there has been a large exodus on the part of the white population, particularly of technicians on whom the railways, power stations and other essentials of the infrastructure depend. There is talk of a one-party State, and there are threats to the Opposition. Armed North Korean troops are entering Zimbabwe to help train a new brigade.
    From Namibia's viewpoint those factors give rise to anxiety. Much depends on the environment in which independence is gained in Namibia, if it is ever gained. if independence is gained while Soviet and Cuban forces are still in control of neighbouring Angola, there will be

    143
    nothing to stop a SWAPO Government—if elected in Namibia—calling in Soviet, Cuban or even East German support. After all, there is a large German population in Namibia. Neither the West nor South Africa can afford to run that risk.
    It would be a different story if the Cubans and Soviets withdrew from Angola and if the Opposition parties—the UNITA of Savimbi and the FNLA of Holden Roberto—were allowed to take part in the political process. The risk would then be reasonable, even if it led to a SWAPO victory in Namibia. Is it right to ask for free elections in Namibia when we do not ask for them in Angola, and to ask for the withdrawal of South African troops from Namibia when we do not ask for the withdrawal of Cubans and Soviets from Angola? This is not a matter for the Western contact group. It has its remit which it must observe, and it must follow up the negotiations with which it is entrusted. However, it is a matter for the Western powers.
    I gave notice to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup that I would refer to him in this debate. He says that one should make the issue not explicit, but implicit. He says that if the South Africans were to withdraw, the Cubans and Soviets might withdraw at the wish of the Angolans. That may be, but let us suppose that they did not withdraw. We should then get the dirty end of the bargain. One may hope for goodwill, but suppose one does not get it. Therefore, I plump for the explicit formula, and I would press Washington, with our support, to say clearly that there can be no decolonisation of Namibia without a decolonisation of Angola, and no free elections in Namibia until the Opposition parties in Angola are allowed to return to the political process.
    4.36 pm
    Mr. Eric S. Heffer: My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) rightly pointed out that there had been contradictions in the American Administration's position since President Reagan came to power. He correctly said that he was worried by some of the statements emanating from the United States of America, particularly those involving nuclear weapons.
    My right hon. Friend pointed out that President Brezhnev of the Soviet Union had said that any war in Europe would be, or would lead to, a global war. The Times today records a statement that was made yesterday by Mr. Haig. The Times states:
    "Mr. Alexander Haig… said today that NATO contingency plans include firing, as a last resort, a demonstration nuclear shot to warn the Soviet Union against pressing a conventional attack on Western Europe."
    The Times quotes Mr. Haig as having said:
    "For example, there are contingency plans in the NATO doctrine to fire a nuclear weapon for demonstrative purposes, to demonstrate to the other side tht they are exceeding the limits of toleration in their conventional attack."
    Mr. Haig also defended President Reagan's recent comment that a nuclear war could be fought that was limited to Europe. What a happy prospect. We have already heard that President Brezhnev made it clear that any war in Europe would be a global war. Mr. Haig now tells us that for demonstration purposes we should fire a nuclear weapon against Soviet forces.
    It is no wonder that The Times states:
    144
    "Critics will argue that the warning-shot tactic could bring the unthinkable that much nearer."
    Precisely. With such a shot, the unthinkable could be brought that much nearer. The unthinkable is the complete and utter destruction of Europe, and the destruction would then extend to other parts of the world.
    A point has been raised about unilateral nuclear disarmament. I am a unilateralist. I believe in the policies that have been accepted by the Labour Party conference. But I have never argued that unilateralism of itself will prevent nuclear war. We have argued that it would take us a little way towards getting out of a nuclear war. It does not mean that we would not still be a target even if we had unilateral disarmament here.
    The other side of the coin is therefore that we must also press for multilateral nuclear disarmament. There is not necessarily a contradiction between arguing that we should get rid of nuclear bases in this country and pursuing multilateral agreements on a much wider scale. Those who set the one against the other are posing a question which in this context is unreal.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): But is the hon. Gentleman facing the difficulty of his own argument? Why should the Soviet Government negotiate seriously in the multilateral negotiations, which the hon. Gentleman rightly favours, if at the same time they see unilateralist policies doing their work for them in unilaterally removing the bases and weapons which are the subject of the negotiations?
    Mr. Heffer: The answer is perfectly simple. We are talking about unilateral disarmament for Britain. The removal of bases from this country does not mean that the United States will immediately follow our policy of unilateral disarmament. The scope for multilateral discussions leading to a reduction in nuclear weapons will therefore clearly continue. We are dealing with two issues at the same time. In any case, even in Europe, the French will continue to have nuclear weapons. We all, I hope, put our national interest above everything else. The national interest which matters to me is to get rid of nuclear weapons from British soil. If the French believe for the moment that it is right for them to have nuclear weapons, that is a matter for them, although I hope that sooner or later we shall be able to persuade them to support a nuclear-free zone throughout Europe. I therefore continue to argue that there is no basic contradiction between the two policies.
    The Prime Minister asks whether anyone seriously thinks that the Soviet Government would follow our example and whether unilateral disarmament would make war less likely. That is a hypothetical question. Nobody knows whether unilateral disarmament or even multilateral disarmament would make war less likely. That is a hypothetical question to which no one knows the answer. We can say this, however. If we are really concerned about the future of mankind and the future of our people, and if we are really concerned to try to reduce the possibilities of nuclear war, undoubtedly we must pursue the argument for getting rid of nuclear bases from this country.
    Viscount Cranborne rose—
    Mr. Heffer: Normally I give way, but I fear that I cannot do so on this occasion as I have only a limited time in which to make my points.

    145
    We have heard arguments today, particularly from the Government side, about our attitude to Europe. The Prime Minister has said that the policy of withdrawal from the European Community would be deeply harmful and could be carried out only at the cost of severe damage to the Western world. When Britain entered the European Common Market, arguments were advanced in the House about the future of British industry and the possibility of building it up into a tremendous force, capable of competing on a world scale, sweeping the markets and giving jobs to our youngsters. We were told that the only way to achieve that was to enter the Common Market. All our arguments were swept aside. We were told that the problems that we raised would not arise or would arise only marginally. Although it would be false to argue that the Common Market has been responsible for all our ills, it is certainly true it has not solved one of our problems. It has made them worse. Unemployment has increased as a result of entry into the Common Market. The youngsters who, we were told, would get jobs have no jobs.
    Moreover, the Common Market is not Europe. It is a group of countries within Europe. It has been argued that, because the Labour Party supports withdrawal from the Common Market, it is anti-European and wants nothing to do with our European partners. That is absolutely untrue. The Labour Party is not anti-European. We have a different concept of building European unity which does not lie along the path of the Treaty of Rome, which in any case is based upon concepts that we do not accept. We believe that we must work for a wider and looser Europe.
    My personal wish—I do not put this forward as my party's point of view as it has not yet arrived at this conclusion, although I hope that it will—is to see a wider Europe, a democratic Socialist Europe, which can affect the bureaucratic regimes in Eastern Europe by helping to make them democratic while at the same time rejecting the unfettered private enterprise system which exists in the United States. I wish Europe to be a bulwark of democracy which can assist the development of the underdeveloped countries.
    I believe that some of the existing institutions in Europe can be used to that end. I believe that the Council of Europe is essential and that it can be used properly to fight for this concept, as can other institutions. That is what we must do. I have not sufficient time to develop that argument, but I stress yet again that the Labour Party is not anti-European. It is quite wrong to equate Europe purely with the Common Market. It is vital to stress that that is not the case.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East was absolutely correct in what he said about Latin America. I congratulate him particularly on that part of his opening speech. I could not agree with everything he said about nuclear weapons, but the whole of his speech was interesting and I found nothing with which I particularly disagreed even in that respect.
    With regard to Latin America, I draw attention to an extremely interesting article on Nicaragua in The Observer last week. The article, by Norman Lewis, describes Nicaragua as "The country that threw out America's bad guys". As usual, the Americans see the Nicaraguan Government as a Marxist-oriented regime dominated by a sectarian group of pro-Soviet people. In fact, the Sandinistas have in their Government three Roman Catholic priests. They are striving to get democracy established in that country. They have accepted that
    146
    private enterprise is part and parcel of their system. There is a press that is critical of its own Government. Norman Lewis quotes from an article in La Prensa Gráfica that was moved to express a criticism that for once was directed not at Cuba or the Soviet Union but against the United States of America. The article states:
    "Why always the military men? Why always the dictatorships? What is wrong with a little support for democracy for once, for the political parties and their leaders?"
    I was in the United States when Cuba became Communist. It was not Communist originally because Fidel Castro did not support the Communist concept. However, the Americans reacted immediately against him and drove Cuba into the hands of the Soviet Union. It is Reagan's policy to drive Nicaragua and other countries into the hands of the Soviet Union. The Americans act blindly and stupidly in respect of Latin America. They make the same mistakes repeatedly.
    President Carter, with all his faults, did not make those mistakes. He supported human rights. When Reagan took power, his first action was to turn his back on Carter's human rights stance. He is supporting President Duane, who in the past may have had a good record in El Salvador but who is now the front man, the prisoner, of a military dictatorship. However, the Americans are giving him their full support. They are supporting Pinochet in Chile. They are supporting the Argentinian military reactionaries. Their support extends to Uruguay and Paraguay. They always support the anti-democratic and anti-progressive forces.
    It is for the United Kingdom Government to say, as they have done slightly in the past, that American policy is not good enough and that they will not go along that path. The Government should do far more to help refugees from Latin American countries. The Government have turned their back on the policies on refugees pursued by the Labour Government. We must return to the recognition that a refugee from a dictatorship is not an immigrant. We must examine carefully the way in which we deal with refugees who have come from the countries to which I have referred.
    I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East that we should support the democratic forces in El Salvador totally and without question. We should give our full support to all those in the Latin American countries who are fighting for free and democratic rights and human rights.
    We should be concerned with human rights not only in Latin America. We must not have double standards. Socialists especially cannot have double standards. If it is right to fight for human rights in Latin and Central American countries, it is right for us to demand freedom, democracy and human rights in East European countries. We cannot say that we shall fight for the Chileans but not for those who want their liberties in the Soviet Union.
    We must not ignore what has been done by those in Poland, who have created the first free and independent trade union movement in Eastern Europe since the Russian revolution. Our job is to give unqualified support to those who are members of Solidarity. The Labour Party can do that because, unlike the Tory Government, it does not have plans to shackle British trade unionists. With all due respect to the Government, they seem slightly hypocritical. They are all in favour of Solidarity in Poland, but they want to introduce legislation to control the British

    147
    people. Surely there is an element of hypocrisy in that stance. We must not accept that. We must support Solidarity and defend the rights of its members.
    We must support those who are being imprisoned, or who are likely to be imprisoned, in Czechoslovakia because they dared to sign Charter 77. We must support those in the Soviet Union who are trying to create independent and free trade unions or to publish various journals. We must be especially concerned with human rights. In defending those rights in other countries, we are defending human rights and freedom in Britain.
    4.57 pm
    Mr. Russell Johnston: I echo the words of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in welcoming the Lord Privy Seal in his new role. The right hon. Gentleman spent two years in a pretty dangerous and difficult job, and we welcome him in his new capacity.
    In a foreign affairs debate it is natural to devote much of one's remarks to the state of the East-West relationship and the prospects for the more effective, the less dangerous and the less expensive management of that fundamental global dispute. However, the issue was dealt with yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), the leader of the Liberal Party. Therefore, I shall add only three brief comments.
    First, the Government must use whatever influence they have in Washington to press the United States to accelerate its approach to arms control negotiations. I go along with the zero option, the arguments about which have already been rehearsed. The Government must do everything they can to bring that about. I sought to intervene when the right hon. Member for Leeds, East referred to Trident. I do not regard doing away with Trident as a unilateral act. I regard having Trident as a unilateral act in terms of the Western Alliance as I see it.
    Secondly, the Government should use their influence in Washington to stop President Reagan's spokesmen making what are at best insensitive and at worst stupid remarks about nuclear war in Europe. If anything is likely to disrupt the Atlantic Alliance, that is. We ignore at our peril the genuine feeling that is now being shown throughout Europe. It is unquestionably a much deeper feeling than was evidenced in the old CND campaign.
    Thirdly, it must be said that the Soviet Union has displayed remarkable reticence and control over Poland. Obviously it cannot afford economically to invade. Any invasion would also dramatically worsen East-West relations. However, there is hope to be gained from the fact that the Soviet Union, Afghanistan notwithstanding, views Poland in those terms. It has displayed remarkable control and caution, and it should be given credit for that. That should be something on which to build in respect of the disarmament negotiations that are about to be undertaken.
    As a Liberal, I have no illusions about the profound differences between the pluralistic democracies of the West, for all their flaws and frequent economic insensitivities, and the totalitarian East, on which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) dwelt a short while ago. I have never looked at detente in terms of a person pretending that it does not exist, as some people do.
    148
    Detente means the effective management of differences, and I do not think that we are managing these differences very well at this time.
    My right hon. Friend also rightly referred yesterday to the Brandt report. I should like to add to his remarks because it is the other fundamental foreign affairs issue. We all know that Brandt was not perfect, but it clearly summarised the main problems. I do not believe that the Mexico summit advanced that analysis very much. It is shortsighted of the industrialised nations not to make a greater effort. Without question, they would benefit enormously from a more prosperous South with a greater buying capacity. Aid will continue to be necessary, particularly in emergencies. We may be broke, but surely not so broke that we have to make the cuts in aid that we have made.
    However, in our view, the priority is not in aid but in developing within the underdeveloped countries self-reliance in basic sectors, especially food production. That creates, and will create, great problems for this country. Reference has already been made to trade embargoes, import controls and the problems of textiles. If we engage in protectionist legislation, we shall stifle growth in developing countries and, apart from provoking retaliation, it will put back the possibility of closing the gap between North and South. There must, therefore, be a concerted effort to stabilise commodity prices and to guarantee raw material prices at a fairer level. That does not exclude a special effort being made for the least developed countries that are short on resources.
    Resources that are currently channelled to armaments should, if possible, be channelled to Third world development. I was disappointed that very little was said today by either Front Bench spokesman on arms sales. At least as a start, Herr Genscher of the Federal Republic of Germany has proposed a United Nations register for arms sales to try to monitor what is happening so that we know the scale of the problem and can begin to do something about it.
    Obviously we must share our education and technical expertise with developing countries and seek to finance local development of appropriate technologies. We should examine "South-South" dialogues and do something to enable developing countries to share ideas and experiences and stimulate trade.
    It has already been said in the House that the Government have cut back the money available for programmes of development education within the United Kingdom, which are of great importance politically to enable people to understand the reality of world poverty. That is frequently effectively focused by dramatic television programmes, but not in the sustained way which would enable proper realisation of the interdependence in the world upon which Brandt based his report.
    We believe that we can best deal with the East-West and North-South relationships on the basis of a better integrated European Community. Despite the fact that I have had much exposure to it, I cannot understand the Labour Party's attitude to the Community. The Socialists claim—we heard it a moment ago from the hon. Member for Walton—to have a special attitude towards international affairs. In European terms, that is a very thin view. All those who have attended the numerous debates on Europe, as I have, will know that the particular bete noir of the anti-Europeans is France.

    149
    No European debate in this Chamber is allowed to pass without a fresh anecdote about the cunning subterfuges of the French and how they are doing us down yet again. However, hon. Members must have observed that France now has a Socialist President, and had a Socialist President before the last Labour Party conference, a fact that did not seem to have much effect on the debate that took place there. Chancellor Schmidt's party in Germany is also a member of Socialist International. So both France and Germany are ruled by parties within Socialist International and both are in favour of the European Economic Community. If Socialist International means a realistic common political approach, one would have thought that starting within Europe would be a good idea. I do not understand why it has not worked that way.
    I draw to the attention of the House, and particularly to Conservative Members, who perhaps do not have the same access to such material, the Labour Party document entitled a "A Social Foreign Policy". It devotes nine pages to British relations with Chile, and one and a half pages to the war in the Western Sahara, but says virtually nothing about our relations with France and Germany, and nothing whatever about Poland. If we cannot solve the problems on our doorstep or across the street, what earthly chance is there of our making an effective contribution to problems thousands of miles away, which, inevitably, our understanding must be imperfect?
    The Queen's Speech is strong on rhetoric, some of which is reasonable. The rhetoric about the European Community is definite. It states:
    "My Government reaffirm their strong commitment to the European Community. During the remainder of the British Presidency"—
    which, after all, is only three months, so that is not a strong commitment—
    "and thereafter … the United Kingdom will play its full part in its development".
    It does not say how or in what way, nor have I seen very much evidence of the Government's being willing to bring forward initiatives to improve the European Community and make its international agencies stronger. The Queen's Speech continues:
    "My Government are anxious to see satisfactory decisions on … the Community budget … and the Common Agricultural Policy. They will seek early agreement on a revised Common Fisheries Policy, and will continue to support the accession to the Community of Spain and Portugal."
    As far as I know, no one has suggested that the Government were becoming weak or wet on the latter subject, so I do not regard that as exciting.
    As Roy Jenkins spelt out clearly in his final speech as President of the Commission, we shall not get any real progress in these areas unless we have a larger budget. We shall not obtain a larger budget unless there is an acceptance by member States of greater European expenditure on a supranational basis, according to agreed guidelines based on fair criteria rather than on national advantage. I say that again directly to the Government. They will not do anything about the social or regional funds unless there is a larger budget. The Government must face up to that.
    Mr. Hurd indicated dissent.
    Mr. Johnston: The Minister shakes his head in a slightly weary way, which is understandable from Government Front Bench spokesmen at this time. However, the Government must face that fact.
    150
    The relevance of the Community as an influence in foreign affairs is particularly pointed up in what it can try to do to break the logjam in the Middle East. The Lord Privy Seal referred earlier to the Saudi initiative. Understandably, he could not say very much about the Government's response because the Foreign Secretary is at present in Saudi Arabia. However, it would be fair to say that the initiative is basically helpful. If we set aside the intractable problems of Jerusalem, because that part of the initiative is a non-starter, the essential proposition of a Palestinian State linked to Israeli recognition seems to be the only way forward.
    The Minister of State may remember that we had a brief interchange about explicit and implicit recognition of Israel by the Saudis. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) reminded me in the interim, it is a fair point to make that the Saudis do not even show Israel on their maps. If one is being didactic, one can argue that unless Israel is specifically mentioned it is not specifically there. If the Foreign Secretary could persuade the Saudis to make the recognition of Israel explicit, that would be a dramatic advance.
    Like the right hon. Member for Leeds, East and the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), I should like to record our great sorrow at the murder of President Sadat. Some of us met him a year ago and he impressed one enormously with his candour and courage. Undoubtedly his commitment to a Middle East solution, whatever the rhetoric of Camp David, included in his mind the ultimate creation of a Palestine State in which, of course, the PLO would play a crucial role.
    Reference has already been made to the article in The Times today by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) about Namibia. It was a calm and balanced article which, while it recognised the constructive approach of many people—for example, in the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance and the internal administration—also faced up to the urgency of achieving a negotiated agreement in which SWAPO is enabled openly and unrestrictedly to bid for support in fair and free elections. I welcomed the Minister's reference to the role that the Commonwealth might have in advancing these matters, over and above the countries already involved.
    We can also, with our European partners, play some part in advancing many other questions. El Salvador has already been referred to by Labour Members. The declaration by the Governments of France and Mexico, supporting a negotiated settlement, is a valuable contribution to the search for peace, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary will work with our Community partners to see how this can be advanced.
    I have had some correspondence with the Minister about Cambodia. Tragedy persists there. This is an area where, in conjunction with the Community, we can surely do something.
    With regard to Vietnam, there is still the problem of the boat people, although half the world ignores it. A great many people who spent much time in the forefront of the campaign about Vietnam ignore the boat people. That should be noted.
    We have so far failed to respond to the new situation in China. It is extraordinary that the Lord Privy Seal, in opening the debate, did not mention China. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East did not mention China. Yet this is a vast country, with an ancient and mature and potent civilisation, which at the moment wants to talk to us, to

    151
    trade with us and to explore joint initiatives. Inevitably, whatever we do, China will play a crucial role in the future of the world. It is of the greatest importance—politically, economically and socially—that we should spend some time and energy in building links with China.
    British foreign policy has for too long rested almost exclusively on interpretations of the so-called national interest. I do not think that that is any basis for the future. I disagree fundamentally with what the hon. Member for Walton said at the end of his speech—that it was the only basis on which he operated. The only real basis for a policy is the search for just solutions. That search, to be effective, must be conducted in the first place through the European Community and NATO, and beyond that through the Commonwealth and the United Nations. That should be the Government's priority.
    5.14 pm
    Mr. James Hill: It would seem that the debate today is turning into a European debate, for which I am greatly pleased.
    The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), in mentioning human rights, referred to Central America. He said that 30,000 people had been killed in El Salvador, and that there is ferment throughout almost the whole of South America. Four weeks ago, the Council of Europe held in Madrid a seminar on human rights in Latin America, and 180 guests were invited from all over South America. Some of them were refugees living in Europe. Some of them were still living in El Salvador and in Nicaragua. It emerged clearly from the three-day seminar that not only the Right wing and Left wing, but the multinational companies are involved in the conflicts.
    The problems seem to be almost insoluble, because arms are being supplied from every direction. Cuba, in particular, was mentioned. The American representative at the seminar had a traumatic experience in defending his country against the many accusations of supplying arms and of giving encouragement to minorities which were either very Right wing or were suspected of being very Right wing.
    The report of the Council of Europe's seminar will go to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and also to the other 20 Foreign Secretaries of the Council of Europe member States. I am sure that the report will present a balanced view of what is now happening in South America.
    As the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said, there is no mention of China in the Queen's Speech. No mention, either is made of Turkey, where there is a very difficult position. The Turkish members of the Council of Europe are debarred from attending, and we are still waiting for Turkey to call once again a democratic election. Promises have been made. Documents have been forwarded to Turkey and to the other member States of the Council of Europe, and we are hoping that before long the Turkish members will be attending the meetings of the Council of Europe.
    With regard to Vietnam and all the other areas of the world in which there are refugee problems, it is worth pointing out that the Council of Europe has a committee on migration, refugees and demography. If any hon. Members wish to do so, they can obtain a copy of the committee's report and bring themselves fully up to date
    152
    on what the various institutions of Europe are doing to help solve the grave refugee problems in Europe and throughout the world. The Court of Human Rights is an establishment of the Council of Europe. There is also the Bank of Resettlement fund. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) would perhaps be prepared to keep those bodies, despite his not anti-European but anti-Common Market stance.
    I am sure that the hon. Member for Inverness will agree with me that the various institutions of Europe are so intertwined that it is unrealistic for someone to say that he wants nothing to do with the Common Market but is prepared to take advantage of the European Investment Bank, the Economic and Social Committee in Brussels, the European Coal and Steel Community, and many other European institutions. The whole system in Europe now is like a grapevine. It winds in and out and the main branch is connected with all the institutions. It is, therefore, naive to think that one can do without one of the parts and still keep the others for the advantage of only the United Kingdom.
    My right hon. Friends the Lord Privy Seal and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs should look at the question of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers. I believe that six months is not sufficient. The President has just enough time to get into the seat, start his programme and develop an agenda. As a result, the six months are gone in a flash, and are of no consequence. We do not want the Presidency to be mere window dressing. It should be something worthwhile, and the more nations that join, the more important it will be for the President to be able to have at least a few months to get his breath before his appointment ends.
    I take issue with the hon. Member for Inverness, who spoke for the Liberal-SDP Alliance on the point. I was deeply disappointed in the Presidency of the Commission by the United Kingdom representative, Mr. Roy Jenkins. We felt that he would do great things and that he had a feeling for Europe. We felt that he understood the problems, and that he had the compassion and personality which were suited to that high office. It is unfortunate that the United Kingdom will not hold that office again for another 40 or 50 years because I do not think that the results of the United Kingdom Presidency should be applauded or merit praise. I go no further than that because I might disgruntle alliance Members.
    The hon. Member for Walton was completely wrong when he said that it was claimed that our membership of the EEC on 1 January 1973 would bring full employment. He said nothing about the modernisation of industry, overstaffing, or the bad relations between the shop floor and management. He ignored the fact that France and Germany had been in the Community for some years and had obviously achieved the advantages of close links before we joined. It is not possible for the EEC to guarantee anyone's job in any form, although the opportunities are there.
    Trade between Britain and the Community is growing all the time. One of the most futile statements made by the hon. Member for Walton was "We in the Labour Party are not anti-Europe. We just do not accept the Treaty of Rome." The Treaty of Rome is the basis of all institutions about which I have been talking, and if the hon. Member does not accept the Treaty he cannot say that he is not anti-European.

    153
    As a member of the Council of Europe, one of the things of which I am most proud is the Council's support of human rights. The hon. Member for Walton is unfortunately no longer in the Chamber, but he said that we cannot have double standards in human rights. He is right. That is why the Court of Human Rights will be used and must be supported more and more by the United Kingdom Government. Ordinary people are now taking their cases to the learned judges. I am thinking in particular of the British Rail workers, but others are now coming forward. This is a mainstay for the future of human rights for the whole of Western Europe and perhaps, eventually, even Eastern Europe. If this is continued, we shall have built something into the Community which is more than a commercial adding machine.
    I now turn my attention to the Commonwealth and the United Nations. I fully agree with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. I also agree that the Commonwealth has an important part to play. Of course, we are probably more friendly with some countries than with others, but I make a small plea on behalf of one of the poorest countries in the Commonwealth. We cannot imagine the poverty that exists there, yet it is probably the most pro-British part of the Commonwealth. I am, of course, referring to Sri Lanka.
    Her Majesty has just returned from there. She received a welcome that no one could criticise. The people were as enthusiastic as any nation could be, yet dreadful poverty exists in that country. To our credit, Britain has given £100 million of overseas development aid for the vital Victoria dam that is now being built. Unfortunately, that is about £20 million short of the sum required. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will convey the message to the Foreign Office that we should support such countries still further. Certainty, the poverty that exists in Sri Lanka is beyond imagination.
    Among the other work of the Council of Europe is the Western European Union, which includes the Western European defence committees. When hon. Members talk about unilateral and multilateral disarmament, they should bear in mind something that has been written about the imbalance of nuclear weapons. It states:
    "The Soviet build up, especially of SS18 and SS20 forces in intercontinental and theatre roles especially, have had a powerful effect on the strategic situation. Nothing since the start of the deterrent strategy has been so destabilising as these two missile systems".
    People may not realise that the SS20 is a rocket on a lorry which can be moved almost overnight. It carries three nuclear warheads and can be programmed to strike three major towns at the same time. One hon. Member suggested that there were 170 such weapons, but the WEU has suggested that about 230 are in position. As I said, they can be moved almost within the hours of darkness. The SS20 is a frightful weapon, and represents a greater challenge than we could ever imagine.
    On the other hand, the cruise missile must in most cases have a fixed base and carries only one atomic head. It is difficult to navigate because it requires as low as 30 feet height clearance. Snow affects it, whereas the SS20 is a foolproof rocket with three nuclear heads.
    We must begin to realise that the talks on multilateral disarmament must succeed. I am only sorry that the last time the Governments met in Madrid it took six weeks to fail to reach agreement on an agenda. Perhaps the situation is now so frightening for both sides that they will be able
    154
    to agree an agenda and start to talk sensibly about pulling back slowly but surely from brinkmanship of a most dangerous kind.
    If the Madrid talks on the Helsinki final act reach some sensible conclusion the West shall be reassured of Russia's good intentions. Equally, Russia will be reassured of America's. Certainly, Britain would be reassured, especially as people are now saying that in the event of nuclear war we would be in imminent danger whether or not we were armed. In that situation, Her Majesty's Government must do everything possible to bring the talks to a successful conclusion.
    5.30 pm
    Mr. Eric Deakins: I cannot pretend to be able usefully to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill). His speech was rather Euro-centred.
    One good aspect of the Gracious Speech is that those parts dealing with defence and foreign policy are not specifically Euro-centred. I wish to address my remarks first to those passages dealing with defence. This is not a defence debate. It is meant to be a debate on foreign policy. I wish, however, to draw the Minister's attention to the implications for the foreign policy of this country of what is said and what is not said on defence.
    The Gracious Speech refers to the need for increased resources for defence spending. Surely, however, we already have enough weapons with which to kill one another and to defend ourselves. The phrase
    "Increased resources will be devoted to defence"
    must, I think, imply an escalation of the conventional arms race. I was disheartened to see in the Gracious Speech a reference to arms control rather than to disarmament. I should have thought that the latter was the way ahead.
    My view is strengthened by a feeling that I acquired when I visited the United States last week with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. One reason why SALT II is dead and buried is that its opponents believed, and still believe, that it tried merely to limit nuclear forces and not to reduce them.
    The United States Administration evidently wish—I share the view—to reduce nuclear arms in Europe and the world. I hope that reduction and not merely control is the aim of the Government. Otherwise, the unilateral movement, which I support, could become an irresistible force in British politics. That can happen if we show that we are not serious, not only about arms control, but about arms reduction, both conventional and nuclear, in Europe and by the two great powers.
    There are three omissions on defence in the Gracious Speech that have implications for foreign policy. There is nothing about NATO nuclear strategy. The United States Secretary of State Mr. Haig has referred to a demonstration nuclear device being used in the event of a Russian conventional attack. That raises some implications for us. Logically, if the reply of NATO to any Russian conventional attack is to use a demonstration nuclear weapon, it does not matter, within reason, what is the level of our conventional forces in Western Europe, because any attack is likely to lead almost immediately to nuclear escalation. I see no point in spending more money to increase our conventional arms capacity if this is, indeed, NATO doctrine.
    The neutron weapon, the enhanced radiation weapon, to be brought into use eventually, also lowers the nuclear

    155
    threshold. It strengthens the view that I have expressed, that NATO's attitude now is that it should use nuclear weapons virtually immediately in response to a Russian conventional attack. The view that I have expressed may be wrong. The point that I wish to make is that the NATO philosophy of deterrence is now unclear and muddled. It needs to be made much more explicit. There has to be public examination and discussion.
    Last week, in Washington, the Select Committee was told by members of the Administration that they had been in favour at the recent NATO council meeting of NATO going much more public on its philosophy and its approach to strategy in Western Europe, and that the United States did not find support from its Western allies for that proposition. I hope that the Minister will say where Her Majesty's Government stand on the issue of NATO taking the public into their confidence and sharing its philosophy with them.
    A second omission is that the Gracious Speech contains nothing about the rapid deployment force. We learnt in Washington that this is still a going concern in the United States. The Americans are serious about it. Because the Government support the rapid deployment force, it would have been nice to see at least a phrase in the Gracious Speech dealing with the implications of it. There is undoubtedly a danger, in the Gulf in particular, if we are considering using the rapid deployment force there.
    I believe that the Foreign Office probably shares the view that the biggest danger to Western oil supplies based on the Gulf is the unresolved Palestinian problem, rather than any threat of Russian attack. Members of the Select Committee, consisting of hon. Members from both sides of the House, and I, thought that the idea of a Russian military attack of the Gulf to gain possession of oil supplies was highly improbable.
    The rapid deployment force has implications for our foreign policy on a world-wide basis. The United States, the motivating factor behind the RDF, may wish to use the force in other parts of the world. That is not ruled out. I am concerned that the United Kingdom might—I stress "might"—be dragged along in the wake of a United States decision to use the RDF in some other part of the world in circumstances where it would perhaps be using military force to try to stave off a Left-wing or guerrilla movement taking over a country. That is a nonsensical policy. If it is felt necessary to try to defeat a guerrilla movement or a popular movement—I do not think that there is any hope of doing so—we need, surely, to aim at social and economic Reforms in the countries concerned, rather than send a rapid deployment force to try to prop up a doubtless shaky and possibly military Government. This underlines the need for action by rich countries such as ourselves on the lines of the Brandt report.
    The third omission is that the Gracious Speech contains nothing about the arms trade. The Brandt report says:
    "More arms do not make mankind safer, only poorer."
    I endorse that view, as I hope the Government do. Why cannot a start be made with other arms producers of the West, including some of the developing countries, such as Brazil, which are now beginning to develop an arms production capability, on limitation of sales?
    A number of points could perhaps be agreed: for example, that no country would sell arms to an area of tension, and that no country would sell arms unless there
    156
    was a guarantee that they would not be passed on to a third country, such as South Africa, that was subject to an international arms embargo through the United Nations. The tragedy is that no one in this country or in other Western countries is doing anything on those lines. I believe that in the long term this neglected issue of the arms trade will threaten the peace of the world as much as any of the items mentioned by the Government.
    I wish to deal briefly with the issue of Namibia. It is excellent that the United States Administration, which started by taking a tough line in Southern Africa, although they had not made up their mind at that stage, have been persuaded not to back South African opposition to any Namibian settlement that would permit an independent Namibia, possibly under a SWAPO Government. I believe that the United States is serious about getting a settlement in Namibia. If the Government have played any part in that process, they are to be congratulated.
    There are, however, a number of problems on which it would be helpful to hear a comment by the Minister, although he has a number of matters to deal with. There is the problem of the United Nations impartiality—an issue that South Africa will undoubtedly raise in further discussions. The United Nations backs SWAPO, but SWAPO is not a political party. It is a mass political movement for the liberation of Namibia. Nevertheless, the South Africans could claim that until the United Nations separates itself from SWAPO at some point in the negotiations, it is an interested party. This issue needs to be resolved.
    Another problem is that of bases. In Zimbabwe, during the interim period leading up to elections, troops on both sides were withdrawn to their bases. The difficulty is that SWAPO bases are outside Namibia, in Angola, while the South African bases are in Namibia itself. It would seem unfair, at that stage of the settlement, that SWAPO forces should have to withdraw from the country in which they have been fighting and that South African forces, even in their camps, should be allowed to remain in the country.
    The third problem—in my view potentially the most serious—is that of Cuban troops in Angola. We had a hint from the State Department in Washington last week that the United States may want the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola to start before final independence for Namibia. That may cause some stumbling blocks, because the Cuban troops are not there merely to help Angola against South African incursions across the border, but to help the Angolan Government fight the rebels who were there before SWAPO was around.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East mentioned an area which he said did not figure at all in the Gracious Speech—Central America. The position in El Salvador, as well as in Guatemala, is deteriorating rapidly from the point of view of those who want a peaceful settlement there. In both countries there are revolts, guerrillas, death squads and, above all, a polarisation of political forces to the extreme Right and the extreme Left. That promotes the real danger of outside interference from one or other of the great Powers.
    The intention of the United States, for which one must have some sympathy, is to find a centre in Latin American politics and to support it. However, the situation has been allowed to deteriorate economically and politically over several decades since the Second World War, and it may

    157
    now be too late to find a firm central ground in countries such as El Salvador and Guatemala on which to build a peaceful settlement.
    Mexico, the big power other than the United States in the area, is probably right in saying that revolution in these countries is inevitable and that it is necessary for the United States and the rest of us to come to terms with that fact.
    Basically, the situation in Central America arises from social and economic deprivation and inequalities, which we and the Americans have had plenty of opportunities to put right. Now the revolt has come, and it is probably too late to do anything about it.
    I do not know what the United Kingdom attitude is to the problems of Central America, leaving aside the question of Belize. I sincerely hope that it is not merely slavish to follow the United States Administration's line. We should be capable of exercising an independent judgment about the development of events in the area.
    My last point concerns the Cancun summit in Mexico. The Gracious Speech refers to the economic difficulties of developed and developing countries in one breath, with the appalling implication that the economic problems of the rich and the poor are much the same. That, of course, is wrong. I am confirmed in my belief that that is the implication in the Gracious Speech by the fact that the Government have insisted, in connection with our overseas aid cuts, that we must solve our own economic problems before we can do more to help the poor countries.
    The Lord Privy Seal's opening speech contained an unfortunate reference, which I hope was a slip of the tongue or of the typewriter, when he talked about the deserving countries. "Deserving" is the adjective that I have in mind. I hope that the Minister of State will put that right, because that is almost equivalent to what the Prime Minister said recently about handouts to the poor. I hope that it was not intended and that that matter will be put right before the end of the debate. Otherwise, there will be repercussions.
    Many people consider that the outcome of Cancun was disappointing. In my opinion, the conference had some valuable uses, but not the uses that were mentioned in the joint statement by the chairmen, Pierre Trudeau, and President Portillo of Mexico. The conference was valuable in educating particularly our Prime Minister and President Reagan about the shallowness of their view that market forces must be a major factor in helping to eradicate poverty, disease, hunger and ignorance in the world.
    I am told by those who were present that when President Reagan gave the example of the old aphorism "If you give a man a fish you feed him for one day. If you teach him how to fish you feed him for the rest of his life, or he can feed himself for the rest of his life", he was immediately taken up by the leaders of the poor countries who said "We agree with you entirely, President Reagan, but we need fishing rods, nets, boats, and so on." They will not be supplied by market forces or private enterprise. They will be supplied by Government investment, aid, and so on. I hope that the President will have learnt a lesson.
    The conference was also valuable in educating the leaders of the rich countries about the urgency and importance of the problems facing the developing countries, which make ours pale into insignificance by comparison. As the Prime Minister made clear when she came back from Mexico, the rich countries want to
    158
    safeguard the independence of the international economic institutions. By contrast, the poor countries want a voice in international economic decision making.
    It should not be imposssible to reconcile those two points of view. I hope that we can work for new global negotiations, which start in the General Assembly of the United Nations and are quickly shunted out to the specialised agencies for the detailed discussions, for which, of course, the United Nations is an inappropriate body. Perhaps they could then be brought back together in one final package.
    The rich-poor divide is the most important problem that faces the world, and it has important implications for our foreign policy. If we do not resolve the problems, instability in the poor countries will increase. There have already been 140 wars in the developing world since 1945. It was fortunate that the great Powers were not drawn in in a way which would have involved the use of nuclear weapons, although they got near to it in Vietnam and, to a lesser extent, in Korea in the 'fifties. However, we cannot rely on that luck continuing for ever.
    We must try to bring stability to the developing world, and the only way to do that is not by selling arms or having rapid deployment forces, but by helping them to help themselves by means of Government investment and assistance, and with the help, support and sympathy of the people of this country. I hope that the next Gracious Speech will make more of a centrepiece of the need to help the poor countries.
    5.48 pm
    Mr. Dennis Walters: I hope that the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his wide-ranging speech, except to say that I agree with what he said about the Palestinian issue being central to the solution in the Middle East. However, I shall come to that matter during the course of my remarks.
    The hon. Member also spoke about defence. In my view, unilateral disarmament gravely weakens pressure for multilateral disarmament. Nothing that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Waltham (Mr. Heffer) said this afternoon did anything to weaken that point. If anything, he strengthened it.
    It has become conventional wisdom to say that the Middle East is the area of the world where there is the gravest threat to world peace. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) made the point again this afternoon, in a very impressive speech about the Middle East. I only wish that his Government had done more when they were in power to deal with the acute problems of the area and press for a just solution of the Palestinian issue which he emphasised was fundamental.
    If it is true that the Middle East is the most dangerous area for world peace—I agree with that analysis—it is surprising that greater priority has not been given to solving the issues which, if unresolved, even if they do not trigger off a world catastrophe will certainly eventually cause immense economic and political damage to the area itself, to Europe and to the Third world.
    I met President Sadat very soon after he became president, after the death of President Nasser. Shortly after that, I wrote an article in The Times entitled "Sadat—Man of Peace". Old Middle East hands will not be entirely surprised to learn that the very same people who are today canonising President Sadat then attacked me very strongly

    159
    for putting forward what was described as a simplistic view of what was basically an anti-British Egyptian army officer. But some people never learn on the Middle East.
    The truth is that the isolation of President Sadat was brought about by the failure of Camp David to achieve a comprehensive peace settlement. There was an important limited success in Sinai, but total failure beyond in a wider field. The failure was caused by the incapacity of Israel to respond positively and generously to President Sadat's dramatic initiative. As a result what had been talked about but not spelt out explicitly enough at Camp David—the question of linkage between withdrawal from Sinai and withdrawal from the West Bank—never came about. The talks on autonomy for the West Bank dragged on but were stillborn because no concessions were made by Israel. There was moreover, no question, whatsoever of talking seriously about Palestinian self-determination. Therefore, as time passed, President Sadat became increasongly isolated in the Arab world and, in the end, also isolated in his own country.
    Now there is a new president in Egypt. I hope that the United States Adminstration will not suffocate him in the excessive warmth of their embrace. He is a new president who wants to make progress—not only in Sinai but on linkage.
    There has been a very important and hopeful initiative, the initiative presented by Crown Prince Fahd, to which the right hon. Member for Leeds, East and my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal referred earlier this afternoon. Also I believe that there is some indication of a growing realisation by the United States Administration that Camp David has come to an end and that something new must take its place. In other words, some mobility has returned to the diplomatic scene.
    Too much attention has been paid in recent weeks to the battle over the supply of the AWACS, which is largely an irrelevance, except perhaps as a demonstration that the Israeli lobby in Washington cannot always impose its will on the Administration. But, much more important than the decision to sell, eventually, the AWACS to the Saudis is the response the West should make to the Fahd initiative. It is there that the European contribution could be vital. The European initiative and the communiqué at Venice set the way, but now we want more pressure and more speed.
    Of course, no settlement can be reached without the powerful intervention and commitment of the United States, but Europe can assist enormously in bringing about such an intervention and such a commitment. One of the steps that it can practically take is to initiate a top level dialogue with the Palestine Liberation Organisation, without which the Palestinians remain excluded from the negotiations, and no real progress can be made.
    I was very glad to see that in the Gracious Speech there is a reference to a
    "lasting and comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute"
    and that the Government
    "will continue to work with all the parties to the dispute."
    Obviously, the PLO must be looked upon as one of the crucial parties in the dispute. Therefore, the sooner that Europe talks and negotiates the better, and the more likely it is that progress will be made.
    160
    I believe that around the Fahd initiative there is a great opportunity to advance. This is an opportunity which should not be lost, and it certainly should not be rejected out of hand as Mr. Begin would seem to wish.
    Reference has been made to the Sinai defence force. If Her Majesty's Government decide that we should participate with some of our European partners in that force, I hope that we shall emphasise, at the same time, and very clearly, that our participation is not merely a continuation of Camp David, and that it is not only in order to enable the Israeli withdrawal from the rest of Sinai in April to come about, but that it is primarily to ensure the possibility of some progress on linkage, which, as I have said, has never even started to come about—linkage between withdrawal from Sinai and withdrawal from the West Bank.
    I should also like to see some reference to the need for an immediate cessation of the settlement policy on the West Bank, which is destructive towards progress to peace and which has been continuing in the face of overwhelming international opposition with the most extraordinary degree of arrogance.
    I hope very much that a sense of urgency will now be injected into the search for peace. Here again, Europe can play a vital role. Time is not on our side. I believe that it would be a grave fallacy to assume that somehow rumbling crises go on rumbling for ever, or at least indefinitely, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) implied. At a certain moment crises erupt. They wreak havoc on the countries concerned. As I have said, they could wreak havoc on the economic interests of the West, and, because of the dependence on oil, they could again seriously damage the economies of the Third world.
    We can avoid this. There is still time to do so. But there must be urgency and we must go to the root of the problem. It is overwhelmingly accepted now that a solution must be found to the Palestinian problem. That is what I ask for. Let us tackle the root problem. Let us show courage and imagination.
    5.58 pm
    Mr. Bruce George: I want to address myself to two foreign policy problems which may have a geographical affinity but little other connection—other than that both have been injected recently with a degree of crisis. The first is Anglo-American relations, and as a subsidiary to that I propose to talk about European-American relations. The second is the developing relationship between the United Kingdom and Canada.
    There are those who approach the difficulties of the Western Alliance with some delight. I am not referring simply to those members and supporters of the Warsaw Pact. I do not fall into the category of those who are uncritical supporters of NATO, but I deprecate all attempts within my party to countenance withdrawal from NATO or even give halfhearted support. Any attempt to throw the Americans out of Britain, with their nuclear bases, would constitute a half-hearted or a peripheral involvement with NATO, which would be reprehensible in that we would still be securing what advantages membership of the Alliance brings without in any way properly contributing to collective security.
    There should be far more discussion on that issue within the Labour Party, and I hope in some way to be able to contribute to that discussion. Membership of NATO has

    161
    been to the Labour Party what one person called an "irreducible commitment". We exert far more influence within NATO, as members of NATO, than we would by supporting some bogus neutrality. Perhaps the Swedes have reason to reflect on the status of their neutrality, because, navigational error or not, the Soviet Union appears to be observing very closely what is happening in a nation that appears to believe that it is neutral.
    The Western Alliance has lived through many internal and external crises. The ink was hardly dry on the treaty before NATO was beset with problems over German rearmament and plunged into a conflict in South East Asia. There is on both sides of the Atlantic scepticism and cynicism, often involving falsely held images. If the American President is not assertive he is accused of being not assertive enough, and if he appears to be assertive he is criticised for going too far without the Alliance.
    Perhaps there is a crisis in the Alliance. Perhaps it is merely a rerun of an old problem, or as The Economist said in an article in June, maybe this crisis is qualitatively different. It said:
    "The relationship between Western Europe and North America, alias the Atlantic Alliance, is in the early stages of what could be a terminal illness."
    On the other hand, perhaps as Mark Twain once said:
    "The report of my death was an exaggeration."
    The latest crisis may be an exaggeration, because crises have often led not to a diminution of strength in the Alliance, but to its enhancement. Difficulties are inherent in any relationship of 15 sovereign members. Perhaps NATO suffers from the problem of being overstudied, with so many people legitimately analysing it in academia and the media. It is not surprising that issues, real and imaginary, are pounced upon.
    Some people have an over-critical interest in statements made by the American President and immediately leap upon them, but they often close their ears to statements from the other side of the Iron Curtain. Such statements are often accepted uncritically and without analysis.
    There are differences within the Alliance. Those differences are based on differences in history, geography and ideals. There are also differences because of our different economies. That is inevitable. It is amazing that the Alliance has held together for as long and as successfully as it has. Sometimes we may criticise the Americans. Sometimes we criticise with what I believe to be an unfair perspective—from a sense of intellectual and political arrogance and superiority.
    That is not new. I remember reading some doggerel that circulated just after the First World War:
    "In Washington Lord Halifax once whispered to Lord Keynes:
    `Tis true they have the money bags but we have all the brains' ."
    It is often such arrogance that convinces people in Europe, with their longer traditions of diplomacy, that these halfwits who come into office temporarily and then disappear have a perspective of the world that should be ridiculed. Such an attitude is unfounded. We must have respect for an awareness on the other side of the Atlantic and within different parts of a Europe that may differ from our own view.
    I have talked to American politicians and citizens, and I am worried. The peace movement is developing in Europe. I dislike the monopolisation of the word "peace" by people who happen to be unilateralists and who have badges saying that they are members of CND.
    162
    Like many others, I worry when I read about force deployments and the modernisation of forces throighout the world in countries large and small. I am often worried stiff by the way in which the world is developing. One does not have to be a unilateralist to be concerned about the way in which the world is proceeding. We are all at heart disarmers, although perhaps of different hues. It is important to get round the negotiating table to try to bring about arms control that will lead eventually to disarmament.
    Some of my colleagues argue that arms control is superfluous and that disarmament is what we need. No resolution passed by the Labour Party will change 3,000 years of history. Perhaps it is desirable that swords be changed into ploughshares and spears into pruning hooks, but no statement by the Labour Party will automatically create an environment in which other people will follow our lead, noble though it might be.
    We must seek to work towards disarmament. However, within the Alliance we must seek a greater cohesion in decision-making. We must consider how to share the defence burden more equitably. When I talk to Americans, I hear that time and time again. We must ponder it. The American view is perhaps a precursor to a retreat into isolationism. Americans tend to underplay the part played by Europe in Europe's collective defence. They tend to believe that we are doing only little and that only the United States Government are making a contribution. That view has some substance, but it is wrong.
    Politicians should be worried about that argument, because people are saying that Europe is not prepared to defend itself and that if Europe is prepared to veto American initiatives we should let them get on with it. American politicians who are Europe and NATO-oriented will have to respond to that argument. However, I hope that we can achieve better cohesion and work towards arms control leading to disarmament. I hope that real initiatives will emanate from the United States and NATO in the negotiations that are about to begin.
    Another issue might not be earth shattering, but it is more than a little local difficulty between Britain and our ally, Canada. There could be a deterioration in relations as a result of Mr. Trudeau's desire—some might say obsession—to patriate the constitution of Canada. I was at a seminar a few weeks ago attended by a good friend and distinguished academic who is an American observer of the British political scene. I refer to Professor Samuel Beer of Harvard. He dismissed the opposition to the move in the United Kingdom Parliament as "The empire strikes back".
    Professor Beer works in Boston, an area with a strong sense of insularity and a suspicion of Britain and its colonial ambitions. It might seem logical to some people that Britain should have no involvement and no right to seek to veto a decision by a Prime Minister of a sovereign nation and endorsed by the legislature.
    Eighteen months ago a small group of hon. Members expressed scepticism and cautioned our Prime Minister and Mr. Trudeau. We said that we would not hold our noses, as Mr. Trudeau hoped, but were beinning to create within our legislature an awareness of the fact that the problem was not as simplistic as it appeared at first sight.
    Since I spoke in the debate last year, the situation has changed. A fine report has emerged from the new Select Committee system—the report on Canada by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.

    163
    I do not agree with every point of the report. I profoundly disagree with many parts of it, especially its dismissal of the argument that we have no legal obligation towards the native people of Canada. However, it is a fine piece of work and a great credit to the Select Committee system. It is a great credit to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and, most importantly, it has had a profound effect on shaping events.
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: Has my hon. Friend noticed that every conclusion in the report is parallel with and has been endorsed by the recent findings of the Canadian High Court, and that both findings come to conclusions opposite to the public evidence given to the Committee by the Foreign Office legal adviser, who has advised successive Governments? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is one of the fundamental successes so far of the Select Committee system?
    Mr. George: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intevention. Often, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence believe that between them they have a monopoly of knowledge and interest in major areas of defence and foreign affairs. The Foreign Affairs Committee has shown that perhaps there is a different perpective—no less valid—from that of the Foreign Office.
    When I argued in Canada—and was threatened with deportation for my pains—that Britain had a constitutional obligation to the provinces and native peoples as well as to the Federal Government, my arguments were dismissed by one constitutional authority as "blatherskite". I have not found out what that means, but I suspect that it is not complimentary.
    The National Executive Committee of the Labour Party endorsed another good piece of research. The Foreign Affairs Committee produced the result of its deliberations, and the Supreme Court of Canada recently brought out its decision, supporting the view that Britain has an obligation to Canadian federalism and not simply to one element of it. The federal system is, as Mr. Trudeau said, a compromise and a pact, the terms of which cannot be altered unilaterally.
    The Supreme Court of Canada said that perhaps it was legal for the Federal Government to request patriation without support but Canada had a system that worked on convention and convention demanded the support of the provinces. It may be legal to do almost anything, but in every instance where amendments have been sought to the British North America Act 1867, they have been preceded by agreement within the provinces. We cannot argue that if eight out of the 10 provinces oppose the issue, as well as the native peoples, that constitutes endorsement of Mr. Trudeau's action.
    There will be opposition from the House and from a number of sources, including human rights supporters. Those supporters would say that they have an obligation to the native people. Northern Americans are swift to offer advice to Britain in dealing with the minorities in our society—notably Northern Ireland—yet they are often the first to deny us the right to comment on misdemeanours in their society.
    The native peoples of Canada have a strong case, not from a moral perspective, but from a constitutional one. I hope that the legal briefs to be presented to the Foreign Office will convince that Department that it is not simply
    164
    a matter of emotionalism, guilt and rhetoric. It may be amusing to some hon. Members if I argued that, in my view and that of constitutional lawyers, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 is still valid for the British Government and the natives of Canada and that when Canada became a nation in 1867 Britain's responsibilities for the native peoples were not transferred to the Canadian Federal Government. The legal cases being prepared by the Indians of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan will have a great impact on opinion in the House and even in the Foreign Office.
    I believe that the human rights lobby will oppose a request for patriation, as will those with strong links with the provinces, perhaps through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which has been built up over many years. Some people oppose patriation because of what I call the sister-party arrangements. The Labour Party, which has an affinity with the New Democratic Party, is opposed to patriation. Therefore, the affinity may be translated into opposition to Mr. Trudeau. The same may apply to the Conservative Party with its affinity to the cause espoused by Joe Clark in Canada. The sister-party argument may result in objections to patriation.
    I do not welcome some people within our camp. They may oppose the Prime Minister and Canada's Prime Minister because it is desirable for political purposes to be obstreperous. The people who oppose Mr. Trudeau should do so on stronger grounds than party politics.
    Opposition also comes from those whom I would call the House of Commons men, who feel that the principles of the House may be violated by legislation rushed through without the consent of the provinces. They will have read not only the two volumes of the initial report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but the voluminous judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada.
    If the Prime Minister believes that a request for patriation by Canada will be met by hordes of hon. Members answering their party's call and responding to a three-line Whip, she will be disappointed. For some of the reasons that I have argued, there is likely to be opposition in the House. When we see the opposition in the House of Lords we will realise that what I said a year ago, and what the Foreign Affairs Committee said nine months ago, was correct—the problem should be sorted out in Canada with consent.
    We also said that when the problem was being sorted out there should not just be a deal between the provinces and the Federal Government. We should remember those who were in Canada 20,000 years before the English, the French, the Germans, the Italians or the Greeks realised that Canada existed. That will avoid the House being used as a battle ground and hon. Members fighting as proxies for contestants in Canada. The battle must be fought in Canada.
    My appeal to the Foreign Office and the Prime Minister is that they continue to transmit the cautionary words to Mr. Trudeau—that it will not help Anglo-Canadian relations if battles that should be fought in Canada are instead fought in the House of Commons. If that advice is followed, I believe that Anglo-Canadian relations will continue in the next 114 years in the good way that they have developed in the 114 years since Canada became an independent sovereign nation.
    6.18 pm
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I hope that the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) will forgive me if I do not pursue his line of argument. I wish to concentrate my remarks on two lines in the Gracious Speech. The first is
    "My Government will continue to play an active role within the North Atlantic Alliance"
    and the second is
    ''They welcome the forthcoming negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union on limiting long-range theatre nuclear forces."
    A layman reading that last sentence, may not realise that there is a NATO dimension to those talks. When one hears that the talks are to be between General Haig, the United States Secretary of State, and Mr. Gromyko, the Soviet Foreign Minister, it may at first seem that the NATO dimension is not as much to the fore as one may have expected. However, we all know that the talks have a genuine NATO dimension, because they have arisen out of the unwillingness of NATO to allow the Soviets to install SS20 three-nuclear-war-headed missiles in Western Europe week after week, as they have since 1977, without modernising its own defence.
    It was the NATO request to the United States Government for cruise and Pershing II missiles, and the American Government's willingness to supply them that finally persuaded the Russians to agree to the Geneva talks. If nothing else, that demonstrates the virtue of negotiating from strength. Until the Russians were aware that the missiles were coming to Western Europe they were remarkably reluctant to get around the negotiating table.
    None of us underestimates the enormous importance to the nuclear arms build-up in Western Europe and security and peace in Europe of the talks and what may come out of them. Indeed, few such talks have been so important since the last war. I know that there are great preparations at the NATO Council to ensure that the Americans are fully aware of what their NATO colleagues feel about the arms limitation discussions before their negotiating position has been worked out.
    However, despite the importance that rests on decisions that may or may not come from Geneva from 30 November, we know that only American and Russian Ministers and their officials will take part. It is as if Europe and its nations have reconciled themselves to being in either the American or Russian sphere of influence—as if Europe is divided into those two spheres of influence, each dominated by a super-Power to the point that no European country expects to be at the nuclear top table. I wonder whether that is good for either East or Western Europe, or for our role in the North Atlantic Alliance.
    Perhaps that feeling persuaded President Ceaucescu of Romania to say in an interview with Die Zeit on 30 October, when referring to theatre nuclear weapons held by the Russians and Americans:
    "We advocate negotiations to deal with this matter and are of the opinion that European countries themselves should be active for their own life is at stake."
    Indeed, our lives are at stake.
    However, I may be told that since 1969 no fewer than 25 documents concerning arms control have been agreed between the United States and the Soviet Union without a NATO or European Power being involved—but all the discussions were bilateral. I instance four—the United States-Soviet hot-line agreement, the United States-Soviet
    166
    nuclear accidents agreement, the United States-Soviet treaty on the limitation of anti-ballistic missile systems and even the SALT treaty meetings. Can one say the same about the theatre nuclear weapons talks in Geneva? Do they simply concern the Russians and Americans, or do they have a multilateral dimension, if only because the Americans are speaking on behalf of NATO and its members?
    As we know, the current generation of Soviet SS20s is essentially an inter-European weapon, of which it has been said many times in the debate that 250 are believed to be targeted on Western Europe, with more being deployed each week within the Warsaw Pact countries. While NATO lacks a response to such a massively dangerous weapon, the West must build up its defence with Cruise and Pershing II missiles.
    If the theatre nuclear weapons talks lead to agreement that Russia and the United States would withdraw all such weapons—the zero option—we should all be mightily relieved and welcome the outcome. If I may be parochial, we in West Berkshire would be delighted. We are to have the first cruise missiles in the United Kingdom at RAF Greenham Common in 1983.
    However, if the talks do not reach the zero option, what level of armaments is to be accepted? Does General Haig decide for NATO what the strength of nuclear defences in Western Europe should be or is he bound to report back to the NATO Council before decisions are reached`' I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will tell me that General Haig, since he is negotiating for NATO, is required to come back to NATO before he can reach an agreement. I remind my hon. Friend that, since NATO is an alliance of equal partners, there seems no good reason why General Haig should not come back and tell the NATO Council what stage the negotiations have reached and what decisions he suggests.
    However, if that is not the intention, are we allowing the talks to become bilateral without a European minister or European member of NATO having a say in the final outcome? In Berkshire, we are providing bases for the new generation of theatre nuclear weapons in NATO. Two other countries in Western Europe are, too. I find it difficult to understand why only the ownership of the hardware bequeaths the right to negotiate, but the ownership of the base area bequeaths no such benefit.
    Unlike the other talks, the talks starting in Geneva, because they have a European dimension, require that Europe, too, be involved. I believe that General Haig should come back to NATO before a final decision is reached. Perhaps I may strengthen the point. It was said recently that, to an American, theatre nuclear forces mean nuclear missiles that, if fired from Russia, cannot reach the United States; one could say, and vice versa. However, to a European, theatre nuclear forces may be strategic nuclear forces. There is a considerable difference of definition. Good as the Americans are at negotiating, and clear as they are about the security needs of Western Europe, are they better at understanding those needs than are the Europeans who live there? It is not unreasonable to believe that that point of definition may be picked by a Western European Minister although it may be missed by an American.
    Definition will be important in the talks. It worries me considerably that the matter will be placed solely in the hands of an American Secretary of State and his officials,

    167
    without recourse to NATO and its wisdom. Is it too late to suggest that there should be a European input to the talks before they get under way on 30 November?
    A WEU report commented on 3 June:
    "any agreement on reducing theatre nuclear weapons will be an extremely complex undertaking because perceptions on both sides differ significantly concerning the weapons systems which must be taken into account. The first objective of LRTNF negotiations must be an attempt to define weapons systems to be included in any regional interim agreement; it must be strictly within the SALT process because, as the Committee has often stressed, there could be no question of seeking a theatre balance of nuclear weapons independently of United States strategic weapons. Otherwise essential linkage with the main deterrent would be lost and the danger of nuclear war in Europe would increase. Deterrence relies on a continuum of weapons systems."
    Those are wise words. I repeat my question. Is it too late for a Western presence at the Geneva talks? If it is too late for that can my hon. Friend give me the assurance that Mr. Haig will consult NATO before taking any final decisions?
    I believe that Mr. Haig should refer back to NATO before making any final decisions for two reasons. First—I hope that I have illustrated this—I believe that the European dimension is so strong that Europe should be represented in Mr. Haig's party.
    The second reason relates to the peace marches and the claims of the CND in the past few weeks. The CND has described the dangers facing the Western world as a result of what it describes as an "arms build-up".
    In my opinion the CND is wholly mistaken in its approach which takes no real account of the realities of the armaments imbalance between East and West. The concern felt by some people who may have lent support to that movement originates from a feeling that Western Europe is allowing itself to have its defence policy entirely worked out by the American Government. My thoughts on this subject were capsulised in an article in the International Herald Tribune of Tuesday 27 October. The leader writer of that newspaper wrote:
    "There is an inherent imbalance in the nuclear relationship between the United States and its European allies. The European governments do not sit at the table at which the United States and the Soviet Union negotiate over strategic weapons, yet the Europeans know that they are as much at hazard as the Americans or the Russians. The Reagan administration has been addressing the Russians in the aggressive idiom of the American conservatives, without much concern for another very attentive audience in Western Europe. It is accurate to say that the substance of U.S. weapons policy has not changed significantly in the past year; but the tone seems, to Europeans, to have shifted to a more vehement and threatening pitch."
    I believe that there is a lot of truth in those words. If we wanted to allay the concern I have referred to, which has been brought about by that threatening pitch, the best way, in the interests of the NATO Alliance, would be for Europe and the Americans to take part in these vital negotiations which I am sure every hon. Member hopes will be successful.
    6.32 pm
    Mr. Les Huckfield: Many of us on the Opposition Benches have always known the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) as a sincere and dedicated Member, particularly on his constituents' behalf.
    When the hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the point that cruise missiles may be deployed in Berkshire, he deals with a very central issue. I am sure that that was a germane
    168
    point in bringing out large numbers of people demonstrating for peace. That happened, for example, on 24 October in London's Hyde Park, and there have been similar peace demonstrations throughout the European Community.
    The hon. Gentleman will realise that the whole environment and context in which the CND puts its arguments are very different from the context and environment in which it was putting similar arguments 20 years ago.
    I continue to be a supporter of the policies of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman dealt with nuclear disarmament. He put his finger on the central concern, which is that the next war, if it comes to that, could be a war in which European territory would be used. A great concern is that there would not be any European input in the decision taking.
    If the hon. Gentleman had chosen to participate in the Hyde Park peace march, as many of us did, he would have discovered that it was mainly populated not by university academics or students, but by ordinary men and women, their families, their children and their grandparents. It was an accurate representation and cross section of the population.
    The whole population is very concerned about precisely the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to follow the natural logic of his comments and to join the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament tonight. Nevertheless, he has put his finger on the main point.
    The Minister of State must recognise that concern is growing among not just hundreds, but thousands of people. Indeed, I believe that there are growing millions of people whose concerns have to be assuaged. What those people can see is untold billions and unforecast trillions of dollars and roubles of expenditure being spent on increased nuclear nightmares.
    The people say, quite genuinely and sincerely, as I am sure many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents are saying to him, that they simply do not want to be part of it. The first reason they say that is that they do not believe that anybody could win that kind of war. In addition, of course, they say that their country should not participate in that kind of expenditure.
    We have taken note of the recent lectures by the Foreign Secretary at Luxembourg and other places. Such lectures and explanation will have to be given repeatedly in future, if the Government continue their attempts to convince the population.
    The opinion polls and soundings—although they are not universally accurate—state that people are becoming less convinced that we need to be part and parcel of such expenditure in the arms race. The opinion polls were not saying that in the 1950s and 1960s when many hon. Members began putting the argument. The position has changed because the context has changed, the environment has changed and there is a different President in the United States. It has changed also because we have different weapons, including, for example, the cruise and Pershing missiles. An increasing number of people will have to be reassured if the Government's policies are to be believed.
    The hon. Member for Newbury has put his finger on the central point that will concern many hon. Members on both sides of the House. In my opinion, it will also affect

    169
    many millions of people throughout the country. The present explanations for this expenditure are not now regarded as satisfactory.
    The Gracious Speech makes reference to Britain's role as a member State of the European Community. It states that the United Kingdom should play its full part in the development. What worries us—my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) made accurate reference to this—is not only our present role but the subordinate role that the Treaty of Rome necessitates we play.
    When I was a Minister in the last Labour Government, I was concerned about the number of issues and decisions on which the Government had to seek permission from the European Community and the Commission in Brussels before they could act. For example, we have already surrendered a great deal of our power to invest in industry.
    Much of our power to conduct trade negotiations has been surrendered. That is why many of the Opposition feel that it is not just a declaration to withdraw from the EEC that needs to he made by the present Opposition. It must be a very firm and, we hope, immediate commitment that the next Labour Government will carry out.
    As the months and the Presidencies of the Commission pass we become more enmeshed. We have less autonomy to control our industrial and social destiny. We particularly find that we have less power to negotiate in foreign trade matters. The Opposition passionately believe that we must make our declaration and implement our policy before it becomes too late.
    The Queen's Speech states that the Government
    "support the contribution of the Member States of the European Community towards a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute and will continue to work with all the parties to the dispute."
    We know that the Foreign Secretary believes that the PLO is one of the parties that will have to be brought into any ultimate settlement of the dispute. We understand that through bad timing, perhaps intentional, he almost bumped into a leading spokesman for the PLO at an airport recently. The Foreign Secretary makes repeated utterances that the PLO should be brought into negotiations, but he must accept that many of us who believe in the security and the continuity of the existence of the State of Israel cannot see how Israel could be prepared to make such a concession.
    In trade union terms, if Israel concedes recognition of the PLO before starting negotiations it will have thrown away its strongest bargaining card. It is far-fetched to expect any Government in Israel—I do not speak as an admirer of the present Government; in Israeli politics I would be classified as a Left-wing dove—to recognise the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian people before the parties get to the negotiating table.
    That is unreasonable, particularly as, although the PLO may talk in moderate tones from time to time, it still declares in its covenant that a lasting solution to the Middle East dispute can come about only through the annihilation of the State of Israel. I do not support that. I believe that the State of Israel has a right to exist within secure frontiers. But so have the Palestinian people. I have never believed that if we went away and pretended that the problem did not exist, the problems of the Palestinians would not exist. They also have certain inalienable rights,
    170
    but it is unrealistic to expect Israel to give away its strongest bargaining point before going to the conference table.
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is taking a reasonable line. We are not suggesting that Israel should or could recognise the PLO now. That would be unreasonable. We are trying to press the PLO to give conditional recognition to Israel's right to exist. What would the hon. Gentleman's attitude be if we managed to achieve that?
    Dr. M. S. Miller: But Israel already exists.
    Mr. Huckfield: My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) takes the words out of my mouth. The State of Israel does exist. The people whom the PLO purports to represent are diverse and sundry and live not only on the West Bank, but in many other parts of the Middle East and throughout the world. The State of Israel is a fact, and many of us believe that it has a right to exist within secure frontiers.
    However, if the Minister of State believes that the Foreign Secretary's efforts can produce such a declaration from the PLO, let him proceed on that basis. Many of my hon. Friends would want to see whether the Government's policies can produce such a declaration. If they do so, they will perhaps produce an interesting and more fluid situation.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not a question whether the PLO or any other organisation will recognise Israel's right to exist? The problem is that the PLO is committed to the annihilation of the State of Israel, and it is surely unreasonable to expect any country to negotiate with people who are intent on its annihilation.
    Mr. Huckfield: My hon. Friend is building a good track record in anticipating my remarks. I was about to say that if our Government can produce from the PLO the declaration to which the Minister of State referred we would find it difficult to accept the sincerity of such a declaration while the PLO retains in its covenant the objective of the annihilation of the State of Israel.
    Even if a declaration is obtained from the PLO it will not overcome the other obstacle to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride has referred. However, let us see what the Government can do. Many of us will continue to have doubts, because we recognise that there are different elements within the PLO, just as there are many elements within the people who call themselves Palestinians. Palestinians are a more diffuse and varied people than just the PLO.
    I end where I began. The predominant issue for all people of the world, particularly those who are on the verge of possessing nuclear weapons, must be nuclear disarmament. I have long held that we ought to be engaged in disarmament rather than arms control and limitation, and I have always believed that we are one of the few countries that could take a lead which would be noticed. We could set the pace for a European nuclear-free zone and I would hope that that would be copied in the Middle East. A nuclear-free zone in that area has already been proposed by the Israeli Government, and I regret that there has not been a similar response from other parties in the Middle East.
    The Government will have to recognise the underlying fear and the nagging worry of ordinary men and women

    171
    about nuclear weapons. The Government have never sounded convincing to me, and the majority of the population is beginning to believe that the Government have not even convinced themselves. That is the matter to which the Government have to pay considerable attention.
    6.48 pm
    Viscount Cranborne: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield), because he put his finger on the nub of the Arab-Israel conflict, a problem which has been alluded to constantly in the debate.
    I was delighted to hear a Labour Member make the point about which many of my hon. Friends feel strongly. I support wholeheartedly his comments about the PLO and the likelihood or otherwise of its giving assurances that the State of Israel could reasonably expect to receive before taking part in a general settlement involving the Palestinian people.
    However, I do not want to talk specifically about that subject. Debates on foreign affairs always strike me as conspicuous for the lack of interest shown by hon. Members. There are one or two right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who attend assiduously and who talk with enthusiasm about foreign affairs. This evening is a good case in point. When one considers that just under 30 per cent. of our gross national product is exported, when one considers the technological revolution which is occurring in this country and throughout the world, and which is making the world increasingly interdependent and a smaller place, and when Governments everywhere are finally beginning to realise that they alone cannot have the influence on events within their borders that their election manifestos promised, or that they would like to give the impression that they have, is it not astonishing that in this country of all countries there appears to be a declining interest in foreign affairs and foreign policy? That is increasingly shown by the sparse attendance at our debates on this important subject.
    Many references have been made to the Arab-Israeli dispute and to the question of the North-South dialogue—and rightly so. The astonishing variety of subjects which we consider is a tribute to the diversity of subjects that are permissible in the debate. However, the difficulty that we all have in resolving the problems is hardly increased by the one overwhelming factor which, no matter what hon. Members on either side of the Chamber say, dominates all subjects or at least is an important factor in them all—the presence of the Soviet Union and the nature of Soviet power. All those questions—whether it be North-South or the world financial system—are difficult enough to resolve in themselves, but increasingly we must face the additional and most unwelcome complication that everywhere we must consider what the effect will be on the power of the Soviet Union. That is why in the 1980s defence and foreign affairs are closely coupled. It has been interesting to note how many speeches have been about defence matters and how closely they have been linked to foreign affairs.
    I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to one aspect of defence which is of crucial interest to this island and its inhabitants. We all know how important the Middle East is and how important a lasting Middle East
    172
    settlement will be for the preservation of world peace and for the continuity of our oil supplies. However, the centre of our defence effort must always be in Europe because the first objective of any strategy must be to defend the territory of this country.
    In considering that important question, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, in his recent White Paper and in his speeches on that White Paper, referred to the principle that the defence of this country is largely to be conducted on the Continent of Europe. That principle has been common to all strategic and defence thinking over the past 30 years. It was followed equally before the last war.
    Does my hon. Friend still believe that that principle can remain unchallenged? If he considers Soviet power, is he in any way disturbed by the rapid growth in Soviet amphibious and airborne capacity over the past 20 years? He will be better able than I to authenticate or deny rumours of large-scale exercises by Soviet planners in airlifting troops and supplies to various parts of the world. If I were a planner in Moscow —
    Mr. Nigel Foreman: What a delightful thought.
    Viscount Cranborne: Such power doubtless tempts many politicians of all persuasions, but I must resist the temptation to follow my hon. Friend down that road.
    If I were a Soviet planner, I should be tempted to consider an attack in Europe through the central front, if I were driven to it—I do not for one second suggest that that is an immediate likelihood—to be a high risk option. In view of my amphibious and airborne capacity, I wonder whether I would be tempted to pursue a super Schlieffen plan. After all, this country is not only the floating aircraft carrier for the defence of Western Europe but the main resupply base for the supplying of the European theatre from the United States. In the exercises that have been conducted by NATO and the Americans over the last few years, the question of convoys and supplies has played a prominent part.
    If I were prompted to make an attack on Europe, I should be tempted to consider whether it would be more reliable, effective and quicker to go for the United Kingdom rather than for the central front in Germany. I would consider whether, by amphibious and airborne attack, I could go for a quick knockout blow by going round the northern flank rather than through the central front. Perhaps such an event will not occur, but, as a result of reading the defence White Paper and listening with interest to the statements of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench over the last few months, I suspect that the possibility has not escaped them.
    We hear with considerable approval of the expansion of the Territorial Army. We hear, too, of the improvement of our air defences by further expenditure on the RAF. However, I question whether that is enough. Will my right hon. Friends consider seriously the possibility of a new strategic posture which takes into account the gigantic Soviet strength which could be used to knock out this country and which would render three or four BAORs, however well equipped and trained, worse than useless? They would be locked up along with our allies in Central Europe.
    If one gives any credence to that possibility, it must put a question mark over the principle that inevitably the

    173
    defence of this country necessarily rests on the Rhine. However disturbing that may be to our NATO allies—I yield to no one in the importance that I attach to NATO—we must take a fresh look at our vulnerability if we are to adopt a convincing posture towards the Russians. We must consider whether we are doing enough to defend Britain against the possibility of an attack through the northern flank.
    I welcome the emphasis that has been placed on foreign affairs and defence in the Gracious Speech. I hope that that emphasis will be given expression not only in additional expenditure on such matters, but in a reappraisal along the lines that I have stated. I hope that the Government will give the weight that is deserved to this issue, because that weight is assuredly given by Russia in developments in its amphibious and airborne capability.
    7 pm
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: I at least agree with the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) about the scope of the debate and the range of subjects that can be raised. However, I hope that he will forgive me if I do not take his updating of Liddell Hart and the strategy of indirect approach.
    The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) opened the debate for the Opposition and set his speech in a framework of criticism of the United States of America. He began with an attack on the American Administration's policy in Central America and continued with criticism of their rhetoric and with the apparent triumph of the Conservative ideologues over those whom he described as the Conservative pragmatists.
    It is reasonable to criticise the Government of the United States of America. Indeed, much of the constructive probing of the issues dominating this long debate turns on the attitude of our principal ally. However, I fear that the right hon. Gentleman showed himself to be almost more sympathetic, at times, to the gerontocracy in Moscow than to our allies in the United States of America.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Worthington): What a shabby accusation.
    Mr. Maclennan: With respect, I thought that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East was perceptive in his comments about the gerontocracy in Moscow. It is not a criticism to draw attention to the contrast between his attitudes, but a factual description.
    The right hon. Gentleman's position is ambiguous. His speech demanded the attention of the House, because of the authority of his experience on the issues that he touched on and analysed—I refer particularly to that of disarmament—but, if this country is to be effective in its criticism of its allies, it should present itself as a reliable ally. On that point, several of us found it impossible to remain in association with the party of which the right hon. Member for Leeds, East is now deputy leader.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the hon. Gentleman going to resign?
    Mr. Spearing rose—
    Mr. Maclennan: The tragedy for the country is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was speaking not with the voice of the Labour Party, but with reason and personal authority. Sadly, he could not command the support of his party or the weight that that would have thrown behind his speech.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman should show some consistency and resign.
    Mr. Maclennan: The debate has largely focused on defence issues.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the point about America—
    Mr. Maclennan: I have not left that point, and the hon. Gentleman should sit down. I propose to speak about matters in which we can play a more direct part than by exercising our proper influence with our allies at the margin to promote the desirable extension of human rights in Central America and other parts of Latin America. Decisions will have to be made shortly on several important European issues. However, I turn first to the conclusion of the conference at Cancun. Hon. Members have had an opportunity to debate that conference. The key question, which the conference left unresolved, is what procedural steps should follow it to enable global negotiations to continue.
    The Government have not made their position clear. At the Ottawa summit in July the seven industrial powers, including the United States of America, committed themselves to joining preparations for global negotiations. The mere continuation of existing discussions in the different international forums is not likely to give that dialogue the impetus that it needs. No doubt painstaking negotiations are inevitable, but unless they are seen to take place within a proper agreed framework and with an eye to the clock, there is a risk of a return to the politics of confrontation. That would be in the interest only of the adventurist powers, which are bent on mischief-making.
    The Government are under an obligation to give a lead, but, regrettably, their voice was not clear either at Cancun or this afternoon. What do the Government intend to do to accelerate the constructive negotiations on food, trade, energy and finance that Cancun did so little to advance? I warmly welcomed the Lord Privy Seal's presence, but he did not deal with that point in his remarks. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how he expects that issue to develop. It is an urgent matter.
    As regards the Middle East, we may be encouraged by the speech made by Prince Fahd, which was reported only today. It demonstrated some movement towards recognition of the State of Israel. It is not clear exactly what was said, but it is clear that it represents an important aspect of the discussion. The success or failure of the Fahd initiative may well turn on that. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East was right to welcome the Foreign Secretary's presence in Saudi Arabia, but in doing so he showed something of the same spirit as Lord Thorneycroft did in commending the right hon. Gentleman to the Labour Party as a suitable Deputy Leader. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) wish to intervene?
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman spoils an interesting speech by his rather silly references to the Labour Party.
    Mr. Maclennan: The Labour Party is not a silly matter. It is a tragic matter.
    The Lord Privy Seal's speech also showed an encouraging shift of emphasis in the Government's attitude to developments in Southern Africa. His comments about recognising the need for South Africa to

    175
    move towards a system of government enjoying the support of the South African people was a refreshing admission which is not made sufficiently often from the Conservative Benches.
    It is also encouraging that the right hon. Gentleman is taking a personal interest in pushing forward the discussions of the Western group on constitutional developments in Namibia. It is certainly true that if we do not see movement towards elections there will be great dismay throughout the southern part of Africa. If the Government take a continuing line of support for the work of that group, it is to be hoped that that will be achieved. In this respect, I believe that the Government must continue a dialogue with the United States and not rely solely upon talks within the group.
    Disarmament issues have rightly tended to dominate the debate. I found the speech of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who has now left the Chamber, extremely persuasive. I think that many of us felt that he was right to raise direct with the Government—and I support him in doing so—the question whether our own and other European Governments should be directly involved in discussions with the United States on the negotiations regarding long-range theatre nuclear weapons.
    The need for such talks is accentuated by the utterances of the American Secretary of State in the past few days, to which reference has been made several times in the debate. It may be that there are no serious issues of policy dividing us, but there are certainly serious issues of presentation of American policy which are in themselves dangerous. It is therefore right that the Government should recognise the need to bring clarity to the attitude of the United States before the United States Government embark on discussions at the end of the month.
    The right hon. Member for Leeds, East was correct to emphasise the damage being done by the apparent disarray of the American leadership at this time. This may be merely a matter of expression. Certainly the President of the United States is somewhat infelicitous in his use of language, but it may also cover issues of substance of the kind raised by the hon. Member for Newbury. It is therefore right that we should be involved. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will lose no time in that regard.
    There are other issues relating to disarmament on which there is less evidence that the Government are taking a positive initiative. The Lord Privy Seal, replying to the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who asked about the comprehensive test ban negotiations, failed to clarify the Government's attitude to the possibility of pushing ahead for a comprehensive ban. I believe that he said that there was some scope or hope for movement, but he did not show the kind of urgency that most of us feel should be put into this issue.
    The Gracious Speech also refers to issues associated with our membership of the European Community and states in particular that
    "the United Kingdom will play its full part in its development".
    It might be thought that at this time one of the most important issues in the development of the European Community is the development of the monetary system, but on this there has been a singular and resounding silence on the part of the Government. That is rather odd, when
    176
    speeches by the Governor of the Bank of England have at least implied that the time may soon be right for British participation in the European monetary system.
    We learn from press reports that a seminar is to be conducted at No. 10 Downing Street, at which economic advisers will discuss the issue, but there has been no explanation to the House of where the Government stand on this matter. I believe that opinion in this country is increasingly hardening around the view that the time is right for Britain to join the EMS, and that if the pound strengthens further it is unlikely that the time will be appropriate later. Even if it is not possible for Britain to enter the grid save within the Italian parities, it is certainly worth considering whether this would increase the stability of the framework of British trading activity and at the same time strengthen our commitment to the development of the European institutions.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Barclays Bank International circular of two years ago, which, in its explanation of the EMS, pointed out that the authority was the central combined banks of the Community meeting in Basle, the dominant member of which was the German Bundesbank, which did not have a national responsibility in the sense that the Bank of England has, and that the whole economy of this country would therefore be linked to the strongest currency, namely, the deutschmark, and that Government intervention even by this Government would therefore be less in respect of national economic policy than is at present the case?
    Mr. Maclennan: Events of the past two years have demonstrated the difficulties that all Governments face in seeking to control the level of their currency. We must ask, therefore, whether that task would be assisted by British membership of the EMS. It is my firm belief that this would make it much easier to exercise some control, and that lack of control has been seriously damaging to our industrial and productive effort in recent months.
    The second European issue on which decisions must be made is the common agricultural policy. There was a short debate in the House recently on the mandate. I draw attention to one matter that I find somewhat disturbing, namely, a change of emphasis in the European Commission's proposals. I think that there was a recognition that bearing down on prices both by member Governments and at the hand of the Commission would not necessarily produce the long-term structural changes so long as some member countries faced the problem of the marginal areas.
    The Commission's June proposals contained some recognition that income support for those engaged in farming in these areas might be a better way of bringing about structural change. There is no reference to that in the Commission's new document. I hope that the Government will not let that matter pass. The Commission's document emphasises forcefully and rightly that we shall not witness a dramatic change of policy within the Community towards the CAP because it has broadly worked for most member States. We need a more sensitive adjustment of its mechanisms to deal with the problems created for particular commodities, and not a scrapping of its techniques.
    The Queen's Speech tells us that the Government propose to seek an early agreement on the revised common

    177
    fisheries policy, an issue that has been raised in the debate only by an interjection. In reply the Lord Privy Seal said that he was an optimistic man and hoped that some moves would be made in that direction.
    It is true that the British fishing industry would greatly welcome a settlement of the revised common fisheries policy and an end to the great uncertainties that have prevailed for too long. However, it would welcome a settlement only if it were adequate and satisfactory and recognised its interests. I am concerned that the Government are showing themselves to be less than tough in their negotiations. I make no personal accusations against any individual Minister. A collective agreement must be arrived at by the Cabinet, which involves the Foreign Office as well as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The terms that were outlined and largely approved by the fishing industry in December 1980 should not be departed from, including the 12-mile exclusive limit and the dominant preference within an area of up to 50 miles.
    There is concern that some juggling with the quotas may be accepted by the Government, to the industry's disadvantage. It is felt that the figures for the seven main species should be adhered to and recognised as being outside negotiations. There is serious concern about cod.
    The fishing industry is in such a parlous condition that it will examine with especial interest what the Government achieve in respect of the level of withdrawal and reference prices. A 15 per cent. increase is being sought by the industry. If such an increase is forthcoming it will undoubtedly be helpful, but it will not in itself secure the industry's long-term prosperity. That prosperity can be secured only if a satisfactory conclusion is arrived at which secures adequate quotas and controlled access.
    It has been rumoured that the Government are considering the possibility of allowing into the large northern box licensed vessels longer than 80 ft in certain numbers. That is a highly dangerous proposition that will have to be considered with great care. If accepted, it would apply for all time and might damage the Government's other negotiating objectives. We have been told by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that it is hoped that the next meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers will arrive at conclusions on these issues. That meeting will take place before the end of the month. It is an opportune moment to express the industry's deep concern.
    I conclude by expressing good wishes to the Lord Privy Seal. I hope that in his conduct of his high office he will enjoy the support in all parts of the House that his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), enjoyed during his tenure. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham believes that he has won the intellectual argument although he has lost office. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who has succeeded him will continue the intellectual argument on the same side as his predecessor, not only in his own sphere, but in respect of the other issues over which the Government are at odds with themselves.
    7.27 pm
    Mr. Michael Shersby: I hope that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) will forgive me if I do not take up his wide-ranging and interesting speech in every detail. I shall deal with an aspect of foreign policy that has not been discussed in the debate—the Government's South Atlantic policy. The
    178
    Queen's Speech mentions the importance which the Government attach to the Commonwealth. I am pleased that it is the Government's declared policy to join other countries and responsible international organisations in efforts to resolve the economic difficulties of both the developing and developed countries.
    I wish to draw the attention of the House to the difficulties facing one of the developed countries, the Falkland Islands. I regret that the Queen's Speech does not refer to the need for an early settlement of the problems of that dependent territory. I recognise that it is impossible for the Government to deal with everything in the Queen's Speech. However, I hope that it will be possible for my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal to comment on this distant but important part of the world.
    The Falkland Islands and their dependencies form a British Crown Colony. The colony is facing economic difficulties because of the continuing dispute between the Argentine and Britain over the sovereignty of the islands. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said that economic progress is being impeded because of what he described as the dead hand of the dispute that is hanging over the islands.
    I have recently returned from a visit to the Falkland Islands, where I spent two weeks as a member of a Commonwealth parliamentary delegation. I was accompanied by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden). During the two weeks that we spent on the islands we met and talked with many of the 1,800 inhabitants. We were able to ascertain their views on a wide range of issues. I pay tribute to the islanders' outstanding loyalty to the Crown and their overwhelming desire that the islands should remain British.
    The matter that is uppermost in the mind of every Falkland Islander is the constitutional dispute with the Argentine. As hon. Members may know, the Argentine lays claim to the islands, which are known in that country as Las Malvinas. It has done so for many years, and it now bases its claim on the proposition that the Falklands are part of the Argentinian continental shelf. Many Falkland Islanders, and perhaps many hon. Members, may find that claim difficult to accept because the islands are located about 300 miles off the coast of South America. Recently, Argentina has extended its claim to include the island of South Georgia, which lies a further 800 miles south-east of the Falklands, and to the South Sandwich islands.
    It is well known that an Argentinian military mission has occupied one of the islands—Southern Thule—without the permission or consent of the British Government. That occupation was raised in the House on 18 December 1980 by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). In his reply, my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who was then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said:
    "At the talks in New York in April I protested again to the Argentine Foreign Minister about the presence of the Argentine mission on Southern Thule without the permission or consent of the British Government. It is impossible to establish any of these things because the Argentine Government have never conceded our sovereignty over either the Falkland Islands or the dependencies, nor have they agreed that we should declare the various zones of the seas around them to which we would normally be entitled."—[Official Report, 18 December 1930; Vol. 996, c. 996.]
    Since then, it appears that nothing more has been done by Her Majesty's Government to require the forces of a

    179
    foreign sovereign State to quit British territory. This is not a new matter and I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will look into it urgently. It was raised as long ago as 10 May 1978 by my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, who, in answer to a question in another place, said to the late Lord Goronwy-Roberts:
    "Will he also bear in mind that while all of us would hope that the relations between Britain and Argentine will improve, occupation of a British island by the Argentine Government and the apparent acceptance of this by Her Majesty's Government, is not a firm basis for such a friendship."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 May 1978; Vol. 391, c. 977.]
    My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Home of the Hirsel also said that this was an illegal occupation and that it was a dangerous situation to have hanging in the air.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will direct his attention to this matter because it is serious, as I am sure all hon. Members will agree, for parts of British territory to be occupied by a foreign power without our consent or permission, however distant that territory may be and even though it may not be inhabited.
    The reason I say that Southern Thule is British is that it is part of the Falkland Islands dependencies, and Britain has exercised sovereignty over the Falkland Islands without interruption since 1833—nearly 150 years. Despite that fact, the dispute with Argentina goes on. Both this Government and their predecessors, together with members of the Falkland Islands legislative council, who attended as observers, have taken part in talks with Argentina in the hope that the dispute could be settled. In an effort to find a solution, my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury met the islanders twice recently and put to them three ways of making progress with further talks.
    He suggested, first, a freeze on all disputed matters, which does not appear to be a viable proposition. Secondly, he put forward the idea of a condominium—joint sovereignty of the island shared between Britain and Argentina—which, again is not acceptable either to the islanders or to Argentina. Thirdly, he put forward the idea of lease-back, where perhaps it might be possible to cede sovereignty to Argentina for a long period and to lease back the territory in such a way that the British way of life could continue under a British governor.
    When I was in the islands only a few weeks ago, it was clear to me and to the hon. Member for West Derby that the overwhelming majority of islanders did not accept the lease back solution. They are British, they mean to stay British and they want the Falkland Islands to stay British, and so, I believe and hope, does every hon. Member. However, there is to be a further round of talks with Argentina in the hope that matters other than sovereignty can be discussed. I hope that they can, because the Falkland Islanders want good, friendly relations with Argentina. They want to trade with the Argentinians and want them as tourists to the islands. Perhaps they would be interested in joint development of the oilfield that lies between the Falkland Islands and the Patagonian coast. They do not want to become part of Argentina and the Government and the House must face that fact.
    Let us say to our Argentinian friends "This dispute has gone on long enough. Let us understand each other's joint desire to work together for the economic prosperity of both
    180
    our countries. Let us also recognise that we must and do respect the wishes of the islanders to determine their own future and, if they wish, to remain British."
    I therefore call on my right hon. Friend to join Argentina in a final effort to resolve the economic difficulties that face the Falkland Islands and to settle this sterile, constitutional wrangle that has gone on for too long.
    The hon. Member for West Derby and I identified many opportunities for development in those beautiful islands. My right hon. Friend knows that we are reporting to him on the opportunities that we discussed with the islanders. They include the installation of a freezer plant to enable the hundreds of tonnes of good mutton that are thrown away each year to be exported, perhaps to Britain, where it can be purchased by the British housewife. The same freezer capacity could be used to freeze the upland goose, a bird which is prolific in the islands to the point of being a pest. I am sure that those birds could be shipped to Britain. There are also opportunities for harvesting the valuable kelp that abounds in these waters. It is also possible for salmon ranching to be developed.
    There is one consideration above all others to which the House should address its mind—the fact that there could be important oil exploration in these waters. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will discuss that with Argentina when he meets his opposite number in due course. Oil around the Falkland Islands has been talked about in the House and outside for many years. Many people have asked me for evidence that there is oil in the area. If the House would like evidence that there is oil in British waters in the South Atlantic, I can do no better than draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that Argentina has advertised the availability of licences to drill for oil in disputed waters that actually straddle the median line between the Falklands and the coast of Patagonia.
    We are not just considering vague rumours. I shall give the House the names of three consortia that I am reliably informed are interested in bidding for these concessions. The first consortium is Atlantic Richfield, Citie Service and Mobil, in conjunction with two Argentine companies. The second consortium comprises three Argentine companies, Braspetro, Petrobras and Bridas, Deminex, a West German and Argentine company, Hispanica de Petroleo and Hudbayoil. The third consortium is comprised of YPF, the Argentine state oil company.
    It is, therefore, important for the House to recognise that the concessions offered by Argentina are in disputed waters. In other words, it appears that Argentina has offered concessions in British waters. If those concessions are taken up—if drilling and oil extraction commence—it will be British oil that is being extracted.
    What action is the Foreign Office taking to deal with this sensitive and important matter? The time has come when we should stop talking about vague rumours of oil in the South Atlantic and address our minds to the facts that I have given the House tonight, which show that three major consortia are about to drill for British oil in the South Atlantic. That could be vital, not only to the economy of the Falkland Islands but to the economy of the United Kingdom as well.
    Specifically, I should like to know whether any representations have been made to Argentina pointing out that these concessions include British waters. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the Secretary of State for Energy? Are any British oil

    181
    companies interested in drilling in these waters? I understand that they are, but that they have not made progress because of the dead hand of the dispute that hangs over the whole issue. This is a vitally important matter which deserves to be dealt with quickly.
    What is the Government's policy for advancing and promoting British interests in the South Atlantic? There has recently been a good deal of talk and press comment about the possibility of a South Atlantic pact taking shape in Argentina. In an article in the Financial Times on 28 May, Hugh O'Shaughnessy said:
    "Called together under the auspices of private institutions in Argentina and the United States, strategic experts from Washington, South Africa, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and Brazil are meeting in the Argentinian capital to consider the next steps in a plan, long projected, to link the armed forces of the United States, South Africa and Latin America in an effort to counter a perceived Soviet threat in the South Atlantic."
    In answer to a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice), my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who was then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, replied:
    "We have seen press reports on this matter. The proposal was apparently discussed at a private meeting and it would be inappropriate for me to comment. There are no indications that British interests would be adversely affected."—[Official Report, 24 June 1981; Vol. 7, c. 240.]
    Does my right hon. Friend consider that British interests in the South Atlantic will not be adversely affected if there is oil in substantial quantities in the disputed waters to which I have referred? What is the position regarding these disputed concessions? How are we to protect our interests in the area?
    There is one way in which our interests can be protected and that is by the Government deciding to prolong the life of HMS "Endurance", the ice patrol ship which is currently operating in the South Atlantic but which is due to be withdrawn next spring. The House knows that HMS "Endurance" is more than just an ice patrol ship. She is also the only ship that calls regularly at Port Stanley and which is suitable for protecting British interests in the British Antarctic Territory. She is also the major source of information about what is going on Southern Thule and in other parts of the South Atlantic where British interests are paramount.
    HMS "Endurance" is also a great source of comfort and reassurance to our beleaguered fellow citizens in the Falkland Islands. With her two Whirlwind helicopters and 20mm guns, she is tangible proof that Britain means to protect her possessions in the South Atlantic. She is, I believe, vital to Britain in pursuing our foreign policy objectives in that part of the world. What is my right hon. Friend's view about the withdrawal of that ship? How does he believe that British foreign policy in the South Atlantic can be advanced if HMS "Endurance" is withdrawn, as planned, in the spring of next year?
    I put it on record that my sole object in raising this issue is to bring these important matters to the attention of the Government and the British public. I also want to make it clear that nothing I have said is in any way intended to strain relations with Argentina. On the contrary, I want to see closer co-operation with Argentina based on mutual respect for each other. But I also want to see justice for the Falkland Islands. I want to see development proceed. That is why I particularly welcome the reference to the resolution of economic difficulties that is contained in the Gracious Speech.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Ioan Evans: The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) will forgive me if I do not follow him down Argentine way to the Falkland Islands. I should like to speak on more general issues in this wide-ranging debate.
    I am delighted that foreign affairs has been chosen as the first subject to merit a full day's debate on the Gracious Speech. However, I regard the Gracious Speech as incompetent, irrevelant and immaterial to the real problems that Britain faces. For example, the problem of unemployment is not dealt with to any great extent. The only reference is to a Bill to deal with employment and labour relations, and we all know that that means an attack on the trade union movement.
    Mention is also made of a so-called measure "to facilitate private investment", but we all know that that will be a measure designed to attack public industries. The Gracious Speech also says that legislation will be introduced to improve the accountability of local authorities, but we all know that that legislation will be designed to clobber local authorities.
    Those are the three great battles that we shall have this Session. We shall see the Government attack the trade union movement, public industries and local government, but their attacks will be countered by the Opposition.
    It is right that international affairs and peace, which is the paramount issue facing this country, should be discussed first. I do not want to deal with specific points as most of them have already been dealt with. However, I ought to say a word about the Middle East. The case has been put for the recognition of the State of Israel. There is sadness that President Sadat was assassinated, but we all hope that the new Egyptian leader and the Israelis will get together to maintain the friendly relationship that has been established between those two countries. We should also seriously consider putting economic aid into that area to try to solve the problem of the Palestinian refugees. The Middle East will remain a threat to world peace unless full guarantees can be given to Israel and we can settle the problem of the Palestinian refugees.
    The problem of South Africa will also be a threat to world peace unless we can get recognition from the South African Government that the illegal occupation of Namibia should be brought to an end and that those people should be allowed their own political freedom.
    I welcome the speech which the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made in South Africa. It followed the tradition of a former Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Macmillan, and echoed what has been said by a host of people in the Labour Party—that the evil regime of apartheid must be brought to an end. Human beings should be given the inalienable rights that are contained in the Declaration on Human Rights. Therefore, the system of apartheid cannot endure and the sooner it is changed, the better.
    I want to refer to the major problem that is now confronting humanity—the real and growing danger of the arms race and in particular the danger of nuclear annihilation. Earlier today I asked for a Government statement on newspaper reports that the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Alexander Haig, had said that a demonstration nuclear bomb would be used in Europe. I do not know whether that means a large nuclear weapon, such as a 100 megaton bomb which, if dropped on the

    183
    House of Commons, would melt steel in Watford and Slough and rayon in Birmingham and Bristol, or whether it means the smaller demonstration bomb that was used on Hiroshima. We should have an answer from the Government as to what type of demonstration bomb NATO has in mind.
    Mr. Caspar Weinberger has now stated that what was said in evidence yesterday to a select committee of the American Congress is not true. So first we had a statement from President Reagan which has been denied by American officials, and now we have had a statement from the American Secretary of State which has been denied by the Secretary of Defence. As the future of Europe is at stake, we must have some clarification before it is too late.
    There is a growing public awareness and concern about the danger of nuclear war. The statements to which I have referred show how right the people are to be deeply concerned. The Lord Privy Seal mentioned the march and demonstration for peace in London a fortnight ago. I was on that march and I was proud to be on it. It was a well-ordered demonstration of 250,000 who came from the length and breadth of this island—from all the universities and all the towns. The people were marching into Hyde Park for four hours or more. I have never seen such a demonstration. It was so large that the police had to arrange for the people to come into Hyde Park from two directions. The march started at 11 am and it took several hours for the people to arrive in Hyde Park for the meeting.
    Similar demonstrations are taking place in other countries because there is a growing fear and awareness of the dangers of nuclear warfare.
    The Labour Party has long campaigned for international peace, co-operation and disarmament. I believe that, if it comes out clearly with a statement that it wants to bring about international negotiation and detente, it will capture the mood of the British people.
    On 6 August 1945, the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Within 24 hours, 60,000 people had been killed. Within two months, a further 60,000 people had died. The total death toll from radiation over the subsequent years is estimated to be 200,000 from that one bomb.
    Three days after the bomb on Hiroshima there was a bomb dropped on Nagasaki. Apart from the many people in Japan who are still suffering from the effects of those bombs, children have been born with defects which are attributable to the bombs.
    The atom bomb which destroyed Hiroshima had a destructive force equivalent to 15 kilotons of TNT. Today's strategic and tactical nuclear weapons number more than 50,000, with a total destructive capacity of 15 million kilotons. In the world today there is a destructive capability equal to 1 million Hiroshimas. There is more than enough capacity in the world to destroy every city several times over.
    The United States and the Soviet Union signed the first strategic arms limitation agreement in 1972, and now there is an argument about whether there should be further similar talks. It is imperative that we give all our encouragement to the United States of America and the Soviet Union to get together.
    184
    It has been suggested that to take unilateral action would mean taking risks. Why is it that people are always willing to take risks in preparation for war but not to take risks in trying to achieve world peace?
    I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will follow his predecessor in office and will work closely with the Foreign Secretary, because in international affairs I have more hope for them than I have for the Prime Minister. I hope that they will keep the Prime Minister as far away as possible from dealing with international affairs.
    There is great danger in the proliferation of nuclear weapons. If it is argued that because the United States and the Soviet Union have nuclear weapons, we must have an independent nuclear deterrent, that argument can be used by every country in Europe, in Africe and in South America. If we say that we must have a nuclear deterrent, how can we argue that we should possess it without every Warsaw Pact country wanting to have one?
    Would Ministers sleep better at night if they knew that Iran and Iraq had nuclear weapons? Would they have been happy if President Amin had had nuclear weapons when he was in power in Uganda? Indeed, some people ask me at meetings "Are you happy that the Prime Minister has nuclear weapons?" We must try to understand people's anxieties about these matters.
    We hear about the Tomahawk cruise missiles which can fly at 200 ft. above ground level, with a range of 2,000 miles, each carrying a single standard nuclear warhead equivalent to 200 kilotons of TNT—15 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. The United States air force alone plans to have 3,400 cruise missiles, and the Soviet Union is developing the SS20, with similar weapons carrying 250 kilotons.
    There are now about 11,000 nuclear warheads in Europe. Of these, 7,500 are deployed by NATO and 3,500 by the Warsaw Pact countries.
    Britain's Armed Forces are equipped with a variety of nuclear weapons. We have the four Polaris submarines—"Renown", "Repulse", "Resolution" and "Revenge"—and each carries 60 missiles. Each missile carries three warheads, and each warhead has the destructive power of 15 Hiroshima bombs.
    The expenditure on arms is a tremendous burden on our economy. A short while ago the figure was £11 billion. This year it will possibly be £ 12½ billion, and next year £14 billion. There is no cutback on defence expenditure. On top of this, we now have the £8 billion expenditure on the Trident programme.
    There is talk of civil defence. Let us be honest with the people. There is no civil defence against nuclear weapons. How many people in Britain have nuclear shelters which could withstand a nuclear attack? The booklet "Protest and Survive" shows what nonsense civil defence against nuclear weapons would be. If a 100 megaton bomb were to be dropped on London, steel would be melted in Watford and Slough. The Government talk in their civil defence document about whitewashing the windows. That statement is in itself a whitewash, because it has to be recognised that there is no way of dealing with the problem.
    The Labour Party has said that it intends to cancel the £8 billion Trident order, to reverse the decision to deploy the cruise missiles, and to oppose the deployment of the neutron bomb. The neutron bomb is the ultimate

    185
    abomination. It is a nuclear weapon which has been devised to save the buildings and kill the people. We must reject it.
    I do not believe that from the Soviet Union, from the United States of America, from France, from Britain or from China—the countries which possess nuclear weapons—there will be a deliberate move to bring about a nuclear war. The real danger is that there will be a world war by accident. One day it will not be the demonstration bomb that has dropped on Paris, Madrid, Berlin, Moscow, Oslo or one of the capitals of Europe. We shall wake up one morning—provided it has not happened near us—and read that the bomb has been dropped. The question arises "Who will claim that they dropped the bomb?" This shows that a war could start by accident. Those who marched on the demonstration are alive to the issue. The Government are living in a fool's paradise if they think that they enhance the cause of peace by adding to the tremendous capacity of the world to destroy itself.
    We have to try to achieve better use of the world's resources. The problem of world poverty means that 800 million people face starvation. Instead of building up their arms programme and treating such expenditure as sacrosanct while cutting back by £1 million on the foreign broadcasts of the BBC, which is supposed to espouse the cause that "Nation shall speak peace unto nation", I would have preferred to see the Government examining the Brandt report and taking some positive measures to deal with the problems facing the world.
    The report estimates that half of 1 per cent. of one year's world military expenditure would pay for all the farm equipment needed to increase food production and so enable food-deficit, low-income countries to approach self-sufficiency by 1990. The Government are cutting back on existing overseas development expenditure. It is estimated that for the price of one jet fighter, costing $20 million, 40,000 village pharmacies could be established in the developing countries. Does it not show that we are going crazy when we join an escalating arms race and encourage others to get involved?
    I accompanied the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader at talks in the Soviet Union on disarmament. I am convinced that the Soviet Union is not preparing for a war of aggression. It is my conviction that there was a desire in the Soviet Union that it should not be caught, as it was in the last war, unprepared. The Soviet Union seeks to match everything done in the West. If we have the atom bomb, the Soviet Union will get the atom bomb. If we have the hydrogen bomb, it will get the hydrogen bomb. So the Soviet Union goes through the catalogue, following the West.
    I believe that if there was a serious move in the West to get down to serious disarmament negotiations there would be a response from the Soviet Union. I plead with the Cabinet to tell the Prime Minister to become involved in discussions with Western Europe to enable talks to take place with Eastern Europe and so end the mad arms race.
    In the siege of Leningrad many of the 600,000 population died of starvation resisting aggression. My right hon. Friends and I went to the city of Kiev, which was obliterated in the scorched earth policy pursued by the Russians when fighting alongside us against Fascism. The whole city was razed to the ground. Now the city has been rebuilt. It has a war museum. Outside the museum there is a massive statute which represents the motherland of Russia. The statute, rather like the Statute of Liberty, is
    186
    of a woman holding a sword erect. It overlooks the rebuilt city of Kiev. The museum contains a small work of sculpture presented by President Brezhnev. Outside there is the massive statue; inside the small sculpture which represents the biblical expression of turning swords into ploughshares.
    I do not believe that the Soviet Union has done enough for the underdeveloped world. By working with the Soviet Union to try to help to solve the problems of world poverty, we can also help to solve the arms race and the build-up to a war that no one wants. This situation can be linked with the serious recession that faces this country and the world. It is argued that jobs are involved in defence expenditure. I have mentioned Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Japan spends about 1 per cent. of its gross national product on defence. It is not allowed under its constitution to have nuclear weapons. I do not suppose that it would want them. Yet the Japanese are the only people investing in Wales. There are no British investors. Sony, Kawasaki and Hitachi are there.
    The Japanese have the resources to invest in developing industry. We need to give our people real jobs, not jobs preparing for a war that no one wants. It is jobs that provide the needs, the ploughshares and the facilities that people in underdeveloped countries require. A response by the Government to the Brandt report and a move away from wasteful arms expenditure would make a greater contribution to the peace of the world. It would help to solve the problems facing us that have increased under this Government.
    8.6 pm.
    Mr. Tim Sainsbury: I do not wish to pursue the subject of defence, on which the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) concentrated. The subject has been referred to often during our debate. The hon. Gentleman spoke, as always, with great sincerity, in an accent that is attractive to the ear. Sincerity, emotion and powerful speaking are, however, no substitute for logic. It is the hon. Gentleman's logic that I challenge. He appears to be yet another of those who somehow persuade themselves, or would like to be persuaded, that if only one does not have a nuclear bomb oneself one escapes the risk of nuclear annihilation. Even some of those who suffered in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are wise enough to point out that those incidents would probably never have happened if Japan had also possessed a nuclear weapon.
    Nuclear weapons have kept the peace of the world for 35 years, tenuously, I agree, on occasion. I see no evidence, however, that unilateral disarmament would be anything other than a backward step. I find the reasoning of the hon. Member for Aberdare slightly strange in drawing our attention to the statue that President Brezhnev donated to the museum in Kiev. The hon. Member mentioned the conversion of swords into ploughshares. If President Brezhnev paid more attention to allowing freedom of religion in his country, he would command more of my respect. If he devoted more of the resources at his command—he does not need parliamentary approval for his estimates—to helping the Third world, not with arms, but with useful aid, and if he had not increased over the last few years the supply of SS20s, a weapon for which there is no counterpart in the West and where he enjoys nuclear superiority, I should have more confidence in the road suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

    187
    I shall address my remarks to another subject on which the hon. Gentleman touched, albeit briefly. He and a number of others, including my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), said in their different ways that the Middle East situation was a major threat to world peace, a critical area. Those are the sorts of expressions that have been used today. It is to the need to continue to search for peace in that area that I address my remarks.
    I am sometimes reminded of the issues that we are asked to take into account in considering our economic affairs. None of us is unfamiliar with the reminder that there are no easy answers to difficult questions—or, to put it another way, that there is no such thing as a free lunch. If there were easy answers to the problems of the Middle East, they would have been found long ago.
    Equally, in contemplating economic difficulties at a time of world recession, we are rightly reminded that we should avoid taking actions that appear to offer solutions that may provide relief in the short term—perhaps a lower rate of inflation through artificially holding down prices of nationalised industries only to release an explosion thereafter; a lower inflation rate perhaps by artificially holding down wages by means of a statutory policy, only to release an explosion afterwards. They are short-term solutions which end up doing more harm in the long run than the good that they do in the short term. In considering the Middle East we must be careful that we do not fall into that trap, as we have done in the past in dealing with our economy.
    I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State who is to wind up the debate is well aware that in foreign affairs we must be conscious of the realities of the situation. It is no good painting pictures of how we should like the situation to be. We must consider the situation as it actually is and the real problems that exist. There is no doubt that there is a growing awareness of the important reality in the Middle East—that there is "a Palestinian problem", and that there is a problem concerning the future government of the territory normally referred to as the West Bank. However, being mindful of that reality surely does not excuse us from being mindful of an even more important reality—the existence of the State of Israel, and not only its existence but, as we were reminded earlier, the circumstances that led to the creation of that State.
    The hon. Member for Aberdare movingly described the devastation that affected parts of the Soviet Union during the last war. In Leningrad, 600,000 people died during the great siege, and the city of Kiev was obliterated, but surely we in the House will not forget the 6 million Jews who died in the holocaust, the devastation of the ghettos in Warsaw and many other places. Those are just as real a contribution to the thoughts of the people of Israel.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: In the House one tries to get over one's ideas as quickly as possible. In fact, it was in my mind to say that if there was one group of people who suffered more than the Russians during the last war it was the Jewish people. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. No one who seeks solutions to the problems of the Middle East will make progress if he overlooks the
    188
    reality of the circumstances that led to the creation of the State of Israel. Matters have been made worse since the creation of the State by the continuing refusal of neighbouring States to recognise the existence of Israel or to reach a permanent peace. We are reminded that Iraq is still technically in a state of war with Israel, and has been for the past 30 years.
    Israel suffers from being very small. It is a small country. One is uneasily aware of how quickly it could be overcome by a surprise attack. Those who, like myself, and no doubt many other hon. Members, have visited the Golan Heights are filled with immense admiration for the people who took those heights from the Syrians. There is also, surely, an awareness that no State with the history of Israel could ever contemplate having the soldiers of a State with the history of Syria sitting on top of the Golan Heights looking down into the valley and across the Sea of Galilee. It would be unrealistic to suggest that. It would be no sensible contribution to the cause of peace to suggest that that could be part of any formula.
    There are other realities to be borne in mind. One important reality that has been mentioned quite frequently in the debate is that the one step towards peace in that troubled area that has worked and is worth building on is the Camp David treaty. In giving up the Sinai, because of the size of the country and the history of the area, the Israelis were making a bigger sacrifice than seemed immediately apparent to those of us who do not suffer from their problems and whose State was not born out of their traumas.
    We as a Christian country should bear in mind the importance and significance of the land of Israel, not only to the Jewish religion, but to the Christian religion. We should look at the Fahd plan against the background of those realities. I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary is in Saudi Arabia. I am pleased also that a plan has been put forward which seems to imply some awareness by the Saudi Arabians of the problem and a willingness to wonder whether their maps should show the State of Israel, and whether there should perhaps be some discussion.
    It is unreal to attach to the Fahd plan the importance that has been attached to it by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal and other speakers in the debate. It starts, naturally, with the words:
    "The withdrawal of Israel from all Arab lands I remind the House of what I have just said about the Golan Heights— including Arab Jerusalem".
    Are we to ignore the fact that Jerusalem is an overwhelmingly Jewish city? It has never been the capital of any country except Israel. Are we to ignore historic connections with the Jews? Do we intend to recreate a divided city? Surely, experience of divided cities elsewhere in the world is enough to put us off that. How unreal, ignoring the realities, can we get?
    If we are looking for solutions, we should ask how we can provide guarantees that are meaningful for the well-being of all the peoples who live in the city of Jerusalem and all the religions that wish to worship there.
    The second aim of the Fahd plan is
    "the removal of settlements established by Israel in Arab lands after 1967".
    Again, that seems an example of wishing that the situation were different from what it is.
    I agree with my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal that adding to those settlements at present is not very helpful. I agree, but trying to negotiate on the basis that

    189
    they had never been there in the first place is rather like trying to uninvent nuclear weapons. It would have been nice if they had not been invented, but they have been, and we have to learn to live with them and try to find peace within their existence.
    The third aim in the Fahd plan is
    "security of the freedom of worship and religious rights for all religions in the Holy Places".
    A number of the countries that would need to be associated with peace in the Middle East are noted for their lack of toleration of any religion other than Islam.
    I should not have very much confidence in the freedom of religion that could be expected to abide in the Holy City if the guardians of that place were to follow the same sort of approach as they do in some other areas. We do not have to be reminded of what has happened in Iran. It is not only Christians who have been persecuted there, but those of almost any other faith, and in a most brutal way. There is intolerance in Saudi Arabia, where it is my understanding—it is unfortunate that I have to say this—that no Christian in holy orders is allowed into the country to take a service officially, and there are about 30,000 to 40,000 Britons living and working in that country, many of whom are Christians. They are denied even the official services of a priest. If that is the Saudis' idea of tolerance, it is rather odd that item No. 3 on the list should be a reference to security of the freedom of worship.
    Item No. 4 is:
    "Confirmation of the right of the Palestinian people to return, and compensation for those who opt not to do so."
    That is an interesting concept, which is well worth discussing, but perhaps when it is discussed we can ensure that reciprocal arrangements are offered to all those Jews who had to flee from the Arab countries. I doubt very much whether they would wish to return—unless there were some firmer guarantee of their safety and their property rights afterwards than I can conceive of being given by any organisation, even the United Nations. Reciprocity of rights of return seems to be a point that ought to be taken into account.
    I could go on through the plan point by point. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is probably well aware of its shortcomings. When talking about the freedom of all the countries and confirmation of the rights of the countries of the region to live in peace, it seems strange still to refuse to recognise directly that that includes the right of the State of Israel. Implicit rights, in the circumstances, cannot be very comforting.
    I do not know whether many hon. Members will have seen a rather good film that is showing in London, called "The Last Metro." It is a French film, by a director of some celebrity called Francois Truffaut. In the film, at one stage, the Fascist collaborator in France is talking to the wife of the Jewish stage director, who is the main character, although he is mostly unseen in the film, and the collaborator talks all the time about "Israelis", which is a strange thing to do in the time of the setting of the film, 1943–44. He talks about Israelis because he cannot bring himself to use the word "Jew", other than in a derogatory way.
    It seems to me that the most important power in the Middle East—if one considers that to be Saudi Arabia as opposed to Egypt—is in that state of mind, where it cannot bring itself to use the word "Israel" and, therefore, to recognise Israel's existence.
    190
    As I have said, I welcome the fact that perhaps there is a beginning of thinking about peace and negotiations, but if there is not a greater recognition of the realities of the situation in the Middle East and the existence of the State of Israel, we cannot expect to make much progress on the Fahd plan.
    What we should seek to do—it grieves me that we do not seem to have taken any steps to do it—is to promote direct face-to-face negotiations between the Saudis and the Israelis, between the Jordanians and the Israelis, and between the Lebanese and the Israelis, because that, surely, is the way to promote peace and understanding in that area. That is the way that brought about the Camp David settlement and the return of the Sinai to Egypt. That is the way that has brought about a build-up of genuine friendship and understanding between the peoples of Israel and of Egypt.
    It can be done, but it will not be done by this sort of remote, secondhand way that seems to be envisaged in the Fahd plan. We should promote face-to-face negotiations, which, to give them their due, Prime Minister Begin and his predecessors have made it clear they are eager and willing to undertake. They are prepared and anxious to meet the leaders of the other States. In the words of the Gracious Speech, we are seeking not only a just and comprehensive settlement, but a lasting settlement. That would be the way to go about it.
    We shall not serve the interests of Britain or of peace very well if we allow our understandable desire for good relations with the major oil-producing Middle East States to lead us to betray the commitment which I sincerely believe we have to Israel and its security. I hope that the House will be reassured tonight that that is in no way contemplated and could never happen.
    8.25 pm
    Dr. M. S. Miller: I ask for the indulgence of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in regard to my rather precipitate exit from the Chamber and my hurried return. I was doing an errand of mercy. I hope that it will pay off. I should like to be excused when I finish my speech to see whether the patient is in reasonable shape and has gone into hospital.
    The Gracious Speech mentions the Government's desire to work for better East-West relations. That is a rather bald statement of what the Government ought to be doing in this matter. What worries me is not that we should consider the Soviet Union as being a great brotherhood of love towards us, but that there has developed in this country and many others in Europe, and in the United States, a Russophobia. There is an anti-Soviet hysteria, which seems to pervade the whole atmosphere. It is one in which there is built up a huge industry not only of arms, but of people who advise others about amts. It is a great industry and much money is to be made by advisers as arms sales escalate.
    I am not a starry-eyed Soviet admirer. I think that the Soviet Union—I say this not patronisingly—has many faults. We, too, have faults. Looking at the situation from the Soviet Union's point of view, one realises that the Russians have some cause for concern about the West's intentions. It is necessary for me to remind the House that ever since the Russian revolution in 1917 there have been Western countries that have attempted on a number of occasions to invade Russia and to try to reverse the revolution. I have no great regard for the type of economic

    191
    and political system under which the Russian people live. However, it is their system and it is up to them to change it if they so desire.
    I was much impressed in my youth with a book that I was given by a friend of my father's. It was called "The Great Conspiracy Against Russia". It tabulated, chapter and verse, everything that had been done to Russia. That was 25 years after the revolution.
    I visited the USSR with some of my Front Bench colleagues and came to the conclusion, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), that the Russian leadership is now very worried. Russia's leaders are anxious. That is not only because they are now elderly, but because of the quantum development in technology that is passing the Russians by. The Russians have ability in high technology, but it applies only in specific areas. It does not permeate through every stratum of society as it does in the West. Even conventional war—and I hope that it never comes—has to be fought with technology of the highest order. I believe that the Russians do not have that ability. That is what worries the Soviet Union's leaders.
    I visited the United States shortly before I visited the Soviet Union. I had discussions with advisers in the State Department and the Pentagon. I spoke to advisers to Alexander Haig and Caspar Weinberger. They said that they did not believe that the Russians desired military conquest over the rest of the world.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) was right to ask why, if we take risks in preparation for war, we cannot make a calculated assessment and take a risk for peace. There is no guarantee that if we give up arms unilaterally the Russians will follow. However, few things in life can be guaranteed. We should examine the possibility of making a start and taking a step along the road that will lead the world, not merely to reducing arms, but eventually to getting rid of them. We cannot afford arms. Neither the West nor the East can afford financially to build up arms as they are today. Economically such a build-up is a killer. It could also lead to the obliteration of large tracts of our planet. Before we contemplate that we should take all possible steps to explore with the Soviet leaders all possibilities of reducing tension.
    We should take the Soviet leaders at their word. We should accept that what they say is genuine. That is a risk worth taking. I do not believe that the leaders of the Soviet Union want war, any more than we want war. In the last 10 or 15 years the Soviet Union has been regarded as evil incarnate. It is said that nothing that the Russians can do is right—all the wrong is on their side and all the right is on ours. The Russians say the same about us. They say that all the wrong is on our side and that all the right is on theirs. There has to be a middle way.
    I come to the question of the Middle East—another area where there is a great deal of tension. It would benefit everyone if the tension were reduced and if there were a period of stability, mutual trust and confidence. As we are building that with the Soviet Union, so should we be building it in the Middle East.
    The letters "PLO" have been bandied about by many hon. Members this afternoon. The name shows clearly why the Israelis find it difficult to negotiate with it. It is the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Palestine also includes Jordan, and if any country has cause to worry
    192
    about the PLO more than Israel, it is Jordan. The Minister knows that the King of Jordan would very much like to cooperate with Israel, because it is only a stable Jordan and a stable Israel that will ensure stability in the Middle East. We cannot get stability from Iraq and Syria, which have not been stable for a long time and will not be stable for some time to come.
    The letters "PLO" stand for Palestine Liberation Organisation. If one looks around the world to other groups who wish to help sections of their down-trodden population, they call themselves, for example, Basque separatists or Serbo-Croat separatists. SWAPO stands for the South West Africa People's Organisation. There is also the Patriotic Front in Zimbabwe. None of those organisations called itself a name that would suggest that its aim was to take over a territory and destroy the people in it—which is what the PLO wishes to do. The PLO talks about a secular State in which everyone has his rights. Once an Arab State is established where that happens, it may give credence to what it is trying to do.
    One aspect of the matter worries me very much. Professor John Wilkinson of Aberdeen university is to publish next week a book called "The New Fascists". On radio a few days ago he talked about the rise of neo-Nazi groups in Britain, America, Belgium, France and Germany, and he said that those groups were linked. He also said that their most important links were with the PLO.
    That is ominous to Jews, because neo-Nazis are anti-semites. Once again we have the spectre of anti-semitism rising in Europe. The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) also mentioned that fact. I believe that antisemitism is on the increase. I have great sympathy with any hon. Member who wishes to help people who are not being accorded their rights, but we find creeping into the matter an element that is not only anti-Israel, but antisemitic.
    It is easy for the Israelis to agree to another Arab State, which I believe will be the twenty-third, but two matters have to be considered. The first is the location of that State, which is not an impossible problem to solve. The second is more serious. If the State is established and it has the avowed intention of annihilating another State, I cannot blame the Israelis for not wishing to be party to their own extinction.
    The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) is right when he says that Egypt is the most important of the Arab countries. We should not play that fact down. Everyone said that when General Nasser was President. It applies also to the tragic and unfortunate President Sadat. We stopped saying it only when he decided that it was best to make peace with Israel. Egypt is the most important State. It does not have oil, like Saudi Arabia, but oil will not last for ever. I accept that British interests must be protected, and this is how the Foreign Office sees British interests being protected.
    However, from the Gracious Speech it appears that the EEC is involved. It is disgusting that Europe has the effrontery to try to act as an honest broker. Europe hardly lifted a finger to help the 5 million or 6 million Jews who were annihilated during the years of persecution and struggle. Europe should be honest and admit that it is only concerned about oil. Abba Eban, the former Israeli Foreign Minister, was right to say that Europe had cancelled itself out as an honest broker.

    193
    As the hon. Member for Hove said, no dispute can be settled without the parties getting together. What the hell is different about this one? We should encourage the parties to get together. It was difficult for Germany and France to get together and also for Britain and Germany. It is always difficult for adversaries to get together, but there is no reason why the parties to this dispute cannot be persuaded to get together.
    The problem can be solved. The Palestinian Arabs have a case. Any group that fulfils certain conditions has a case to be treated as a different people. One condition is that the group feels that it is a different people. However, one State cannot come into existence by annihilating another; nor will the Israelis allow that.
    The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) said that time was not on our side, but the Jewish people waited almost 2,000 years for their homeland to be restored. They can hold on for a little longer. Who knows whose side time is on? Nothing will stop the Jewish people from holding on a little longer until good sense prevails, not necessarily among their neighbours, but among the friends of their neighbours, who imagine that by pushing the PLO and other organisations, whose object is to destroy another State, they are striking a blow for freedom. They are not. In the long run that may make the situation in the Middle East even more serious.
    If the European countries wish to play a part, they should join the United States and the Soviet Union—if it wishes to be honestly involved—to get the parties together. The parties need not come together all at the same time. It can be done in groups. That is the way to solve the problem not only of the right of Israel to live securely in a way similar to us—it has no right to demand security that other countries do not have. It would also benefit the Palestinian Arabs, whose case has not properly been explored. They would get their State and the benefits that they wish for if they negotiated with Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the other countries involved.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Bob Cryer: Because of the economic sections in the Queen's Speech, there will be more people in the dole queues. The attack on the trade unions will produce needless confrontation. There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for legislation. The Government know that and yet, because of their hatred and detestation of the trade union movement, they intend to introduce legislation which will fruitlessly occupy a considerable number of hours.
    The concentration of today's debate is on foreign affairs. The Queen's Speech states that the Government regard the security of the nation and the preservation of peace as a matter of first importance. The debate has been relatively low key in tone. The Lord Privy Seal was very low key in opening the debate. The debate has been low key because of the massive demonstration of ¼ million people which took place on 24 October. It is right and proper that that demonstration of concern should find an echo, even though it was muted, in comments in this Chamber.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) made some valuable criticisms of the United States' different policies, internal tensions and other matters which seem to predominate in the foreign policy of the Reagan Administration. We are concerned by the strident comments and the conflicting and confusing
    194
    statements uttered by the President. Those statements are then pulled back by Caspar Weinberger or other White House officials in order to defuse what seems to be a flippant, offhand and mildly contemptuous attitude towards nuclear weapons in Europe. That has happened again recently with General Haig.
    My right hon. Friend also mentioned El Salvador, and we are concerned about American foreign policy there. In Cuba, too, the American-heightened aggression is regarded with apprehension and concern. The Cubans fear that the United States Government may be tempted to indulge in some sort of adventure against Cuba, indirectly, if not directly. I hope that if such a move should ever appear on the horizon the Government would stand firm in opposition to it.
    I want to deal principally with the question of disarmament and Labour's policy on it. The Labour Party's policy has been decided at successive conferences, starting with the Wembley conference in 1980, and is set out in the document "Peace, Jobs and Freedom", which was approved by 6 million votes to about 60,000.
    It is interesting that this is a low-key debate. From the Lord Privy Seal there was, I am sorry to say, a sort of low-key hypocrisy about Government policy. He talked about lowering levels of nuclear weapons, both at strategic and theatre levels. I intervened to ask him about Trident. The Government have talked about lowering the level of nuclear weaponry and stockpiling while, at the same time, they embark on massive expenditure to increase our own level of weaponry.
    The Lord Privy Seal did not quite appreciate the point. However, I ask the Minister of State whether "As Lambs to the Slaughter", by Dr. Paul Rogers, Dr. Malcolm Dando and Dr. Peter Van Den Dungen, is correct when it says, according to the minutes of the Select Committee on Defence, published in January 1981:
    "The senior civil servant at the Ministry of Defence responsible for policy and planning, Michael Quinlan, stated that it was intended to purchase around 100 missiles for four craft, with extra being required if a fifth craft were ordered. If only 16-tube craft are to be built then the basic requirement is for 64 missiles plus some extra for test-firing and spares. An initial order of 100 missiles suggests that Britain will build stretched craft carrying 20 or 24 missiles. Fire craft with 24 tubes each carrying a missile with eight warheads gives us a total of 960 warheads in all. That is a 15-fold increase in targeting capacity over Polaris!"
    Is that necessary to maintain the deterrent?
    If we do not get the mark I Trident, we shall get the mark II version. The book states on page 57:
    "We are left then with a maximum potential for Britain of five boats with 24 missiles, each with 17 warheads. This gives us a total of 2040 warheads with a collective targeting ability over thirty times as great as Polaris".
    Even if we assume four boats, it means that while the Government talk about reducing the level of nuclear weapons they are seeking to increase our targeting capacity by between 15 and 30 times.
    Does the Minister of State believe that Polaris is a deterrent? If it has helped to keep the peace, why do we need to increase it by between 15 and 30 times? No doubt he will argue, as did the Lord Privy Seal, that the Russians are spending much more on weapons. Of course that is a guess, as I pointed out in response to the "oohs" and "aahs" of Conservative Members.
    Last year I asked where the information about Soviet expenditure came from. There is a demonology about the Soviet Union. The fact that some of us point out that fact

    195
    does not mean that we endorse the Soviet system. We merely seek the truth; we want to embark on the logic that the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) suggested had been abandoned. The Government raise mythology in order to justify their massive expenditure.
    What is behind the mythology? The then Secretary of State for Defence said in reply to my question last year:
    "Since the Soviet figures are so unreliable, we have to make our own estimates of its expenditure and this is done in great detail every year".—[Official Report, 7 July 1980; Vol. 988, c. 53.]
    One could use the word "guess" for "estimate"; they are synonyms. On a guess that the Soviet Union is spending very large sums on defence—a guess which is contrary to the Soviet Union's published figures—we are embarking on massive expenditure on Trident.
    The Queen's Speech states:
    "Increased resources will be devoted to defence and the most efficient use made of them".
    I have said before in the House that the former deputy supreme allied commander for NATO nuclear affairs wrote in the CND magazine "Sanity" in August 1979:
    "N.A.T.O. forces, both conventional and nuclear, are stronger than those of the Warsaw Pact countries. During the last ten years the Soviet Military budget has remained stable. My colleagues were unhappy about this situation, because they could not justify increases in their own expenditure. So they invented a 'pricing' system. It is easy to see how the figures were inflated to show higher Soviet expenditure".
    Is that a lie? Is Senator Nino Pasti, the former deputy supreme allied commander for NATO nuclear affairs, mistaken, or it he accurate? If he is accurate, the whole basis of our nuclear expenditure and strategy is wrong.
    There are echoes about conventional forces. Was the International Institute for Strategic Studies' review of military balance for 1980–81 incorrect when it stated:
    "Apart from having greater economic resources, Alliance countries, including France, maintain rather more men under arms than the Warsaw Pact. For Army/Marines, the figures are: NATO 2,860,000; Warsaw Pact 2,612,000. And the Soviet Union has a large number of her divisions and men on the Chinese border."?
    That is not the picture that we are presented with. Because the Government are pursuing a foreign policy of aggressive appearance and subordination to American foreign and defence policy, our welfare services and resources for higher, further, secondary and primary education are being drained. Who would deny that resources are under strain?
    That is happening so that the Government can match the guesses of the Ministry of Defence which is preserving the myth that "we" are weaker than the Soviet Union when we are stronger. We do not go into the negotiating chamber naked. We go in armed to the teeth, and with 2,000 more cruise missiles in the background. In 1980 the then Minister of State said that in addition to the 500 missiles which are supposed to be coming to this country unless we can stop them—that is clear Labour Party policy—1,500 will be deployed either in the air or at sea. That would massively outweigh the Soviet Union.
    In theatre and tactical nuclear weapons we already outnumber the Soviet Union on a two-to-one ratio. That is absolutely unjustified. Statesmen have told us year after year that we must look to negotiations as soon as we are strong enough and that we must impress the Soviet Union with our strength. They say that we cannot negotiate from a position of weakness. The position of mutually assured
    196
    destruction was reached in about 1960. Why is it that since the 1960s nuclear weapons have not remained stable, but have increased in power, complexity, ability in delivery and accuracy?
    When will we stop the arms race? Will we wring our hands and will some of us say that we are multilateralists? We are all multilateralists. There is no distinction. The distinction between unilateral and multilateral disarmament is one of timing. Multilateral disarmament is simultaneous disarmament. Labour Party policy, which has been reaffirmed in conference after conference, is that we should take the initiative.
    The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) said that the theatre talks which will take place shortly will not involve Europe. He has a case. The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) suggested that we were rapidly becoming an aircraft carrier for the United States. However, the fact is that the great arsenals of the world, those dreadful means of extermination, are in the hands of America and the Soviet Union. The main negotiations must focus on that. Therefore, those theatre negotiations will be between those two countries. We should like to help them along and to participate to make sure that they are successful and that, in the language that we adopt for those means of extermination, what is called the zero option is applied. We should take a serious step back from the momentum which is building up in the arms race and which has never ceased since 1960, in spite of all the people who say that they want multilateral disarmament. We have an opportunity to take an initiative.
    We talk much about the developing world. Some of the developing countries have been signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As the Minister of State knows, that treaty was on the basis that the nuclear powers would decrease their dependence on nuclear weapons. Because of proliferation and the development in every year since 1960, some of those countries are asking why they should adhere to non-proliferation when other countries do not. By getting rid of our nuclear weapons we would be saying to those developing nations that we endorse their view, and that nations can live without dependence on nuclear weapons.
    We would not be isolated. The majority of nations, thank goodness, do not have nuclear weapons. Over 100 nations do not have nuclear weapons. There is no magic rule that says that the United Kingdom must have nuclear weapons. I suspect that both America and Russia regard the proliferation of nuclear weapons, aside from their own arsenals, as one of the potential dangers. One could be used by accident or brought into play by accident by a dreadful misjudgment, and other nations would be sucked in willy-nilly. That is why we must resolutely oppose cruise missiles as the Labour Party has laid down. The Minister will know that they are entirely under American control. The formula is an old one that was dreamt up in 1951. It consists of consultation in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time and two keys being in the hands of the Americans.
    In the move towards disarmament verification is a key issue. The Prime Minister always says that we need verification. The two sides stare at each other in mutual suspicion. If one side wishes to reduce its arms, the other side will want to be assured that it has done so. Our present technology cannot verify cruise missiles and if we install them in Britain, the Russians will, as they have promised, install them in their country, thus repeating the pattern of

    197
    nuclear and missile development of the past 35 or 36 years. There would then be a proliferation of weapons that could be easily moved. In our case they would not even be under our control and the British Government would not have the right of veto. Both sides will develop cheap relatively plentiful weapons that are not subject to verification. That will make disarmament even more difficult.
    Therefore, we must ensure that the Labour Party's clearly laid down policy of opposition to Trident and to cruise missiles and in favour of the removal of American bases is carried out. There should be friendship with the American people, but we are not prepared to accept subordination to America's foreign and defence policies.
    9.1 pm
    Mr. Denzil Davies: As usual, we have had a very diverse foreign affairs debate, but perhaps it has not been quite as diverse as usual. Obviously, that is a good thing. Many speakers, including my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) have rightly concentrated on the real issues of peace and disarmament as well as the need for detente and to do away with nuclear weapons. Several powerful speeches have been made on that subject.
    My hon. Friends the Members for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) and Keighley made powerful speeches calling for peace and disarmament. The Gracious Speech devotes almost a page—almost half of the Gracious Speech—to foreign affairs. An observer from another planet might deduce that the Government had shown great initiative and independence of spirit in the last few years in their conduct of foreign policy. With one or two exceptions, their record has not been good in foreign affairs.
    During the past two and a half years—this has been brought out in the debate—we have gained the impression that the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, see foreign policy as merely an extension of their domestic economic policy. Just as the world at home is somehow dominated by the bad guy inflation, so abroad the baddie is Soviet Communism. Both of those baddies are to be dealt with by equally simplistic methods. I understand that in America such a policy is now described as the strategy of simplification. It is no accident that the Prime Minister's domestic and foreign policies mirror almost precisely those of President Reagan. For Washington, it seems, all the world is a Hollywood film set. In the struggle between good and evil the champion of the goodies at home is Milton Friedman. Some of us are afraid that the champion of the goodies abroad might be Gary Cooper these days.
    It is ironic that the Prime Minister and the President of the United States of America give credence to the old Marxist theory that foreign policy is merely a reflection of domestic political ideology. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) made a conciliatory and pragmatic speech on the Middle East. Indeed, several good speeches were made on the Middle East. However, apart from the Middle East, the tragedy of the Government's foreign policy is that in most areas it has slavishly followed the policies of President Reagan. To criticise President Reagan is not, as was suggested, to criticise an ally of ours—the United States of America. Indeed, what has happened in the past few days makes us even more justified in our criticism of the foreign and defence policies of our ally, the United States of America.
    198
    There has been little attempt to assert an independent British voice on so many of the major issues of the day—on the nuclear balance of power between the two super-12-Powers, on Southern Africa, on South America, to which reference has been made in the debate, on relations with the Third world and on North-South dialogue. The Foreign Secretary is occasionally tempted to take his conscience out of the closet, but the temptation soon vanishes when the lady appears.
    The Gracious Speech gives a belated welcome—which we are pleased to see—to the talks which will soon begin between the Americans and the Russians on the limitation of long—range theatre nuclear weapons. The Government cannot take much credit for that, however, as they have beeen dragged reluctantly to this point only by political and public pressure.
    Mr. Hurd: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the decision to seek negotiations on long-range theatre nuclear forces was taken?
    Mr. Davies: It is clear that in the case of both the American and the British Governments, only public pressure and concern have pushed the hope for negotiations this far.
    Instead of trotting along behind American policy for the last two years, the Government should have examined far more critically the current hysteria in the United States Administration about the balance of nuclear forces. If they had considered the record of previous United States Administrations in the recent past, they would have treated with considerable scepticism the kind of panic which often grips newly elected United States Governments with regard to defence and foreign policy. Recent history shows that these periodic panics have led to further escalations in the arms race which are often unjustified.
    It all started in the 1950s with the "bomber gap". The Minister of State may remember the arguments about that. Faulty intelligence persuaded the Americans that there was a bomber gap. This led to a massive new programme of bomber construction and an overwhelming superiority in bombers. In the late 1950s, there was the "missile gap". The blood-curdling consequences of this were paraded before the electorate by Senator Kennedy in the Presidential campaign of 1960 against the Eisenhower Government. It was later convincingly demonstrated, as President Eisenhower had said, that there had never been a missile gap between the Americans and the Russians. By that time, however, the Kennedy Administration had deployed large numbers of intercontinental ballistic missiles—another escalation in the arms race caused by faulty information and not looking at the facts closely enough.
    In the mid-1960s, the Pentagon devised a new threat to keep itself awake at night—the "greater-than-expected" threat. Mr. Robert McNamara said that he would deploy new weapons if there was evidence of a greater-than-expected threat. As the threat was not expected, it was not easy to find evidence of it, and indeed, none was found. But Mr. McNamara went ahead, and the United States deployed the multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicle.
    We are now seeing the same kind of panic yet again. The Government should have realised that this has happened periodically in the United States in the recent

    199
    past and that the same is now happening once again in the Pentagon and the White House. Indeed, we have seen evidence of this in the past few days.
    Mr. Maclennan: Why is the right hon. Gentleman's memory of the 1960s so selective? Has he forgotton the installation of Soviet missiles in Cuba?
    Mr. Cryer: They were just imitating the Americans.
    Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman read about these matters, he would realise that my point is entirely valid. Further escalations in the arms race have very often been caused by American domestic political considerations, as is shown by the bomber gap, the missile gap and many other instances.
    Despite the words of the Queen's Speech, the Prime Minister has done very little to try to reduce the tension which for various reasons has grown up between the Soviet Union and the United States in the past few years. We read in the press this morning of Mr. Secretary Haig's statement that NATO had a policy of firing what has been described as a demonstration nuclear weapon. This is apparently to be fired "over the heads" of the Russians—we do not quite know where it will land.
    We read on the tapes this evening that Mr. Secretary Weinberger has totally denied that that is so. He made that denial before the Senate armed services committee. The British Government are involved in these matters in the same way as the American Government. That being so, I ask the Minister of State to tell us who is right. What is NATO policy? Is Mr. Secretary Haig correct or is Mr. Secretary Weinberger correct? These are important matters that should be cleared up in this debate.
    The Government's unhelpful stance was reflected a few months ago when the Minister of State appeared on television to comment on the recent talks that my right hon. Friends the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) had with Mr. Brezhnev. The Minister of State reacted with small-mindedness on that occasion. That was unworthy of him and it epitomised the way in which the Government have dealt with these matters over the past 18 months. Instead of welcoming as a step forward the statement by the Russian leader that the Soviet Union was prepared to enter negotiations on the reduction of SS20 missiles, he sought to dismiss the matter as of no consequence. He said that a Soviet official had made the same statements in 1979. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the situation was completely different then.
    The Government would do well to ponder some words that were written some time ago by a former United States ambassador to Moscow on arms control and the nuclear arms race. Mr. George Keenan wrote:
    "The nuclear arms race has been encouraged not by any reason to believe that the other side would, but by a hypnotic fascination with the fact that it could. There is a Kafka-esque quality to this encounter. We stand like two men who find themselves confronting each other with guns in their hands, neither with any real reason to believe that the other has murderous intentions towards him but both hypnotised by fear of the fact that the other is armed."
    The most useful role that a British Government could play would be to do everything possible to free the two super Powers from the grip of that sort of hypnosis. All that the Government have done is to give the impression that they are as hypnotised by the arms race as the super Powers themselves.
    200
    The failure to present an independent British view is not confined, and has not been confined, to the arms race. It has covered such crucial matters as the tension in Southern Africa, the upheaval taking place in Central America and the appalling problems of the Third world, as highlighted by the Brandt report.
    The Queen's Speech mentions that efforts will continue to
    "reach an internationally recognised agreement in Namibia."
    I ask the Minister to explain such an agreement. The resolutions passed by the United Nations and the judgment of the International Court on Namibia are to the effect that the South African occupation is illegal. What does the hon. Gentleman mean by an "internationally recognised agreement"? Does he mean an agreement that is recognised by South Africa but that is possibly not acceptable to anyone else?
    The chance of getting South Africa to accept what the international community already accepts—a free and independent Namibia—has receded. That is mainly because of the aid and comfort that the Reagan Administration have been giving and are giving to South Africa. I hope that the Government will stress to the American authorities that by giving aid to South Africa they are damaging the possibility of a successful conclusion to negotiations and the image of the United States in Western Europe. One reason why anti-Americanism, which I do not welcome, is growing in Western Europe is the United States' Government's attitude to places such as Southern African and South America and their approach to human rights throughout the world.
    The Queen's Speech does not mention the problems of Central America and South America. The Government's attitude in the past, including that of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who is now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, has been totally unhelpful on these issues, especially towards El Salvador and Nicaragua. There has been little attempt, certainly by the previous Minister of State, to recognise that the people of those two countries are fighting for human dignity, human rights and for a standard of living and freedom that we in most Western countries take for granted. Instead of coming out clearly and condemning the American approach, the Government have given a strong impression that again they are following Washington, which sees these unfortunate countries as a battleground in the conflict between capitalism and Communism. I stress again that that is against the interests of the United States because it creates and foments anti-Americanism in Europe, which spills over to the nuclear issue and to the balance of forces.
    Another area in which the Government could have made more impact in their foreign policy and could have asserted their independence from the United States was in the dialogues between the rich countries of the North and the poor countries of the South—in the whole area of Brandt. After the enormous lobby of this House following the publication of the Brandt. report, the Foreign Office made an effort. It published a document that was mildly helpful. Unfortunately, however, at the time of the Mexico summit it seemed that the Prime Minister was back in charge, giving full support—as we understand it from reports—to President Reagan in his lectures to the world on the virtues of capitalism. But the poor do not need

    201
    lectures about political ideologies, whether they are capitalist ideologies or other ideologies invented in the British Museum.
    I and several of my right hon. and hon. Friends visited the Soviet Union recently. One of our major condemnations of the Soviet authorities is that they are not prepared to play a part in the Brandt process or to join the international community in solving the problems of the Third world. It is regrettable that they see these problems mainly as question of ideology. Neither the ideology of capitalism nor that of Communism will help the poor. They need sympathetic help, and, because of its position, Britain can play a role. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister has not had the imagination to strike out and present an independent British role that would help the Third world.
    Through the European initiative on the Middle East, the Foreign Secretary has shown an independence from United States policies. While we understand that there are many misgivings about the European initiative, at least there is some hope in it, and perhaps something can be done eventually to solve this difficult problem.
    To an extent, the debate focused on the plan put forward by the Saudi Government. We understand that there are difficulties surrounding it, and no one is suggesting that it is foolproof. However, at least these initiatives give a basis for discussion. They will not solve the problem overnight, but they give hope for discussion and talks, and eventually there may be a solution.
    As the House knows, no settlement in the Middle East is likely to be achieved without the support of the United States. Here again, I criticise some aspects of the Reagan Administration's policy. The American Government seem to believe that the best way of helping in the Middle East is by selling more armaments to countries that already have a wealth of arms. We saw that in the case of Saudi Arabia, but perhaps we saw it more in the insensitive way in which the United States sold arms to Egypt after the death of President Sadat. I do not believe that that is a sensitive nor sensible way of dealing with the problems of the Middle East. It may be counter productive and make it more difficult to solve the problem. I hope that the Foreign Office will point out to the Americans the dangers to peace and stability of increasing arms sales to an area that is already bristling with far too many weapons of destruction.
    British foreign policy should not be based on the proposition "Our friends, right or wrong". That seems to be the Prime Minister's proposition, but I do not believe that that is the right course for Britain or the right attitude on which to base our foreign policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said in a powerful speech, it should be based on the clear principles of upholding human rights and condemning their violation wherever it occurs. It should be based on a respect for the rule of law, both at home and abroad, whether the rule of law is broken in Afghanistan, Poland, Southern Africa or Central America.
    Those two principles should be the basis of British foreign policy—respect for human rights and the rule of law. In that way Britain will gain influence and, more important, win respect at the end of the day.
    9.21 pm
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The difficulty about
    202
    replying to a long foreign affairs debate of this kind is that hon. Members have necessarily scattered their fire and concentrated on matters which seem to them of particular importance. They have raised points to which, quite reasonably, they need a reply. That means that my speech must also be a scattered affair. Perhaps the sensible thing to do is to deal with a number of individual points that have been raised before turning to some of the main themes.
    Several hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), dealt with Central America, particularly El Salvador. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) tried to weave that into his general pattern of sustaining the argument that the British Government were simply acting as a satellite of the United States and followed its precepts and practices in every part of the world.
    By applying that argument to Central America and El Salvador, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can have read what the European Ten, including ourselves, have said and published about our policy on El Salvador. Our statement said:
    "We believe peace can only be achieved through a political solution arrived at through a dialogue of Government and Opposition in El Salvador leading to elections held in conditions which will ensure an impartial and fair result".
    We went on to call on all parties involved in the fighting to forsake violence, which can only cause more needless suffering, to bring an end to the conflict and to promote and respect the free and fair functioning of the democratic process. That public statement is on the record, and it is contrary to the impression that Opposition Members have given of our policy. We regularly discuss this question with the United States, which is well aware of our views and concern about it.
    A rapporteur of the United Nations Human Rights Commission has been appointed, with our support, to investigate allegations of violations of human rights. We expect to have his intermediate report soon and a final report next year.
    The question of refugees was also raised. If Parliament agrees, the British Government propose to give £100,000 to the programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which is specifically designed to help people who have fled from El Salvador for political reasons.
    I am sorry that I was unable to be present for the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who asked about oil exploration in waters off the Falkland Islands. We have protested to the Argentine Government about what they have said. Our information is that the block for which they have invited tenders—that is the action to which my hon. Friend referred—has not yet been awarded. Obviously, this is very much on our minds.
    Several hon. Members mentioned Namibia. I think that the right hon. Member for Llanelli was a little out of date or ill-informed. Partly as a result of the impetus given to this process by the United States Government, we have made some progress lately. It is not decisive and we cannot be sure that the result will come quickly or be as good as we hope.
    I do not think that it does any good when someone from the Labour Front Bench gives the impression that the United States' Government are merely supporting South Africa and undermining the efforts of the international community to solve the problem. That is not the position.

    203
    The statements and activities of the United States leaders in recent months show that clearly. A settlement in Namibia is not yet in the bag, but the position is not unhopeful and the United States is playing a full and helpful part.
    The hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) raised the important question of the possible linkage between the Namibian question and the presence of Cuban forces in Angola. I agree with him that we cannot make the withdrawal of Cuban forces a precondition for a settlement in. Namibia. There is obviously a relationship between the two, and neither he nor any fair-minded person would deny that. One would hope that the one would be followed by the other, lead to the other or be accompanied by the other. However, we have never attempted to say that the withdrawal of Cuban forces was a precondition.
    Several hon. Members touched on the subject of the Middle East. Apart from the defence issues, it has probably been one of the main themes of the debate. I agreed very largely with the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on the subject.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) informed me that he could not be here for the winding-up speeches. He put well a familiar critique of the policies that we have been trying to follow, and it was followed by similar remarks from other hon. Members. My right hon. Friend said that Israel had made a great sacrifice in giving up the Sinai in return for peace with Egypt.
    However, there is a qualification that must be made here. Sinai was not Israeli territory. It was territory taken by conquest and occupied by force. That does not diminish the fact that Mr. Begin showed himself to be a statesman who performed an act of statesmanship, as did President Sadat, in reaching their agreement.
    Nevertheless, it was not Israeli territory, and part of the trouble in the present situation is that there is other territory that is still occupied and on which no similar agreement has been reached. There is occupied territory on the West Bank, in Gaza, with large populations who have no political rights of any kind. We read in the press that these people endure from day to day occasional acts of suppression which make their lives difficult and their resentment acute.
    So long as that is the case—I say this in particular to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller)—there will not be a stable Middle East. That is not to deny that there are many other problems in the Middle East, but so long as the security of Israel appears to rest on the continued occupation of Arab land there cannot be a stable Middle East.
    Several hon. Members referred to the invitation that we and three other members of the European Community have received from the United States to contribute to the Sinai peacekeeping force. It makes a little out of date the rhetoric of the hon. Member for East Kilbride about the uselessness and irrelevance of Europe in the peacekeeping process if the United States Government have come to us to ask for our help in this respect. I do not want to add to the careful words chosen by my right hon. Friend in describing our response to that, because it is a matter that is still unsettled, and it is a difficult and sensitive one from several points of view.
    204
    I should like to make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) that if we join we shall obviously have to make clear, in one way or another, the basis on which we do so, and our fidelity to the principles of the Venice declaration.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion went on to discuss, as he customarily does, the position of the Soviet Union in the Middle East. Of course, the Soviet Union benefits quite substantially from the present position, in which it can put itself forward as the super Power that favours the Arab cause. I think that it would have benefited more from that claim had it not been for the hope that the Venice declaration and the European initiative has given, since it was uttered in June 1980, to moderate Arabs, who have felt for some time that there are other influences and other people who understand the strength of the Arab and Palestinian case, even though we have not gone nearly as far as some of our Arab friends would like.
    When we think of the Soviet threat—and I would not disagree with my right hon. Friend in laying importance on it—we are looking, as the Gracious Speech says, for ways of working towards a comprehensive settlement. We are looking carefully and sympathetically at Prince Fahd's plan. We are trying to encourage the PLO to move towards the recognition of Israel eventually. Part of the reason why we are doing these things is to deprive the Soviet Union of what is its strongest card in the Middle East. It is not the only reason, but it is a valid one.
    The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston)—who also explained why he could not be here for the reply to the debate—and my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) took us rather carefully through Prince Fahd's plan. There was a good deal of examination of the seventh point, which is the one referring to the right of States in the region to live in security.
    There is no specific reference to Israel in that seventh point, but my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, following his discussions in Riyadh today, said to the press as he left that he was satisfied that the only possible interpretation of that seventh point was that as part of a generally satisfactory settlement—which obviously would need to include, from the Saudi point of view, some satisfactory recognition of Palestinian rights—it clearly included Israel.
    There is a point here that I should like to put to the hon. Member for East Kilbride and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove, both of whom made, in a very reasonable way, a case with which we are familiar.
    The main burden of the Israelis' complaint about their situation over recent decades has been that Arab States, apart from Egypt, refused to talk, refused to put Israel literally on the maps that hung in their buildings, and refused to meet the Israelis face to face. But the paradox—and this is a genuinely worrying matter for those of us who study the problem—is that when some Arab force or organisation or Government make a move—albeit imperfect, albeit partial and albeit halting, from the Israeli point of view—and there is a move forward in the direction which the Israelis say is essential, too often the whole impact of Israeli comment is to discourage it, to say that it is nothing and that it comes from people who have no validity and do not mean what they say.
    Dr. M. S. Miller rose—
    Mr. Hurd: The effect of that attitude is to encourage the extremists in the Arab world, who say "What is the point?", and who say to their Arab friends "You expose yourselves and run these risks, you make a step forward and immediately nothing happens, so you can see that Israel is not interested". It is worrying to us that time and again that seems to be the response, instead of "This is not good enough from the Israeli point of view and does not give us the guarantees we want, but at least it is a start. Let us encourage it and see if we can build on it".
    Dr. M. S. Miller: My objection is not that the Government's view is pro-Arab. The Government are entitled to take such a view if they so wish. My objection is that the hon. Gentleman puts forward a case as though he was evenhanded. There is no way in which he is evenhanded. Why, if he is evenhanded, does he not look at the situation from the other side? Will he indicate areas where the Israelis have been flexible but have got no response from the Arab side? Why does he concentrate on the area that he thinks is best suited to Foreign Office purposes?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is not being fair. I ask him to read the Venice declaration once a month, because he forgets it. The declaration is absolutely evenhanded. It does not weight the balance of the argument in any way. After dealing with this matter in a junior capacity for two and a half years, one thing strikes me strongly—the need to find a more reasonable way of discussing these matters with Israel.
    What we have tried to do in the Venice declaration is evenhanded. It would have been in the interests of Israel to say "Snap" and to adopt the attitude "So far, so good. This is an advance." To the extent that moderate Arabs gave their support, that would have been a coming together. What we have seen instead is a sharp tone creeping into the exchanges.
    Differences of analysis and differences of opinion exist. There is no concealing those differences. However, differences do not justify the tone of voice that has dominated some recent comments. The Government are looking, and will continue to look, for political, diplomatic or other ways to establish a more reasonable way of discussing these matters, not simply with the Israeli Government, but with a wide range of Israeli opinion.
    We accept, as the Israelis, with absolute right, constantly point out, and as hon. Members have also said, that a peace will not be imposed upon Israel, upon the Arabs or upon the Palestinians in particular among the Arabs, by outside people, whether in Europe or the United States. It will be negotiated. All that we are trying to do is to set the scene and pave the way for the day when there is negotiation and when people are sitting round a table willing to discuss these things.
    There is no question of people conspiring outside Israel to impose a peace on Israel. The Israelis have, of their own free will, to enter a discussion with a view to reaching the just and comprehensive settlement mentioned in the Gracious Speech. In this respect, 1981 has been a disappointing year. These matters move more slowly than one hopes at their beginning. Perhaps, in 1982, the opportunities will recur and will be more frequent and we shall be better able to take them.
    Another theme that has run through the debate is the Cancun summit and the question of North-South relations,
    206
    although the subject has not featured to the extent that I had expected. We have debated the matter very often. There is probably no foreign affairs subject that hon. Members have debated so often. From the time when the Brandt report put forward the proposal that there should be such a summit, the Government have tried to explain that a summit of this kind involving a limited number of developed and developing countries and their leaders meeting for a limited time was not likely to result in dramatic, specific decisions. We have tried to explain that and make sure that expectations were not unreasonably high, but, inevitably, they were high. The trouble with summitry in any sphere is that expectations tend to rise beyond what can reasonably be hoped for.
    What the Cancun summit did—and, more important, what those who took part in it believed afterwards it did—was to give an impetus to the work in specific institutions, which is clearly necessary. That was achieved, perhaps more harmoniously than some people expected when they set out on that journey. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary played a substantial part in that—incidentally, quite a different part from that which many Government critics predicted in advance. It was a reasonable outcome, in our view. It was not a sensational outcome or one that solved problems, but it was reasonable in the circumstances, because it gave a thrust to the detailed practical work that has to be done in setting up global negotiations and in other work in international institutions which is clearly essential. I am thinking of such things as the replenishment of IDA, and so on, which we hope can be achieved and for which we are working.
    Mr. Maclennan: Do the Government share the disappointment that was expressed by Prime Minister Trudeau at the end of the Cancun summit that the procedural arrangements for continuing the global negotiations had not been agreed? If so, what is the Government's view about how to forward that?
    Mr. Hurd: The General Assembly of the United Nations is having its own debate on the matter, I think this week. We hope, as my right hon. Friend said, that within the United Nations framework it will be possible to resolve the difficulties that held up proceedings last September. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is right to say that not all the procedural difficulties were removed at Cancun. However, I hope that this will prove one example of the way in which Cancun provided an impetus that was lacking before to get through the procedural difficulties. I hope, too, that the hon. Gentleman will not pin inordinate hopes on global negotiations by themselves. They are by no means an ideal forum, unless one finds a way of delegating work from the General Assembly to specific institutions in ways which both the Assembly and the institutions find acceptable.
    The main theme of the speeches of many of those who have spoken in the debate has been defence, including arms control and disarmament. I do not feel qualified to answer at length the strategic analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will read it. Certainly it is not part of the defence policy of this country to neglect the defence of our own islands or to neglect the northern flank of NATO, through which he feared an attack might come.

    207
    The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) made an interesting speech. He recognised that unilateral disarmament would not be enough. He tried to show that unilateral and multilateral went together, yet when I asked him how the Soviet Union could be expected to make compromises and concessions in multilateral negotiations if it saw unilateralists demolishing the defences of the West without any concessions by the Soviet Union, he produced what I thought was an ingenious but muddled reply. He said that of course the Americans and French would keep up their defences and that would be what the multilateral negotiations would be about. In fact, he was rather encouraging them to keep up their defences, because he accepted that otherwise there would be no reason why the Soviet Union should make concessions. He fell back on the thought that runs through the Labour Party's thinking—"Yes, probably the others should keep up their defences, including the distasteful nulcear stuff, but we must get out".
    I see no sense or morality in that. I can understand a pacifist view or one that regards nuclear weapons as so horrible that one should have nothing to do with them, but I do not understand the position to which the hon. Gentleman was driven, which is that others will and should keep up their weapons so that there is something to negotiate with the Russians about, but that we, while lecturing them continuously about our virtue, should have nothing to do with that distasteful process.
    Mr. Heffer: I did not say that the Americans and the French should keep up their defences; I said that they would do so. I made the point that Britain ought to get rid of the bases here. I said that the multilateral argument would then be between those who had still decided to continue with nuclear weapons. I think that the Minister is twisting my argument.
    Mr. Hurd: No.
    Mr. Heffer: The Minister is twisting my argument. He is doing it rather effectively, but not honestly.
    Mr. Hurd: That will not wash. Why should the Soviet Union make concessions unless powerful countries were maintaining their armaments, including their nuclear armaments? The hon. Gentleman has not answered that point.
    I greatly prefer the analysis of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George)—not about Canada, but what he said about American and European attitudes within NATO was wise and important.
    I hope that the distinguished and interesting speech—I do not wish to appear patronising—of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East will be required reading throughout his party for some time. We can all study his analysis with profit. It led me to carry on his argument rather than to attempt to refute it. I think that he would accept that when one is thinking about arms control and disarmament and the different phases through which the discussion passes, there is an important distinction between the phases. One phase consists of declarations, visits by Leaders of the Opposition, newspaper articles, hints in Pravda and hints at presidential news conferences. We have been living through that phase for some time. We are now entering the solid phase, the period of
    208
    negotiations. That is a great relief, because one does not get agreement through the phase of declarations, petitions, newspaper articles and so on. One gets agreement only through the patient slog of negotiations.
    The right hon. Member for Leeds, East talked at one stage of logic chopping. At another stage he asked for fast results. But he knows, perhaps better than most hon. Members, that the issues involved, when one reaches the negotiations and is trying to build an agreement, are enormously complicated and important, and not, on the whole, to be hurried over or slurred over simply because there is an impatient public opinion waiting for results.
    That may be a difficult thing from the point of view of Governments in the West during the coming months, because the process is starting and we are getting into real discussions. There will be a tendency to hope for quick results when some of the issues involved need and will have to have detailed and careful discussion.
    Verification is crucial. Balance is crucial. We shall need balance in order to get an agreement, and certainly in order to get an agreement ratified. We shall need verification if we are to keep an agreement going, because agreements will collapse readily if either side feels that the other is cheating. Balance and verification are not luxuries. They are not things for which one aims as one's best hope. They are both essential qualities of any negotiation or agreement. They will take some time to obtain.
    Mr. Deakins: Would it be possible for the Government to give the House progress reports from time to time, in view of the great public interest in these negotiations?
    Mr. Hurd: I am sure that there will be constant probing at Question Time by many hon. Members, and Ministers will therefore then be obliged to give progress reports. That is the right way to do it.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), backed by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, raised an important matter—the degree of European involvement in the long-range theatre nuclear force negotiations due to start at the end of the month. I followed my hon. Friend's argument with sympathy and with much agreement. The talks have a European dimension and an importance for Europe, for the reasons which he and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland set out. Therefore, it follows in logic and good sense that there must be a European input. That is necessary. There is a European input.
    There is continuous consultation through, in particular, the special consultative group in NATO, a group of senior officials which was set up in 1979 at the time of the double decision on TNF to follow through the arms control half of the decision. The special consultative group is the forum in which the Americans have consulted their Allies closely and intensely so that they may go into the negotiations on 30 November with the full benefit of their views.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury would not expect me to go into more detail. However, my impression is that the closeness and success so far of the consultation is pretty good. On the whole, the European Allies, and certainly the British Government, feel that our ideas, pressures and thoughts have been properly and fully taken into account. That is not a once-and-for-all matter. The

    209
    process of consultation has to continue all the time, often behind the scenes, during the consultations. That is what is envisaged and that is what will happen.
    Mr. Ioan EvansClose discussions are taking place with the United States Government. Will the Minister address himself to the question which I put to him about the statement by Alexander Haig which contradicted the earlier statement by President Reagan? Caspar Weinberger has now denied what Haig said. What consultations have the British Government had about the demonstration bomb?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member would not expect me to comment on a matter of such importance on the basis of information from the tapes. However, I shall explain the background.
    NATO policy is based upon deterrence. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) will not be surprised at that. That means that a potential aggressor must be persuaded that NATO would be willing to use its weapons if faced with aggression. I refer to conventional, theatre nuclear or strategic weapons. If deterrence fails to stop the outbreak of war, NATO strategy is designed to convince an aggressor that it miscalculated in starting aggression and that it should abandon it as early as possible. If conventional means of achieving that seemed likely to fail, NATO would be obliged to consider recourse to nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Michael Foot: Oh.
    Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) has lived with that strategy as a member of the Labour Cabinet for a long time. Please do not let us hear "ohs" and "ahs" when a junior Minister describes NATO's strategy. It is the strategy which the right hon. Member for Leeds, East helped to form and with which the Leader of the Opposition lived as an approving member of the Cabinet for many years. Let us have no nonsense about that.
    It has been recognised always that NATO strategy embraces actions which would primarily be demonstrative in effect. Such actions would be intended to halt hostilities as soon as possible by demonstrating to the Soviet Union that the West was determined to resist and that further aggression would have dire consequences. It was the demonstrative aspect of NATO strategy that Secretary of State Haig had in mind when he made his remarks. It is an essential part of our strategy, and potential aggressors should clearly understand the implications of an attack on NATO.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: It is clear from what the Minister of State has said that he endorses the view of Secretary of State Haig about the demonstrative effect. The Secretary for Defence, Mr. Weinberger, said tonight that that is not the strategy, nor should it be. He was addressing his remarks specifically to what Mr. Haig had said before the Senate Committee yesterday. Mr. Weinberger's words were "nor should it be". It was a specific denial, and there is a clear contradiction between the two statements.
    Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman was so busy preparing his intervention that he did not listen to me. I refused to comment on the two sets of remarks allotted to the two American leaders. I was setting out NATO strategy and the demonstrative part of it. That is common ground.
    Mr. Davies: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what it is?
    Mr. Hurd: I have tried to explain the strategy. The right hon. Gentleman can study my words tomorrow. I do not intend to add to them this evening.
    The right hon. Gentleman revived the efforts made by the Leader of the Opposition to claim as a major breakthrough the fact that in Moscow he was served up with a description of Soviet policy that had already been made several times this year. We are about to test those declarations in negotiation. It is wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to say that it is his right hon. Friend's visit or peace movements and so on that have brought about the negotiations. They were agreed by my right hon. Friend, then Secretary of State for Defence, in December 1979. It was part of the original TNF modernisation decision. The negotiations were delayed partly because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Is it not striking that we have not heard from any Opposition spokesman about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?
    Mr. Healey: I mentioned it.
    Mr. Hurd: I withdraw my remark. However, how can one expect to talk sensibly about trusting the Soviet Union, arms control and disarmament negotiation without considering that continuing fact?
    There are three sets of talks under way or about to begin with the Soviet Union. There is the Madrid conference and the possibility of reaching agreement on the French proposal for a European disarmament conference, with confidence-building measures first. The TNF negotiation begins on St. Andrew's Day and we hope that at the beginning of next year there will be a recommencement of the American-Soviet strategic negotiations, which are designed by the Americans to achieve reduction and not simply limitation of strategic weapons.
    Those are three crucial negotiations. They may not produce quick results, but harm will be done if the Soviet Union gets the impression that a large force of opinion in the West—either in Britain or elsewhere in Europe—believes in unilateral disarmament, because there will be no incentive for the Soviet Union to allow the negotiations to succeed. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right to say that the unilateralist movement, with the best will in the world, was not helping but hindering the prospects for the tough, patient slog of disarmament negotiations on which we have started. I do not believe that results will come quickly, but it is only through an effort of that sort that we can achieve the more stable foundation for world peace that I believe all hon. Members wish to see.
    Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Brooke.]
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

    SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
    Ordered,
    That, during this Session, when any Bill, Estimate or matter has been referred to the Scottish Grand Committee, a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown that, in the course of their consideration of the Bill, Estimate or matter, the Committee may meet in Edinburgh on any specified Monday at half-past Ten o'clock, and the Question thereon shall be put forthwith; and if, on that Question being put, not less than twenty Members rise in their places and signify their objection thereto, Mr. Speaker shall declare that the Noes have it:
    Provided that nothing in this Order shall prevent the Committee from considering the same Bill, Estimate or matter on other days at Westminster.—[Mr. Pym.]

    PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
    Ordered,
    That the Standing Order of 4 July 1979 relating to the nomination of the Committee of Public Accounts be amended, by leaving out Mr. Nigel Lawson and inserting Mr. Nicholas Ridley.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

    Business Premises (Demolition)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]
    10 pm
    Mr. Anthony Steen: This debate should have taken place two weeks ago. It did not because the Division Bell supplied by the Post Office failed to work. It was put right, but tonight British Telecom advises me that it has gone wrong again. I am grateful that it let me know this time. I apologise to the Minister and to you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you both for your generosity and understanding in this unfortunate matter and for arranging another debate.
    I wish to raise a subject of relevance to every city—the widespread use by local auhorities of compulsory purchase of houses and businesses and the way in which they demolish them or not, as is their wish. Between 1966 and 1976 the indiscriminate and unreliable use of those powers resulted in Liverpool demolishing 21,489 houses, Birmingham 19,715, Manchester 29,265, Glasgow 53,396, Sheffield 21,776 and Leeds 24,055. Such action destroys not only homes but neighbourhoods and close-knit communities. Neither is it something of the past, as successive Governments would have us believe. Between 1975 and 1980, Liverpool demolished 6,446 houses, Birmingham 2,735, Manchester 9,854, Glasgow 17,497, Sheffield 11,130 and Leeds 8,403.
    Not only houses have been bulldozed out of existence. In Liverpool alone 463 small businesses have been displaced in the past five years, and 6,000 in Birmingham over the past 15 years. The first task of the Secretary of State should be to ban the bulldozer, which is the local government controlled machine that destroys inner cities, the rate base and jobs, and drives people beyond the city boundaries.
    The two cases that I wish to bring before the House illustrate vividly the way that compulsory purchase orders can destroy livelihoods and cause rate loss and, as a consequence, higher rates. The first concerns two factory buildings in Toxteth. The scene is inner Liverpool and the street Maple Grove, close to the epicentre of last summer's riots. It consisted of two parallel terraces of Victorian two-up-and-two-down, back-to-back houses. They were well built and once housed a flourishing and well integrated community.
    Nos. 34 and 36 at the end of one terrace were purchased in 1968 by a constituent of mine, a former Battle of Britain pilot, who prudently invested to provide a little extra income for himself on retirement. He let No. 34 to a builders merchant, Mr. West, and received a rental of £600 per annum. Mr. West's company employed five local men. My constituent let the house next door, No. 36, to Trust Houses Forte for a 35-year term at £1,000 per annum, with rent reviews. That subsidiary employed 12 people to repair fruit machines in the North-West.
    However, in the last year the scene has changed dramatically. Seventy of the houses in Maple Grove are no longer standing. They have been flattened by the bulldozer. It is not as if the council has insufficient land in its ownership. There are already 1,200 acres of vacant, dormant and derelict land within the Liverpool city boundaries alone. Why increase that total even more?
    Having pulled down the houses, the city council has turned its talents to my constituent's two business premises

    213
    which were compulsorily purchased by the council in August 1980, when Trust Houses Fortes was ordered out of No. 36. Since then the premises have lain idle and vacant. Mr. West, the builder, stayed on in No. 34. From the date of the compulsory purchase order he has, of course, been paying his rent, not to my constituent but to the council.
    I am delighted to see present many hon. Members on this side of the House although I am sorry that there are no Opposition Members present to hear this important debate. Hon. Members may already have concluded that the buildings of Nos. 34 and 36 were so derelict that the best thing that could happen was for them to be demolished. That could not be further from the truth. No. 36 is a well-constructed, single-storey, brick-built house erected in the 1930s. There are good offices, car parking facilities and 3,000 sq. ft. of factory space. It has at least 50 years of life left, if not more.
    To rebuild a factory like No. 36 at today's prices would cost over £60,000. What is the sense of dispossessing a business and pulling down the building merely because it does not fit within the council's comprehensive redevelopment plans?
    A few months ago, after the council had demolished the houses in Maple Grove, it decided that it was about time it demolished No. 34, Mr. West's premises. The city council offered Mr. West the use of No. 36—the property where Trust Houses Forte had its fruit machines. Mr. West was moved from No. 34 to No. 36 and my constituent was dispossessed of both properties.
    Let us hope that the debate will draw the country's attention to the dreadful task which the city council has performed. It has lost my constituent income and has moved one of his tenants from one of his former buildings to another.
    If the council pull down the premises, it will be guilty of incompetence or negligence, or both. That would merely confirm that it is determined to destroy what is left in the inner cities. On the other hand, if it lets the premises stand, it will have to pay my constituent substantial damages by way of compensation for wrongful eviction. To date, the council has offered £6,000 compensation. My constituent has already lost £2,000 in rent and if he were still in possession his lease would be worth approximately £35,000.
    Ashton, Motor Company, which is also in the inner city at the Old Swan—a part of my constituency—was once a flourishing small garage employing a local work force. The council advised the garage proprietor in 1976 that his business site fell within another grand clearance scheme and would be demolished forthwith.
    By January 1980, the Ashton garage was still standing. At that time, the estates department advised the proprietor that it would be demolished in May 1980. Therefore, the proprietor closed his business and handed the site over to the council. It was not demolished in May 1980, at Christmas 1980 or in May 1981. Indeed, it is still standing, as a derelict and empty building. It is an eyesore to the local community, who now complain to the city council that it is about time that it demolished the premises.
    Both cases I have used as examples disclose a quite scurrilous situation of mismanagement or negligence, or both.
    Mr. Caplan's property was sequestrated and handed over to someone else without compensation. In the Ashton
    214
    Motors case, the owner acted on information from the council which it failed to honour and he has suffered damage and loss.
    It is not only my constituents who have lost. Everybody has lost. People have lost jobs and the city has lost rate income. Both cases symbolise the powerlessness of the individual against the State, and they show how small firms continue to be driven out of the inner city and often out of business. Both cases show the effect of public intervention and the damage caused by it.
    The problems are compounded by the typists' strike in the city council, which has meant that since May letters just do not get answered. The council seems to prefer to disregard the needs of Liverpool city ratepayers than to dismiss a few typists who are holding it to ransom. There is no shortage of girls to take the strikers' places, but the council is too feeble to take a stand for the sake of Liverpool.
    The cases to which I have referred are two of many hundreds of such cases in Liverpool. They illustrate the continued damage caused by the indiscriminate use of power—in this case the power of compulsory purchase—and the way in which councils can serve notices without thought of their consequences. The local authority's cavalier attitude and disregard of the people it is supposedly representing strike at the roots of the problem of our cities. Those in authority should remember that they are the servants of the people and not their masters.
    10.12 pm
    Mr. John Heddle: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) for allowing me to intervene in the debate, which is about inner cities, but it is concerned also with compulsory purchase powers, and I should like to concentrate on the latter aspect. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment for kindly consenting to my participation in the debate.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree nurses his constituency assiduously, carefully and compassionately, as is clear from his speech. I do not want to dwell on the problems of Liverpool or inner city areas in Manchester, Leeds, or Birmingham, but I believe that the Government should consider the whole principle of compulsory purchase, the mechanics of compulsory purchase legislation and the nuts and bolts of the Land Compensation Act 1973.
    When a local authority or a statutory undertaking has designs on an area—whether in an inner city, a town such as Tamworth, perhaps 12 or 15 miles from a conurbation, or a rural area that may be designated as the site for a reservoir—it can use the threat of a subsequent CPO to acquire property in advance of the granting of compulsory purchase powers or planning permission to carry out the proposed development.
    That blights the area and causes owners to sell their livelihoods and birthrights, because they know that if they do not sell to the strong arm of the State, whether a local authority or a statutory undertaking, their property will be blighted, the free market will be taken away from them and there will be no one else to whom they can sell. They are bludgeoned subtly by the threat of a compulsory purchase order into selling against their wishes. That is the erosion of freedom.

    215
    The House and the country should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree for having raised that basic issue of freedom. I am happy to be able to support him.
    10.15 pm
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) has done the House a service by raising a subject related to the problems of inner city development and the difficulties of a local authority being engaged in the acquisition of property compulsorily, yet illustrating the consequences that that can have on individuals and businesses.
    In opening his speech my hon. Friend made his customary ode to the bulldozer. He is right to keep reminding us that in many of our inner city areas we have a legacy of major schemes begun in good faith and taken to initial stages, but not completed. The acquisition of land has taken place, but the erection of buildings and the construction of roads and other amenities has not followed.
    I welcome also the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle). Once again, and early in the new Session, my hon. Friends the Members for Wavertree and Lichfield and Tamworth and myself are engaged on problems concerned with inner urban areas.
    There were two parts to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree. One was concerned with the general issues involved in the policy of compulsory purchase and the other with the two specific cases to which my hon. Friend drew attention. I shall deal first with the specific cases that he raised. I apologise for overlapping my hon. Friend's presentation of his constituent's case, but it seems to me important to put the case on record as far as we understand it, having had consultations with the local authority in Liverpool.
    In April 1978 the Liverpool city council made the Moss Grove area compulsory purchase order, a clearance order whereby the premises, to which my hon. Friend has referred, were, together with other land, to be transformed into housing and public open space. The particular premises in question, as my hon. Friend mentioned, are Nos. 34 to 36 Maple Grove. At the public inquiry in March 1979 neither the landlord, Mr. Caplan, nor anyone else made any objection to the clearance of either of those properties and the order was confirmed in August of that year. Notice of entry and notice to treat were issued in October 1979 and possession was taken in August 1980. The city council acquired the leasehold interest in the properties and is still negotiating for the purchase of the freehold with my hon. Friend's constituent, Mr. Caplan.
    As I understand it, Mr. Caplan is in dispute with the city council over the price to be paid; he is also interested in the alternative course of resuming his interest as landlord. Those are matters that are entirely between the owner of the interest in the premises and the acquiring authority, and I have to tell my hon. Friend—as I suspect he knows—that the Government have no locus to intervene.
    I understand that the builder, Mr. West, had been using 34 Maple Grove, but that that has had to be demolished because of structural weakness caused by the earlier
    216
    demolition of the adjacent buildings. The builder has been offered, by the council, premises at No. 36 which he is now occupying, for a small rent, as a tenant at will.
    Mr. Steen: It is only right to correct the record in that respect. When Mr. West was being offered the tenancy of No. 36, the landlord, my constituent through me, wrote to the city council—we did not receive a reply, because of the typists' strike—saying that he would like to repossess the property that the council had taken from him. The council did not reply, but put Mr. West into No. 34, in the old building. That situation calls for Government comment.
    Mr. Shaw: The only comment that a Government can make is to agree with my hon. Friend that, where there is an aggrieved party and an authority seeks to execute its legitimate powers of compulsory purchase, differences of opinion as to the quantum of the purchase price or the conditions under which the purchase is being made are matters for negotiation between those two parties. I cannot accept that the Government should have a right to intervene in a negotiation between two parties who may be aggrieved but who could come to an agreement in due course.
    I suspect that my hon. Friend is aware that the transactions in this case have not yet been completed. I understand that the local authority, Liverpool city council, has made an improved offer to my hon. Friend's constituent, Mr. Caplan, which his agents are considering. Therefore, it is not for me to extract from this case a matter of principle upon which the Government should intervene.
    I return to the saga, for that is what it is. My hon. Friend is right in saying that it draws out matters of important principle. The city council certainly expects to seek other premises for the builder, Mr. West, before No. 36 is demolished. Therefore, I must stress that there appears to be no question of the occupier of No. 36 being, as it were, squeezed out of business. In fact, the contrary is the case. I understand that No. 36 will not be demolished and that the land will not be cleared until new premises are found for the builder and his business. When the compulsory purchase order was made, No. 36 was vacant. Therefore, by the builder moving into it, it is now in productive use.
    Mr. Steen: I wish to correct one matter on which my hon. Friend is clearly confused. Trust Houses Forte was driven out of No. 36 and that meant that the rent that it paid to the landlord went, that 12 men who worked on the fruit machines went, and that the rate income was lost. The builder in No. 34 has gained No. 36, but the council has lost the rate income from No. 34 and the landlord has lost the rent from No. 34. Therefore, one firm has been lost and one is still going. However, the landlord wants the property back so that he can use it again.
    Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend seeks to embroider further—if that is necessary—the point that in this relatively small case there are several dissonant elements. I agree that it would appear that the local authority has lost considerable rate income and has had to make temporary arrangements for the use of buildings whose long-term future may, or may not, be secure in the council's mind. As my hon. Friend knows, the public often urges councils to make long-term plans for the rehabilitation of areas. Nowhere is that more important than in the inner urban areas of Liverpool. However, such plans must involve

    217
    major changes in present activities if a new beginning is to be made. Nevertheless, I accept that in this instance there seems to have been Pelion piled on Ossa in a manner that has left a certain degree of confusion. However, the council's pan in this affair has not been entirely dishonourable.
    Today compensation reflects the market value of the land. In cases of compulsory purchase the amount is set at the sum that is thought would have changed hands, in the particular circumstances of the case, between a willing buyer and a willing seller. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) referred to the Land Compensation Act 1973 and its consequences. Between willing buyer and willing seller a reasonable contract could be made and it is on the basis of that valuation that a CPO can be agreed.
    What is in dispute in the case of Mr. Caplan is not the basis on which compensation is assessed—open market value—but the actual amount of compensation. This, of course, is made up of two components: the actual figure to be obtained for the property at a given date, and also, in Mr. Caplan's case, the loss of income from renting the property. If the dispute cannot be resolved between the parties, the remedy lies in recourse to the Lands Tribunal to determine the appropriate sum. As the transactions in the case have not yet been completed, I think that it would be wrong for me to pursue that point. I sincerely hope, however, that the present negotiations which have resulted in an improved offer being made to Mr. Caplan's agent will form the basis of an agreed decision.
    My hon. Friend has questioned the propriety of a local authority letting premises which were acquired in order to be demolished. Frequently, where land is being progressively cleared of buildings over a period following a CPO some buildings may still perform a useful function until the time comes for them finally to be demolished and the land developed or put to other uses. I must say to my hon. Friend that this is a perfectly reasonable phase that a council should pass through in developing an inner city area. It is quite usual, for example, for this period to be occupied by a temporary letting, which can sometimes, as in this case, take the form of a tenancy at will on a weekly rental. This is entirely a matter of arrngement between the public authority and the tenant-at-will. It is appropriate that the authority should take the proceeds of any such letting, since it pays market value for the property in the first place. It is clearly right that when an authority has acquired a building for demolition it should put that building to whatever good use may be possible until the time for demolition comes.
    I turn briefly to the question of what happens if land which is compulsorily acquired eventually becomes surplus to the authority's requirements as this brings very much into focus the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth.
    Where Crown land is concerned, successive Administrations have agreed that surplus agricultural land should be offered back to the former owner at market value before being put on the open market. As my hon. Friends will know this practice was established following the Crichel Down case. Last year the Government decided that non-agricultural land should be subject to the same requirements. Administrative rules for this purpose were
    218
    circulated to interested bodies in draft and have been applied in the meanwhile. The final version of these rules will be published shortly. They represent a code of practice which the Government propose to follow and which they commend to other public bodies, including local authorities, for application where appropriate in the light of their particular functions and circumstances.
    I turn to the second case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree—the Ashton Motor Company. I understand that the premises concerned were included in the Ashton Street CPO made as far back as January 1977. The ground was needed primarily for housing purposes and I gather that nearby residents had complained about the activities of some of the firms in the street, possibly including the Ashton Motor Company whose car breaking business was involved. I stress that a public inquiry into the CPO was held on 27 September 1977, when I gather that the proprietor of Ashton Motors made no objection. Therefore, the CPO was confirmed in the following March.
    My hon. Friend has mentioned the proprietor's complaints that, having vacated his premises, they are still standing empty and have not yet been demolished and the land used for some other purpose. It is true that the housing scheme originally planned, which was well advanced, had to be shelved when all municipal schemes were suspended last year as part of the review of housing needs and expenditure. My hon. Friends will understand, as indeed I do, that councils are having to reassess their expenditure and this will sometimes cause delays in the system. None the less, the council has now decided that the land should be used for "special" housing and is currently evaluating what sort this should be—whether for pensioners or the handicapped, and so on.
    It is, of course, regrettable that the land should not yet be redeveloped. None the less, in my view, my hon. Friend has not painted the whole picture. I am told that Ashton Motors was still trading from the site in question until June 1980 and that it only vacated the site in order to receive advance compensation—in this case, £5,850. If the company had been willing to forgo advance compensation, it could doubtless have remained on the site for longer. But the proprietor specifically requested such compensation, and in order to be able to be paid the occupier has to surrender possession.
    I should also mention that the council made several offers of alternative premises, all of which were rejected by the proprietor. In January 1980, he notified the council that he no longer wished to inspect alternatives as he was retiring.
    Perhaps in the remaining half minute I may turn to a more general point that my hon. Friend raised. Of course, neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I would wish to see a return to the wholesale demolition of large areas that was common in the recent past. We fully realise the immense damage this can cause in the dispersion of old-established communities and the erosion of the industrial base—
    The Question having been proposed at 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 half-past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT
  Important Sites (Development)
  Important Sites (Development)
  Building Control
  Building Control
INDUSTRY
  Engineering Council
  Engineering Council
TRADE
  Shipping (Anti-trust Litigation)
  Shipping (Anti-trust Litigation)
TRANSPORT
  Road Construction Sub-units (Denationalisation)
  Road Construction Sub-units (Denationalisation)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Drugs (Reimbursement of Cost)
  Drugs (Reimbursement of Cost)
  Juvenile Offenders
  Juvenile Offenders

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

Hops Marketing Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to revoke the Hop Marketing Scheme 1932, to make provision with respect to the forward contracts and other property, rights and liabilities of the Hops Marketing Board and to provide for the dissolution or winding up of that board. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

Civic Government (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Lyell: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mansfield, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision as regards Scotland for the licensing and regulation of certain activities; for the preservation of public order and safety and the prevention of crime; as to certain powers of constables and others; as to lost and abandoned property and property in the possession of persons taken into police custody; as to the rights and duties of the owners and users of certain land, buildings and other structures; as to the making by local authorities of by-laws; and to enable them to make management rules applying to land or premises under their control; as to certain other functions of local authorities and their officers; as to the time when the Burgh Police (Scotland) Acts 1892 to 1911 and certain local statutory provisions cease to have effect; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

Slaughter of Animals (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the slaughter of animals. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

Beverage Containers Bill [H.L.]
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to promote the use of refillable beverage
18
containers; to prohibit the sale of beverages in non-returnable containers; and to provide for regulations to be made to standardise beverage containers. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

Boxing Bill [H.L.]
Lord Kennet: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I beg to introduce a Bill to prohibit the organisation of boxing matches for profit. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

Committee of Selection
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare):
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in accordance with Standing Order 60 a Committee of Selection be appointed to select and propose to the House the names of the Lords to form each Select Committee of the House (except the Committee of Selection itself and any Committee otherwise provided for by statute or by order of the House) and the panel of Deputy Chairmen of Committees and that the Lords following together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:—

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Byers, L.

Denham L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ilchester, E.

Kennet, L.

Listowel, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Peart, L.

Wigoder, L.

Young, B.

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Unemployment: Select Committee
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and make recommendations on long-term remedies for unemployment.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Queen's Speech
ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'SMOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
Debate resumed on the Motion moved yesterday by the Lord Bethell—namely, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's must dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, in rising to continue this debate I should like to begin by congratulating my two noble friends, the mover and seconder of the Address, on their useful and thoughtful contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, expressed some surprise that movers and seconders tended to be hereditary Peers. But the reason is not far to seek. The tradition has always been to invite comparatively junior Members of the House to perform this important task. I hope I shall not give offence by saying that we Life Peers tend to be a trifle long in the tooth. In the main we have passed our first youth. Whatever other advantages or disadvantages the hereditary element in this House may possess, it tends to supply us with a sprinkling of young men of character and intelligence whose preoccupation nowadays with the necessity to play an active part in the process of earning a living would ordinarily preclude a parliamentary career. My noble friend Lord Fairfax is one of these. My noble friend Lord Bethell is, of course, an experienced Member of the House. But his membership of the European Parliament—I hesitate to call it "another place", but perhaps we might call it "two other places"—makes us exceedingly fortunate in securing his services. I hope your Lordships will agree that my noble friend the Leader of the House is to be congratulated in getting two such distinguished Members of our body to perform this task in the third Session of this Parliament. They each made it certain that we shall wish to hear more of them in the future.
I turn now to the debate itself. The other day it fell to my lot to drive myself the whole way along the A1 to the South of Scotland. I could not help reflecting, in the context of today's debate on Home Affairs, on the contrast which my journey of last week made with the first journey I made along approximately the same route in my old Model T Ford in the summer of 1926, after the General Strike, and while the miners' strike was still on.
The first thought that came to my mind was that of the voting population of today no one under the age of somewhere between 40 and 45 has any effective memory of even the end of the last war, and no one much under the age of 50 can remember even its beginning. Far fewer indeed retain memories as old as mine, dating much before 1939. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, yesterday used the phrase that we had "reached a watershed" in our affairs. Even before I heard him use it, by a strange coincidence I had already decided, though in a different context, to use the same phrase
20
Myself—that we are more or less at a watershed in our affairs.
I regard this fact and the fact to which I have just alluded as a matter of great significance and perhaps not inconsiderable concern. If, as I believe, Governments of whatever persuasion will be compelled for some time to come to operate in a climate far more adverse than any that has been experienced by the enormous majority of our population, it is fitting that we should assess our situation afresh and see what general lessons are to be drawn. This I shall now try to do. I will wish to be as frank as possible and I shall try not to give offence either to political friend or foe. But since Parliament is a place one of whose purposes is the expression of controversial views, I trust that those who do not agree with them, and they will no doubt be many, will treat them for what they are—honest opinions spoken without malice even when they are critical of others, and put forward solely for the purpose of advancing the understanding of the political choices open to us.
Today's debate is confined to home affairs. But dominating home policy, more perhaps than at any time since 1945, are the world situation, certainly, in my view, not improving if not actually deteriorating, and the economic situation, obviously serious and setting up strains within society with which today's debate must inevitably be concerned. I shall try to avoid straying across the frontiers which separate home policy from foreign, defence and economic policies. I understand in particular that it has been agreed between the usual channels that unemployment—that dominating feature of the debates which we shall be having—should be discussed under economic policy rather than under home affairs. But it would, I think, be absolutely unrealistic to talk about home affairs without seeing them in the context in which they must constantly be considered.
There is, however, one economic point I should like to make. For more than a century the life of nations has been dominated by what I might almost be tempted to call a Marxian contradiction. Trade is international and the prosperity of nations, perhaps particularly of our own nation, is nourished by the vigour of world demand and not simply by any home market, however extensive. Nevertheless, and by contrast, the political organisation of the world ever since the Renaissance and even to a certain extent today is based upon national sovereignty which, even by the largest nations, can exercise only a limited effect on world economic conditions. Even organisations like the old League of Nations, the United Nations or the European Community, to which my noble friend Lord Bethell yesterday referred, are only palliatives of this contradiction. The great power blocs like the Western Alliance and the Warsaw Pact and the lesser power blocs like the Organisation of African Unity and the Arab League do not basically alter this fact. In a sense they only emphasise it. The great empires, which, apart from the Soviet empire, exist no more, were in a sense no more than a more or less unsuccessful attempt to overcome or contradict it.
The result has been that, for the past 150 years at least, a debate has been going on between two schools of thought, each representing one proposition of this contradiction. On one side are the advocates of the

21
market economy, based on the proposition that, national sovereignties being incomplete, trade is best allowed to develop by its own dynamisms with as little interference as possible from national sovereignties. That was, in the past, the classic Liberal thesis at a time when—if they will forgive me—the Liberal Party, then in its heyday, needed no allies from pink-centred collectivists and was not disposed to compromise with any form of collectivism. On the other side, there were the advocates of the use of national sovereignty, and therefore of unilateral political action, to try to further economic and social ends. This is, and was, the classical Socialist thesis and, of course, it has its strong partisans today; not least, I should think, among the Social Democrats.
Speaking for myself, I think I have always been conscious of this dilemma. But I have never fully accepted either point of view, nor do I believe that it is possible to state either point of view in an extreme fashion without leading oneself into manifest absurdity. It is certain that, in practice, neither point of view has wholly prevailed. So far as I personally have a guiding formula, over the years it has been publicly provided social services and privately owned industry, coupled with the maximum degree of international co-operation. I still believe that, within bounds although not of dogma, this formula may be acceptable as a rule of thumb.
But I now return to my main thesis. For the greater numbers in this country, from 1945 until 1973 or thereabouts, each year brought in absolute terms increased prosperity. Prices were rising, and that was a defect, but so were incomes and, taking one year with another, on the whole and for most people, though not all people, incomes rose faster than prices. I venture to say that this was particularly true during the years 1951 to 1964, which I think, with a misplaced gift for phrase, Sir Harold Wilson christened the 13 wasted years. It is true, of course, that during the whole period, or at any rate during the last 20 years of it, warning voices were raised including, I like to think, my own. We were not learning new technologies. Although the national product was increasing, we were not keeping our share of international trade, and since 1973 we have been losing it.
There were other clouds on the horizon. I can remember years ago, when Lord Pethick-Lawrence was speaking on economic matters from the Front Bench opposite in this House, I myself pointed to the lack of productivity which was going on, the excess of restrictive practices, particularly among trade unions, and the archaic union structure which still, I noticed the other day, means no less than 18 unions in the affairs of a single firm in the motor-car industry; and, incidentally, a motor-car industry which possesses a relative productivity of about half that of our European competitors, let alone that of Japan.
All these tendencies have now come, if I am right, to roost, largely as the result of what happened, or failed to happen, in the 'seventies, and matters crystallised, so to speak, in the recession which followed the increase in the price of oil in 1973. This is the context in which I venture to use the word "watershed". In such a context, it is no good whistling to keep one's courage up with false optimism. Still less is there much virtue in self-fulfilling prophecies of doom and
22
gloom. What is wanted is an objective realisation, by a public opinion which is not yet wholly attuned to the realities, that, unless some totally new factor appears, the climate of the 'eighties is going to be altogether less favourable than that of the 'sixties—1973 was, in this sense, a watershed—and that our domestic policies and outlook must be attuned realistically to deal with a new situation.
In the meantime, my feeling is that we must get rid of two or three illusions. In the first place, to listen to some critics of the Government one would hardly gather that this Government are not spending less. They are spending more. We have just lived through a decade when our successive Governments have more or less doubled the national debt. Last year, we added something like another £11,000 million to it and there will be still more this year. The largest, or nearly the largest, single item in current expenditure is the service of debt; that is, the payment of interest. We spend more on interest than on defence, more on interest than on education and more on interest than on health, to give three examples, and this year we have added another £1,000 million to that.
I have heard this Government called deflationary and the critics who use this term are asking for reflation. I think that they misuse language. What, in fact, we are trying to do is to reduce the rate of inflation. I have heard it said that we are cutting Government expenditure. What, in fact, we are trying to do is to contain some of the increases in Government expenditure, at a time when the growth in national product is either static or negative. I can understand—although I do not agree with them—our critics on the right, who complain that our expenditure is still inflationary. What I cannot understand are our critics on the left, who have somehow persuaded themselves that we are pursuing deflationary policies and that the remedy is a vast increase in expenditure. It seems to me that they simply have not realised the facts of the situation.
At the same time, one must surely remember that it is out of the product of industry—that is, the goods or services that people want to have at prices and on terms that people are willing to afford—that all public expenditure must come, whether it is the wage of the miner, the Lord Chancellor's salary, the National Health Service, the armed forces, investment or supplementary benefit. There is nowhere else for it to come from.
Disraeli, about whom so much is being said and written at the present time, wrote in Sybil that there were in England two nations—the rich and the poor. If he were writing today and wished to speak of two nations, he would have to speak of those who are gainfully employed in providing goods and services and those who through age, youth, infirmity or unemployment, are not. In the present economic climate in which we are working, we have to ask ourselves—each for himself and all collectively for ourselves—whether an element of self-abnegation in the cause of others is not a necessary part of every equation, personal or collective.
At Question Time the other day, I heard a question being asked about education. Quite rightly, it was said that with so much unemployment about there is an important role to be played by education and training.

23
I think we can be agreed about that. Certainly. All right. How much wage increase are you, am I, prepared to forgo to supply more education? There is a demand for hospitals. All right. How much more in the shape of restrictive practices are you, am I, prepared to abandon to see them paid for? There is a demand for more investment; not that investment is necessarily good in itself. Look at all those high-rise flats that we built in the 'sixties. Look at all the investment that we flung into steel, with the result that we only created surplus capacity.
But, by and large, I agree with the proposition. We need more investment; that is, of the right kind. We do need investment, both in technology, plant and infrastructure, and in profitable private industry as well. How much current consumption are we prepared to forgo—are you prepared, am I prepared to forgo— in order to provide that investment? If the answer in each case to these questions is "None" or "Very little", then surely we should cease from hypocrisy, we should stop shedding crocodile tears and criticising the alleged meanness of Government—and, incidentally, from now on we might have to abandon hope for our country. One could go on enumerating cases but the lesson is surely clear: good housekeeping must be an essential part of home policy, and self-denial and patriotism are not the least elements in good national housekeeping.
In an era of social stress brought on by an adverse economic climate there are other problems which are not going to go away. There is the problem of violence instanced by the outbreak of rioting and looting in our inner cities. My noble friend Lord Fairfax of Cameron referred to that yesterday. There is racial tension, often associated with outbreaks of violence. There is the problem of Northern Ireland—not of course the product itself of adverse economic conditions, but certainly suffering from them and certainly not improved by them.
I am not going to make a detailed speech about these things today, but there is one point which I will make which is common to them all. This is the primacy of the rule of law, emphasised by both opening speakers, the most important part of which I must say at once is the principle of absolute equality of every citizen, white or black, Protestant or Catholic, Jew or Moslem or whatever, in rights, dignity and responsibility for others. This I was happy to see was expressly emphasised in the gracious Speech. There is no excuse for racialism of any kind, black or white racialism. There is no excuse for bigotry of any kind, Protestant or Catholic bigotry.
On the other side, deprivation—whatever that may mean, and it takes many forms, and wherever it exists, and it exists in many places—is no excuse for alienation from the community, for even the deprived owe a duty to their neighbours. As Lord Carson once said, loyalty is not a matter of degree. But above all I return to the rule of law because it is my business to do so.
The absolute impartiality, integrity and freedom from political pressures of law, its administration and enforcement, are the one thing which it is in the interests of all to protect and upon the maintenance of which the entire fabric of society depends. As my
24
noble friend Lord Fairfax of Cameron reminded us, we shall very soon be reading and perhaps debating Lord Scarman's report on the Brixton riots and allied subjects. No doubt it will contain criticisms of some of the law enforcement agencies and recommendations for their improvement, but I hope that whatever we do we shall not lose our sense of collective duty in supporting the forces of law and the independence and integrity of our system of justice. That is another point made in the gracious Speech.
It is not altogether surprising that one result of the watershed of our public affairs has been that public opinion has been left in a state of near bewilderment. It could hardly be otherwise when half the population, or more, are now confronting a situation of which they have no previous experience and which they are blaming, whether justly or unjustly, on successive Governments under the two-party system. That is the sense in which I think the noble Lord, Lord Byers, was talking about a watershed in our affairs. I do not wish—and I hope he will believe me when I say I do not wish—to ridicule or otherwise to depreciate the performances of the Social Democratic and Liberal candidates in recent by-elections, parliamentary and local, and in recent opinion polls. Indeed it would be churlish not to congratulate them. I do not think it is a coincidence that they have achieved these successes without a leader, without a policy, without a party and are thus admirably placed to follow the divine injunction to be all things to all men. Their success so far seems to me to be more indicative of the sense of bewilderment in the public mind to which I have referred than to any coherent move towards a common denominator or an alternative policy.
In the meantime there are lessons, surely, for us all to learn. It seems to me that the general tone of political debate—I do not mean in this House; I mean in the country—has greatly deteriorated in the last decade. It is not to be supposed that there can be any consensus between, for instance, Mr. Benn and myself. This is not necessarily the fault of either of us. I do not believe that such a consensus is possible and, if possible, I do not believe that such a consensus would be desirable. There are times when the electors must choose between mutually exclusive alternatives and not seek a fudging of issues or a meaningless compromise between them. But we can at least not denigrate one another's motives while attacking their policies. We can at least avoid consciously misrepresenting each other's positions. We can treat each other, whether in public or in private—and I think we do in this House—with personal courtesy. We can seek, at least in this House, to support our arguments with objective evidence and reasoning and not with catch phrases or mere rhetoric.
For my part, while I am in agreement with the Social Democrats that the Labour party has taken an undesirable lurch to the left, I personally disclaim the view that the Government of which I am a member has taken a similar lurch to the right. Certainly, I have not done so. I may say that, not merely because of physical proximity, I always listen to speeches from the Liberal Benches with sympathy and often with a high measure of agreement. I also listen with respect and admiration to speeches from the noble Lord,

25
Lord Peart, and the noble and learned Lord who preceded me on the Woolsack. I know that in spite of differences—and they are both many and important—there are fundamental cultural, moral, social and political attitudes which we share, the significance of which must not be forgotten. If our points of agreement are forgotten we may not survive long enough to air our differences.
One matter on which I hope we can agree is that we must avoid, almost at all costs, being driven into the situation which preceded and perhaps contributed to the outbreak of the last war. We cannot hope to confront our new situation by any fatuous attempts at self-sufficiency. We cannot do it by exporting unemployment on to other countries, imposing import controls which are certain to affect other countries adversely, placing ring fences around either this country or even the European Economic Community.
I can assure the House of one thing: that we in the Government are not intent upon dismantling the welfare state. We have to recognise, however, that up to a point education and the health services, social security and wages are competitors for the same resources from which must come development, research, investment and even defence. But that does not mean that there cannot be progress. Surely there are many fields—mental health is one, criminal law is another, the administrtaion of justice a third, industrial relations a fourth, technical law reform a fifth and in addition the whole issue of the appalling martyrdom of our fellow countrymen in Northern Ireland—where social improvements can go forward without making too many demands on resources. We can co-operate in all these matters without surrender of principle and without loss of personal integrity. All the subjects I have mentioned will be discussed in the context of legislation during the current Session and all, or almost all, are mentioned or adumbrated in the Queen's Speech.
There are many deep differences between us. Speaking for myself, while I believe passionately in the equality of human beings before the law in point of dignity, human rights and responsibilities, I do not believe that we were all designed to fit into a common mould. My ideal is unity of spirit in diversity of character. Though we may view the object of education as bringing out the best in each of us, I cannot believe that this is best achieved by depriving the most gifted of our children of their fair chance in life. I would regard the abolition of the sixth form as a calamity. I believe that the vast agglomerations in our comprehensive schools have proved destructive of individuality. I believe in the infinite range of difference in human ability, propensity and genius. I believe that enforced equality is the denial of social justice. All this, I know, gives rise to debate, and legitimate debate, But let it be good-humoured debate, devoid of rancour, misrepresentation, and above all of personal malice.
This brings me to the last thing I want to say this afternoon. In our devotion to liberty—and I believe in this House we are all devoted to liberty—we are apt to suppose that freedom of human action and speech is all that matters. We sometimes speak as if dissension were the only end of a free society. But I believe this depends upon a misunderstanding of what freedom means, and that for two reasons. I do not believe
26
that liberty can flourish except in a framework of law. Both liberty and law, both rights and obligations, exercise reciprocal limitations, each operating upon the other and each dependent for their own essential characteristics on the recognition of objective moral values, binding on all of us as fellow human beings existing together in a single political community.
The second reason is as follows. It is this conception of nationhood which we are in danger of losing amid the anxieties and constraints of recession, of unemployment, of danger of war. We need to recapture that sense of nationhood. In its finest sense we need to recapture patriotism as a virtue. A society which recognises only differences will not long endure, or at least will not long endure in freedom. Society needs its cement as well as controversy; it needs common values as well as points of difference, and both my noble friends who began this debate paid justified tribute to the role played by the Royal Family in promoting that sense of unity of which I speak. But if we lose sight of this fact, as at times I fear the nation may be in danger of doing, we shall not be saved by any existing alliance between parties, nor shall we be saved by any one party or any class in society achieving a semi-permanent dominance over the others or regarding itself as the normal party or class of government. We are first of all citizens of the United Kingdom. We have achieved together great things in the past. We owe it to that past to face present constraints with a renewed confidence in one another. Without that mutual confidence, my Lords, we can enjoy no rational hope for the future.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, while I wait for the congregation to depart, may I say that yesterday we had that very rare thing, a bit of good news from the Government. It was that the volume of legislation will be less this Session. However, it is certain from the gracious Speech that for what we are about to receive we shall not all be truly thankful. There was once a Scottish minister who, when he had to say grace before dinner, conditioned it to the nature of the hospitality. If it was a modest meal he began, "We thank thee, Lord, for this the least of all thy mercies". If it was a really good meal he would begin, "Oh bountiful Jehovah". My Lords, from our point of view at any rate, the gracious Speech is not an "Oh bountiful Jehovah" occasion.
At our equivalent debate on the Address last year the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in a speech as free from malice as I hope mine was too and will be today, stressed that it was essential as far as we can see to eliminate elements of division in our society and in our world. I agreed then; I agree now, but, sadly, since then those divisions have, if anything, sharpened. There has been grave urban disorder; race relations have deteriorated; industrial relations are once more becoming tense. The confidence of the younger generation in our institutions has declined and there is disturbing evidence of alienation among them. It may not be justified but, alas! it is happening.
Last year I quoted some words of wisdom from an ancient Welsh source for political leaders, the Mabinogion, "Avo Pen bid Pont", which means "He who

27
leads must be a bridge". Alas! of late there has been too little bridge building and too much widening of gulfs in our society; too much confrontation, too little consultation. Lest I should be thought to be engaged merely in party submissions—and there is no essential harm in that—one of the strongest expressions of criticism that has been voiced about the current state of affairs was used by a former Cabinet Minister, Mr Geoffrey Rippon, who was reported in The Times of yesterday as saying this:
"The harsh application of textbook money theories which ignore human and social relations have relentlessly eroded our industrial base and inflicted an unacceptable level of deep-seated unemployment".
In this debate last year I said:
"Unemployment is now well over 2 million and is expected to rise to 3 million in the course of next year".
This, alas! is what has happened. According to the October figures the actual number of unemployed was 2,988,644—the highest total ever recorded in the United Kingdom, representing more than one in eight of the persons in our working population. After rising three times as fast as the EEC average during 1980, United Kingdom unemployment now is the highest in the OECD. In the first quarter of 1981 the standard unemployment rates were, for the United Kingdom 10.2 per cent., for Italy 7.6, for the United States of America 7.2, for France 7.0, for Germany 3.7, for Japan 2.1. For Austria—if I may say so, a bastion of democratic socialism—1.8 per cent. That is the international scene and therefore we cannot really take great comfort in saying "Ah well, unemployment is an international phenomenon", and leave it at that. If we are suffering the worst there must be some fault in us and, if I may say so, in our Government.
The tragedy of unemployment is that it hits the youngest hardest, and it is about that point that I hope to make some observations this afternoon. Over 270,000 school-leavers were registered unemployed in September. Youth unemployment is now close on 1.5 million. Black people have been particularly hard hit by the recession, which has exacerbated the problem of racial disadvantage. A recent study by the Runnymede Trust found that while the overall level of unemployment rose by 70 per cent, in the two years up to Februrary 1981, the increase among blacks was 103 per cent. This has been compounded, according to the Commission for Racial Equality, by a one-third increase in the rate of discrimination in white collar jobs since 1973–74.
Young blacks find it especially hard to get work. A survey on young unemployed in the inner cities recently revealed an average 30 per cent, jobless rate among blacks aged 16 to 20, with a quarter not bothering to register as unemployed. My Lords, while we all welcome greatly the statement in the Queen's Speech,
"My Government's policies will seek to ensure that all individuals, whatever their race, colour or creed, have equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities",
that statement will sound a little hollow to those in the categories that I have described.
Unemployment—and I make no apology for talking about it today; we will consider the causes and possible remedies in the economic debate—does cast the darkest shadows over our home affairs. It plays, I believe,
28
a significant part in the amount of crime in our society today. It does not excuse the crime, but at any rate it goes to some extent to explain the extent and volume of the increase, particularly in the biggest centres of our population, where, of course, also the biggest incidence of unemployment exists. Although our country is still, thankfully, the most law-abiding in the world—as I venture to think it is from my experience of attending conferences of Ministers of Justice from different parts of the world—the amount of our serious crime is, nevertheless, still high. Last year there were 2·7 million cases; and one of the largest increases was among men between 17 and 21.
This brings me to what I regard as one of the most important measures mentioned in the Queen's Speech, namely, the Criminal Justice Bill. This is, in my view, not the moment to discuss the multifaceted causes of crime or disorder in our inner cities, or the role and responsibility of the police in those matters. For my own part I prefer to reserve judgment on them until we receive the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, about which I would like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, whether he can tell us when the report is likely to be published. It is something, coming from that great source, to which we are looking forward with rapt attention.
My Lords, I submit that there is already clear evidence that unemployment is a major contributory factor in crime, particularly youthful crime. This is not, of course, to excuse the crime or to diminish the need to stress the importance of maintaining the rule of law. Research carried out by Kent University, for instance, has shown that for every 1,000 more young unemployed 56 more young offenders are sent to penal establishments.
In areas of high unemployment not only does the crime rate go up but a higher proportion of the guilty tend to be locked up, courts being more disposed to pass a non-custodial sentence on a youth in a job. This development adds to our present crisis in prisons—and crisis state we are in. In the group of offenders in the 17 to 21 age group 106,000 were sent to prison last year, the highest in the decade, about 13 per cent, up on 1969. More of them were also sent immediately to prison. In the 14 to 17 age group there were comparable increases in both the number and proportion of custodial sentences. In 1980 about 7,500 males were sent either to detention centres or to borstal training compared with about 3,000 in 1970. Pleas to the courts from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the Home Secretary to reduce prison numbers have apparently little effect, and the number of people punished by custody last year rose by 4,000 to 47,000.
My Lords, the new Criminal Justice Bill, if it is to be of real value, must be directed to and must achieve some partial solution to this problem. Presumably it will contain the proposals which we have read in the Government's White Paper of October of this year, Young Offenders. It may well be that provision for a scheme of supervised early release for short-term prisoners will be included in the proposals, and I should be grateful if perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will lift the veil on that. I greatly hope that the rather hostile reception the Home Secretary got in the Tory Party Conference will not deter him from some of the

29
liberal views which he has expressed in this field in the past; I hope not.
One of the significant proposals in the White Paper was that the sentences of borstal training and imprisonment for those under 21 should be combined into a single new determinate sentence called "youth custody". I personally welcome that proposal. The present distinction between establishments for young prisoners and borstal establishments is, I believe, unnecessarily rigid, particularly since at present overcrowding in one part of the custodial system cannot be relieved by using vacancies in another part.
Another significant proposal is to reduce the minimum and maximum lengths of detention centre sentences, which are currently three months and six months respectively, to three weeks and four months respectively. In one sense this is welcome, since it will allow courts to shorten sentences for some of those who currently receive the minimum three months sentence. However, as the organisation NACRO has pointed out, there is an obvious danger that courts will impose the new shorter detention centre sentence on many young offenders who would now be given a non-custodial sentence. For example, the conference of Chief Probation Officers, in its comments on the White Paper, commented that the proposal,
"will lead to significantly larger numbers of young offenders being sentenced to custody and at earlier stages in their criminal careers than is the case at present".
Many other organisations have expressed similar fears, and in its recent very important report on Young Offenders, A Strategy for the Future the All-Party Parliamentary Penal Affairs Group concluded:
"While we are persuaded that the case for shorter maximum and minimum detention centre sentences is overwhelming, the implementation of the White Paper's proposals as they stand would almost certainly result in a large increase in the number of young offenders receiving custodial sentences".
And the group recommended that legislation should provide that custodial sentences should be imposed on young offenders only,
"if the offender is a real danger to society or has shown himself unwilling or unable to respond to non-custodial penalties",
and the courts should give reasons for this conclusion when they impose a custodial sentence. When the matter comes up we shall certainly be pressing this view on this side of the House.
My Lords, another change proposed in the White Paper—and it may well be we shall see it in the Bill—is that courts will be enabled to make a new residential care order for a period of up to six months on a juvenile offender who is already the subject of a care order in criminal proceedings and commits a further offence. Many of us believe that this is a retrograde step and may well result in turning the clock back by giving the courts greater powers to commit juveniles to residential establishments which, according to Home Office research studies in recent years, have reconviction rates of about 70 per cent. It would also involve the considerable expenditure of an extra £5 million a year on residential care, when again the consensus of opinion among those who work with juvenile offenders is that a shift of resources is needed away from residential care towards intermediate treatment, professional fostering in the community. I noticed that a distinguished magistrate was nodding in my direction when I said that.
30
The next proposal, and perhaps the most positive proposal in the White Paper, is the proposed new "supervised activities order", or "intermediate treatment order", which would enable courts to order a juvenile offender under supervision to undertake a programme of specified activities which has been agreed between the supervising social worker or probation officer, the court and the young offender. Even those intermediate treatment schemes which cater for the more difficult young offenders who would otherwise have gone into custody or residential care have reconviction rates of between 25 per cent, and 35 per cent., which, as your Lordships will see, are far better figures than the earlier one that I quoted and compare very favourably indeed with custodial and residential establishments. But no legislative provision for intermediate treatment can be effective unless it is supported by sufficient finance to develop a range of intermediate treatment facilities in which the courts can have confidence.
I have already referred to the proposals for early release of short-term prisoners. The Home Office's Review of Parole in England and Wales, published in May, invited comments on a proposed scheme by which prisoners serving sentences of under three years would have the middle third of the sentence suspended and the offender would be released under the supervision of a probation officer for that period, with remission of the final third of the sentence continuing to operate as now. That scheme, by reducing the effective terms of imprisonment served by a large number of short-term prisoners, could reduce the prison population by up to 7,000. We on this side of the House greatly hope that that proposal will be implemented in the forthcoming Bill.
The overwhelming weight of evidence from research, and of opinion of those working with offenders, indicates that many prison sentences could be shortened without endangering the public and that any impact which a custodial sentence may have occurs, especially with first offenders, mainly in the early stages of the sentence. The need for this proposal to be implemented as soon as possible was underlined in a speech by the Home Secretary himself on 21st September, when he pointed out that the prison population:
"recently exceeded 45,000, a level which the prison system simply cannot sustain. If nothing is done, we must expect to see a further rise in the population over the winter with the usual effects of seasonal fluctuation—46,000 by the spring is all too possible…. It would be hypocrisy to maintain that constructive standards of custodial treatment can be maintained under pressures of such numbers, or even maintain human decency".
That is the plight of our prisons and we therefore hope greatly that the Criminal Justice Bill will, as one of its main purposes, make a serious attempt to tackle it.
I now turn to another matter of concern as regards what is being done with our young people, and that is the gross inadequacy of the provisions for those in the 16 to 19 age group who do not go on to full-time higher education. I make no apology, in spite of the strictures of the noble and learned Lord about the financial and other problems that must necessarily flow. All I say is that this has a high place in the priorities for public expenditure. I think that this may well become the most important educational issue in this country in the next decade. The sombre fact is that the proportion of school-leavers in this country

31
who receive no form of further education or training is far larger than in those countries which are our main industrial competitors. In the face of the massive youth unemployment to which I have referred, this is a deplorable neglect of some of our finest national capital—namely, the industrial potential of our youth. I am glad to note from the report of yesterday's proceedings in another place that the Prime Minister referred to this matter in her speech, and we shall wait impatiently for the details of what she described as:
"a comprehensive training scheme for the young unemployed". —[Official Report, Commons, 4/11/81; col. 21.]
We should have had it a long time ago, even in the time of the earlier Administration, if I may say so. What I should like to know now is whether this training scheme will be on the lines of the Manpower Services Commission document, A New Training Initiative, which suggests more and better training and the need to get us nearer German and French standards and performance, which are far better and far more generous in provision and far more effective than ours.
For the intellectually most able of our young people it has been the tradition to provide a gradual transition from full-time education in school and university to full-time work. By contrast, for those judged to be less academically able, they must be in full-time attendance at school until the last day of term and the last year at school. They must do that, but one day later they are unemployed. It is a grim outlook.
As for university students, even those who have been granted places are now being turned away. The university intake is down 4,000 this year. Yet in Europe, only Greece and Ireland have a smaller proportion of 18-year olds in college than us. What a record for this good country! In our universities, polytechnics and technical colleges fewer opportunities than previously are now being provided for the age group not yet through the sixth form. What hope is there for the second-chance students and the mature students who now make up 25 per cent, of the student body? Sadly the proportion of working class students is falling. Government cuts in local authorities and imposed upon local authorities have meant that 16-year olds are being turned away from many establishments all over the country because of lack of accommodation and staff. These are matters which I am sure we shall be going into deeply as the months of the Session go on.
I see that time is passing, but I should like to end with a reference to one part of the gracious Speech which will be welcomed, I suspect, in all parts of the House—namely, that:
"My Government will seek to maintain close relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland".
It is nearly 12 months since the Prime Minister met in Dublin the then Taoiseach, Mr. Charles Haughey. I hope that I pronounced his name properly and that I also pronounced "Taoiseach" properly; as a mere Welshman these languages do not come so easily. I understand that these discussions will be resumed tomorrow when the Prime Minister meets the new Prime Minister of the Irish Republic Dr. Garret FitzGerald. There has been a good deal of criticism—and, I think, a good deal of it deserved—in your Lordships' House that the Dublin Summit discussions,
32
as they are called, and the subsequent departmental studies have been clouded with unnecessary secrecy. In turn, that has given rise to speculation, rumour and fears that have worsened rather than helped an already complex and tense political situation.
I understand that among the matters that are to be considered at tomorrow's meeting is, first, an all-Ireland judicial arrangement, with suitable court procedures. We had a go at this some years ago and I fear that no successful conclusion was reached, but I am all for having another try. I have little doubt that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack may also feel the same, because as a means of combating terrorism, the shelter given to terrorists in one part of the territory when they are being sought in the other is quite intolerable and obviously assists the foul deeds of the terrorists.
Another proposal is for the establishment of an Anglo-Irish consultative council, comprised of parliamentarians from Westminster and from the Dail, and of Northern Ireland elected representatives. This consultative council would be assisted by a suitably appointed representative secretariat and would deal with topics such as security, citizenship, human rights, trade, energy, tourism, industrial development and employment. Although it would, I think, be wise to be reticent about any dramatic political breakthroughs emerging from the meeting, we certainly hope that some practical institutional measures might be agreed which could enable pragmatic steps to be taken towards peaceful and prosperous solutions.
From these Benches, we would strongly urge that the communiqué following the meeting should be as full and forthright a statement of the issues as possible, for we feel sure that the people of common sense and goodwill in Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic will join in the hope that the talks will be constructive and successful and that fruitful political movement will take the place of violence, killing, bombs and tragedy.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, all of your Lordships will want to join me in welcoming back from his hazardous journey to Scotland the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He told us about his old Model T Ford motor car. May I say how pleased, if slightly surprised, we all are to rind that after all these years that car is still running so well.
Not for the first time in debating this part of the gracious Speech I had prepared some rather mundane observations upon some rather mundane measures, and then discovered that the whole atmosphere in your Lordships' House has been transformed by one of the inimitable philosophical and political disquisitions of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. In the course of those observations he mentioned Disraeli's dream of one nation. It was always a dream. There have always been tensions and anxieties in our society, and so far there has been no sign that they will be reconciled. I suppose that they have arisen partly from our deeply engrained class structure and partly from our industrial structure, which is so much the product of historical accident. No doubt to some extent it is encouraged by our educational system, and it is certainly not helped by some of the

33
more extreme inequalities of wealth that one sees as one looks around.
There have always been those stresses. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, indicated, the tragedy is that those stresses and strains have become worse over the last few years. They have become worse partly as a result of inflation, which has hit so many people so hard. One must perhaps remember that for all the Government's claims to have brought down the rate of inflation, it is still substantially higher than it was when they took office something over two years ago. There are the stresses of unemployment; there are the problems posed by trying to create a multiracial society.
All those matters have led to a situation in which, as I see it, there is a very real possibility that our society might fragment to the stage in which our democratic institutions are unlikely to survive. The great tragedy of the last few years is that that process of fragmentation is being actively encouraged by many of those in both the old parties who persist in advocating policies which can only divide our community.
In those circumstances it is hardly surprising that today the Liberal Party should have allies, and I certainly make no apology for that fact. I am delighted and proud to find that alongside us now, standing shoulder to shoulder, we have the SDP. I think that your Lordships ought to recognise—as I am sure many of your Lordships do recognise—that, in fact, it requires enormous courage for a person to dissociate himself from the political associations of a lifetime. It is, indeed, an indication of the unhappy state to which their former party has descended that so many of them are prepared to take that step. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack referred to the Liberal Party and its allies in terms that were perhaps not entirely complimentary. At least no one can accuse the Government of having allies, or indeed very many supporters.
In this situation it is perhaps a pleasure to be able to speak on this part of the gracious Speech rather than on the other days when we shall again be debating many measures that threaten further to divide our society. Today I simply wish to comment briefly on two or three of the principal aspects of the measures of home policy that are indicated in the gracious Speech, which I hope will be measures upon which a substantial amount of agreement can, in fact, be found in your Lordships' House.
I shall not follow what has been said so far about the general problems posed by the threat to the rule of law in this country, because, as has already been said, I think it would be wise to await the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, which clearly will raise some very profound and far-reaching issues. I want to comment briefly on one or two measures relating to the criminal law that are outlined in the gracious Speech; first, and particularly perhaps, those that relate to the treatment of juvenile offenders. I for my part would certainly welcome an attempt to tidy up the situation as regards the indeterminate and not very successful borstal sentences. I would certainly welcome the proposal—I hope that it will be forthcoming—that we should remove the bar upon the passing of sentences between six months, or in some cases 18 months, and three years' imprisonment
34
upon young offenders, because I do not have the slightest doubt that on many occasions in the past that has led to youngsters being sent to prison for three years when the judge has in fact thought that the appropriate sentence was perhaps 18 months or two years. I shall certainly approach with the greatest of interest and sympathy the proposals that will be made, as I understand it, in the Bill to propose new forms of treatment, or punishment, or penalty, for young offenders.
It is important that we should try to get that right. There is at the moment a vast range of possible penalty going from the absolute discharge at one end of the scale to the short, sharp shock, or indeed the substantial sentence of imprisonment at the other end. I say it is important to get that right. At the same time I hope I will not be thought too pessimistic if I suggest that we are unlikely to achieve any very substantial breakthrough simply by devising new forms of penalty. All the experience of our reconviction rates tends to show that they are really remarkably similar whatever form of punishment is inflicted upon juvenile offenders.
Of course, we must get the sentence right. But it is desirable to recognise that in itself increasing the range of sentencing is unlikely to solve many of our problems. I am not meaning to suggest by that that therefore juvenile offenders are incorrigible. Fortunately they grow up, and experience tends to show that what really leads a young offender to abandon a career of crime is not the way in which he is dealt with by the courts; it is the fact that he does grow up, and he gets married and settles down, and at least in happier times he has a job to which to go.
I referred to the fact that of course it is necessary on some occasions to send these young offenders to prison. I shall look with the greatest of care at the Bills that are proposed and brought forward in this Session to see to what extent we can in fact decrease the stress on our prisons, because the danger of the over-population of our prisons, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, referred is indeed a very serious one. I would hope that perhaps there might be a gleam of light. It may be that the Government will find it possible to increase the number of detoxification centres so that we can get some of the drunks out of prison. It may be that we can consider ways of getting the prostiutes out of prison, the vagrants, the people who are there because they defaulted on paying a fine: no less than 17,000 of them in 1979 sent to prison for failing to pay a financial penalty.
Those are ways in which we can perhaps remove some of the pressure on our prisons. There are other ways that are foreshadowed in the gracious Speech. There is the way which has been referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, of adopting some of the proposals in the 1981 Home Office review of parole; of extended parole to shorter sentences. I am not quite as enthusiastic about this as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, because I see certain problems. I see problems particularly with the very short sentences where it may be difficult to make the administrative arrangements in time in fact to get a person released after he has served a third of the very short sentence.
Certainly some of the administrative proposals set out in the White Paper seemed to me to be rather unnecessarily complex. I still cannot help thinking

35
that a simpler solution would be to revert to the system of remission that we have in Northern Ireland whereby people are normally granted a remission of one-half of their sentence rather than one-third. It seems to me that that would immediately, overnight, at a stroke—to use an expression not unknown in political circles—reduce the number of people in our prisons. It is a course that could be taken with reasonable safety, and it is a course that would not lead Her Majesty's judges to lengthen sentences in order to compensate for that factor.
The only other matter about the prison population that I desire to refer to is that I understand that there is a suggestion that Section 47 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 might now be activated, and the courts given power when passing sentence to say that sentences should be partly served and partly suspended. I view that with some worry. I cannot help thinking that the likely effect of it is not going to be to cause fewer people to be sent to prison but more people to be sent to prison. I say that because it is certainly my own experience, and I am sure that of everybody else who has ever sat in a judicial capacity, that we all strain every possible nerve to be as compassionate as possible in dealing with prisoners who have to be sentenced. In the contemporary political jargon, all judges are "wets", and I have no doubt are not in the least ashamed of it.
If there can ever be a case for suspending a sentence, on 99 occasions out of 100 that sentence will be suspended. As it stands at present, that means that the whole of the sentence would have to be suspended. I am deeply worried that the effects of activating this section will be that it will present the judges with a soft option. The thought that, although they would in the ordinary way now have suspended the whole of the sentence, it might be possible on this occasion to put the man inside for three months, or six months, and then suspend the rest of the sentence. I have considerable anxieties on that score.
As to the other matters of criminal law that are proposed, I would welcome the proposal that traffic cases, at least the minor traffic cases, should be taken out of the courts and dealt with so far as possible on a fixed penalty system. I would welcome the proposal that it should not be essential that every eight days prisoners who are on remand in custody should have to be produced at court, subject to satisfactory safeguards, because I think that causes an immense waste of time and administrative resources.
I think that the safeguards would have to be, first, that the prisoner gives his consent in writing on a carefully prepared form to his not appearing on a particular occasion; secondly, that he is legally represented on such an occasion; and, thirdly, that there is a clear limit to the number of occasions upon which that procedure can be adopted in successive weeks before the prisoner in fact has to be brought up and to appear in person.
The only other matters I would mention in the field of criminal law are to ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, whether there is any possibility of any progress being made in implementing some of the more important recommendations of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure. It was an important
36
report, and it is necessary that it should not be pigeon-holed indefinitely.
The only other matter in the gracious Speech to which I would want to refer for a brief moment is the proposal that there should be legislation to deal with mental health. I assume that that is intended to refer, at least to some extent, to the judgment being delivered today by the European Court of Human Rights, which I anticipate will confirm the decision of the Commission to the effect that in order to comply with the European convention there will in future have to be a right of access to a tribunal to determine whether or not restricted mental patients can be released. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, could confirm if that is going to be the situation, and whether he has perhaps any later information than I have as to what the decision of the European Court has been. We shall want to look at that Bill and many other important elements relating to the treatment of the mentally sick with great care when that measure is placed before the House.
There are many other matters in the gracious Speech to which I could have referred, but perhaps it is better to leave my observations until such time as those Bills come before us. I look forward, and I know that we on the Liberal Benches look forward, to debating at least those measures to which I have been referring, not in a spirit of party controversy but in a spirit of seeking to do our best to reform the law to the benefit of the whole community.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, many fantasies have swung before my eyes in my life but never one that I, who am the simplest of simple Scottish farmers, should address your Lordships for the first time immediately after three of the most eminent advocates (if I may use a Scottish connotation) in the land. I hope it is not presumptious of me to address your Lordships on what is the very first day of what is fundamentally perhaps the most important debate in the Session, and on virtually the first day of the Session itself. However, I am by so doing enabled to cling on to a discipline which I imposed on myself many years ago, which was to say only a few words on a subject about which I happen to have some knowledge.
The origin of that goes back some 45 years to what I believe was my very first utterance in public. I was 17 years old and rather unexpectedly, having started farming six months previously, was invited to propose a vote of thanks. I got up and remember saying with supreme confidence that I could not say with what satisfaction and pleasure I had recently become a member of the oldest profession in the world. Such was that age of innocence that I had not the faintest idea what I had said which had caused my mother to blush deeply and every gentleman in the hall to blow his nose loudly. Ever since then, including my years in another place, I have maintained a determination not to speak on matters of which I know nothing.
I fear I shall touch on a subject in the gracious Speech which is perhaps mundane, although I believe that from what I shall say about it good may come. I had the privilege of chairing the Committee of

37
Inquiry into Local Government in Scotland, of which mention is made in the gracious Speech. Your Lordships may recall that there was what I think can fairly be described as a revolution in local government in Scotland as a result of the Royal Commission in 1975 presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, resulting—and I exclude the Scottish Islands—in two tiers of authority, regions and districts. Five years after that, I believe it was fairly commonly agreed that, while it was too soon for any radical change to be made or to condemn the system, if condemnation it needed, after only five years, there was room for what perhaps I can best describe as a tidying-up exercise.
I make no pronouncements on the individual findings of the committee. Nor do I know which of our recommendations will feature in the Bill. I wish to record my appreciation of all those who worked with me on the committee, including the secretariat; a group of members if not belonging to all parties, then certainly representative of many. When we started I doubt whether any of us believed that we could meet the timetable asked of us by the Secretary of State, namely, to report in 12 months. But we did, and I assure the House that there was no horse trading of any kind between those whose loyalties lay with the 53 districts and those who were representatives of the nine regions.
We made 72 recommendations, of which 68 were unanimous and only one caused the committee to split into three groups, generating a minority report and a note of dissent. All this speaks volumes for what can be agreed by people of widely differing views if goodwill prevails among them. We found a common link which served us well—a distrust of dual responsibility—and the basic result of our report is the recommendation to assign all those functions—for which, since 1975, both region and district have shared responsibility—quite firmly to one tier or other. Local government is a very sensitive plant just now, my Lords, and I conclude by saying how much I hope the spirit which animated our discussions of some of its problems in Scotland may permeate the legislation which is to be based upon them.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, it is my great pleasure to speak following the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, who comes to us after 15 years' membership of another place, for eight of which he and I sat opposite each other, facing each other—very nice for me, perhaps not quite so nice for him—years in which we began at first to recognise and finally to realise that here was a man with a great knowledge of farming in his own country of Scotland. The noble Lord described himself as a simple Scottish farmer. May I be permitted to delete the word "simple"? His chairmanship of the inquiry into local government in Scotland, referred to in the gracious Speech, confirms what most of us have known of him over the years, namely, that he is a man of very considerable ability; he is more than a simple Scottish farmer. It has been a great pleasure to listen to his maiden speech today and I am sure that in the years to come we shall hear him on many occasions, when no doubt my former friend of my former party, the
38
noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, will be replying to him in great detail.
I was glad to hear in the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a reference to the new political party, the SDP, and to our alliance with a much older party, the Liberal Party. The noble and learned Lord's reference was slightly derogatory, but not unkind—he is never unkind. But he said that perhaps the electorate were bewildered. I think I agree: they are. They are considerably bewildered, and have perfectly good reason to be so. They are bewildered by the actions of the present Government and by what has happened, and what is continuing to happen, unfortunately, in my former party, where most of my old colleagues have not moved one inch from the beliefs that I used to hold. Since I have referred to the new party, it might be of interest to the House to know that the latest print-out of members of the party shows that more than half of them have never previously belonged to a political party. This is fascinating, and I hope that it is of interest, not only to me and my party, but to all political parties, because people are thinking, and are sitting up and taking notice.
I was delighted to hear in the gracious Speech and from the Lord Chancellor this afternoon that we shall be having a Criminal Justice Bill. Following two distinguished lawyers in the list of speakers, I do not intend to deal with that in detail, but I think it not unfair to remind the House and the country of some of the things that are happening to us today in the community. Unfortunately, very often we close our minds to these things, with the usual thought: "They can never happen to me. I refer to what is known by a rather new word in our vocabulary, mugging. In seconding the loyal Address yesterday the noble Lord referred to the work of the police, who are completely stretched in dealing with this problem. It is generally accepted that the problem exists, and that the problem of violence and vandalism also exists within this country, and I do not regard it as any defence to say, "Well, maybe it is worse in America or in some other country". We are concerned about those other countries, but we are very concerned about what happens here. Mugging (to use that new word) is taking place in daylight and darkness, with old people as well as young people beaten up and robbed, and very often left in great pain—for what? For the sake of stealing only a few pounds.
This is not in fact a new form of lawlessness. I suppose that the muggers of today would have been called footpads or highwaymen a couple of hundred years ago. The offence is still there. In those days it seems to have been dealt with by the action of a growing police force, seen on the roads doing their job. I hope that with a new police force in this country—and it is a new police force, at least it is a much larger one, with better terms and conditions of pay and service—the problem will be dealt with in precisely the same way. Thinking back in this historic Chamber, it occurs to me that it was not so very long ago when, on the cry of, "Who goes home?" the linkboys with their torches used to have to escort Members of Parliament across Parliament Fields for their own safety. The problem is not yet quite as bad as that,

39
but it could become that bad, and we recognise that it is there.
A few years ago we had no problem of violence and vandalism in sport, but now that, too, is growing. In the old days competing football team supporters would criticise one another and jocularly refer to one another. But today it is the bottle and the knife, and very often there are disturbances and fighting long before supporters reach the ground where the event is to take place. That trend, too, is very disturbing.
I am rather worried about what used to be called peaceful demonstrations. Demonstrations in our streets ought not to worry us. We ought to be glad that people can get together and march peacefully with their banners and slogans if they wish—but in peace. Unfortunately today we have another form of demonstration, which one might call the provocative demonstration, in which people carry flags, and often misuse the Union Jack, and are followed by a crop of boys, very often skinheads, purposely parading through the areas of the country where racial trouble is likely to be fomented. That goes on. We see it going on.
One reason why we should deal with it is that it begets problems of the same kind. It means that there are counter-demonstrations: when the two sides meet there is always trouble, and usually it is the police and the bystanders who are at the receiving end. So we must think seriously about what I call provocative demonstrations, because something may have to be done about this situation. I know that I shall be accused of interfering with the freedom of speech, but there is very little freedom resulting from the actions of some of these people.
I am not so sure that the political meeting is as immune from trouble as it used to be. At one time those of us who took part in such meetings welcomed the heckler because usually we had a good reply. We welcomed the discussion and questions at the end. But what do you get now? Not so very long ago in this country a former Cabinet Minister was pulled off the platform and almost beaten with chairs. I mention these points only because, as I said earlier, we are inclined to say, "Well, it does happen, but it will never happen to us", but I am afraid that it does.
I am not sure that the radio coverage involving what are known as the "noises off" from another place is all that helpful. Sitting in another place hearing catcalls and other noises people can perhaps to some extent understand the situation, since they are seeing what is going on and are listening to the debate, but when it comes over the radio what is happening today in the British Parliament seems disturbing. Here again, I shall probably be accused of wanting to stifle freedon of speech.
I cannot accept, as some people seem to suggest, that the majority of our problems are attributable to mass unemployment. I think that it is a contributory factor, because when people have nothing to do they feel disturbed, but I do not think that that is the cause of most of our troubles of the kind that I have described. I am old enough to remember the 'thirties, with barefooted children, the soup kitchens, with soup a half-penny a bowl, and with demonstrations and marches. But there was very little trouble and vandalism for the
40
police to deal with. So the trouble of which I speak is of our present generation. It is happening today. It might be happening in other countries, too, but that is no reason why we should condone it. I do not think that there is a simple remedy, but I welcome the criminal justice Bill, and three points that I proposed to make disappeared as I listened to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. So I shall not repeat them, but I shall refer to one or two aspects arising from them.
I would agree with the noble and learned Lord that perhaps the idea of removing a juvenile from home for a period of six months, so as to be placed into some form of care—which was suggested in a Government publication—is not a good one. For a kiddie of 13 or 14 years of age the best place to be is at home, where he will be under parental control, if there is any, but with strong supervision during the daytime. That can happen under the system to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has already referred, which involves what is known as intermediate treatment. I am a little worried that there might be placed in children's homes, or perhaps fostered out, juvenile delinquents, offenders—they are offenders—alongside children who are in the home simply because they are homeless, as often happens. That might be a real mistake.
I would refer to just one other point that I think we ought to bear in mind, and that is the question already mentioned by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, though perhaps I can do it in another way, being a layman. It concerns the problem of the convicted prisoner sentenced to three years, who, anyway, would normally expect to receive remission of one-third of his sentence if he behaves himself. If they are non-violent offenders, if they have been sent to prison for the sort of thing which has been described to us—non-payment of debt, and so on—there is the suggestion which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, made (it was in the Government publication) that the seeond one-third of their sentence should be spent in suspension; that is to say, that it should be a suspended sentence for the period of the second one-third of their sentence.
Perhaps I can explain it in another way. The suggestion is that if it is a three-year sentence they should serve the first year in prison—and it is the first few months in prison which are the most salutory; for the second year it should be a suspended sentence and they would be within the community, and for the third year they would have been granted remission anyway, provided they were the right sort of offender and were non-violent. That would save £7,000, which is the cost of maintaining a prisoner in jail for a year; and the cost of supervision is a fraction of that—about one-twenty-fifth of it; somewhere about £250. These are the sort of things that I think we can do and the sort of things that I hope we shall see when we have the Criminal Justice Bill before us.
My Lords, it is not my intention to go on any longer. I have many more notes but, as I have said, my points disappeared one after another. However, I would hope that these proposals—and they were in Government papers—will be seriously considered by the Government when the Criminal Justice Bill is drafted,

41
so that they can be of some help to the solution of the problems that I have enumerated. There is no short answer to any problem of lawlessness, but we have got to keep on trying. I am anxious—and I expect many other Members of the House are, too—to see what the Government propose in this field.
4.53 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I, too, should like to join in the welcome and congratulations to Lord Stodart of Leaston on his maiden speech. We reiterate the words of the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, in all that he has said about him. Perhaps it is salutary that a bishop from the particularly English establishment should be reminded once again of the wisdom that comes from north of the Border. We are very appreciative of it. My Lords, it has been a privilege for those of us who hold episcopal office and sit on these episcopal Benches to take a regular share in the thinking and debating on the wider issues confronting our nation. I rise, sadly for myself, for the last time before I relinquish the See of Worcester in a few days' time, which will not permit me to make a contribution next week.
I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to certain issues that arise from the gracious Speech of Her Majesty which indicate the resolution of the Government to
"help…those groups and individuals most hard-pressed by the recession".
This resolve to direct help certainly is to be welcomed, but it also calls for identifying the areas in which help is needed and the communities that call for priority treatment.
As I see it, in the all-inclusive term "unemployed" we have in the life of the nation something that we have not experienced before. The social consequences of the present recession are very different from those of the 1930s. Today, we have had created for us a wide and varied community requiring special care—and this is not just a temporary issue. I refer, of course, to a rapidly increasing number of young people with little prospect of work, and consequently no objectives in life. For a time the numbers of our jobless were growing twice as fast in this country as they were in any other country of the EEC. Now, sadly, the whole of Western Europe is sharing in this tragic situation affecting the younger generation.
I cannot and would not enlarge on the demoralisation, on the despair and, recently, on the violence and lawlessness that is all too evident in our urban areas. It affects all departments of central and local government. For the health authority and for our doctors it means a greater incidence of petty sickness, of depression and of breakdown; and particularly does this apply to the middle-aged redundant. It is not possible to quantify the incidence of family tragedies that lies behind the present employment situation. It is not possible to identify or quantify the number of suicides, although statistics are available for such tragic situations.
We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, for the manner in which he so clearly outlined the statistical situation that now confronts the nation. It affects the whole of our home policy. For the police authority, as, indeed, for the
42
health authority, it is all too clear that the loss of respect for law and order is totally related to unemployment. For the Department of Education and Science there is a crisis now—a fresh crisis—in trying to relate school life and school curriculums to a life of useful work, to a life in industry or to a life of apparent constant leisure.
The Department of Education and Science has as substantial a part to play in all these matters, as does the Department of Employment. In this last department the sheer weight of numbers expecting help from the careers service, from the Manpower Services Commission and other agencies, inevitably leads to complaints of maladministration and much else. The weight of responsibility falling upon that department is very heavy. My Lords, it is for this reason, that a body of unemployed affects the whole home situation, that I am bold enough to talk about it today.
The programme of the Manpower Services Commission in this area is, of course, a vital one. It involves as much as 40 per cent. of the nearly 3 million unemployed because 40 per cent. of our present unemployed are under the age of 24. This is a frightening figure, and one that we never experienced 50 years ago. Some would try to tell us that the Youth Opportunities Programme, with nearly half a million participants, is sick, dying or decaying. As chairman of the board in Birmingham I see no sign of that. Each Monday more than 12,000 young people start a new daily routine, including training, work experience and further experience, replacing enforced idleness.
What is to be noted is that a programme designed for a few is now becoming essential and normal for the many. In 1978 the programme helped one in eight of school-leavers; in this last year it has helped one in two of school-leavers. Half our school-leavers are now dependent upon national assistance of one sort or another. This is a new social situation to which the Government and society need to address themselves. Administratively, it means that in 1982, which will soon be upon us, 620,000 young people are expected to seek the advice or the placement in training or work experience of some Government agency or another. Without it we should be increasingly embarrassed with a disgruntled and apathetic generation. We can welcome the new training initiative that was outlined by the Minister in another place a few weeks ago, but the question before us, as I see it, is this: Are the Government, as they look at the total situation of their home affairs, to be seen as running a programme for the unemployed as if this was a temporary problem; or are we to plan for taking them out of the labour market and to create for them a worthwhile training and experiencing situation that will engage their interest, their loyalty and their discipline?
At present there is total ferment in this area of the nation's life for those between 16 and 20. To put it politely. I use the word "ferment". There is ferment in the field of the school-leavers, of further education, of technical training and of work experience. Some would say that there is chaos in the nation at the moment. We have our technical colleges offering generally reduced courses owing to reduced grants, we have our industrial training boards presently subjected to much uncertainty, leading to ill-trained labour

43
in such areas as road transport, catering or other industries. We have training workshops, we have skill centres of the Manpower Services Commission which are particularly helpful, let us note, to the ethnic groups in our cities; and, at a time when, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, pointed out, other nations are increasing their intake into higher education, we are reducing the opportunities at home. Added to this, we now have the proposals of what is called the young workers' scheme.
My Lords, I have to regret that the tentative proposal that was made a good many months ago that would have involved work experience for young people with the armed forces, predominantly with the army, was not allowed to proceed. I have reason to think that the Service authorities would have considered fairly willingly a work experience scheme for some thousands of young unemployed. It would have given them an opportunity of learning a trade, of seeing the meaning of a disciplined community and it would have been of benefit to all concerned. Of course, I appreciate the danger of such a scheme being confused in the public mind with national service or with some compulsory programme for young people. Many young people, however, have profited greatly from a short experience in uniform. There is also the point that we would do well to encourage the armed services (as with other employers) to look more seriously at some of the less able youngsters; and it is the community of the less able that at present are most in need.
Whether future industrial training or the care of this community of young people is to be done under statutory boards or by voluntary arrangement, is it not now essential that there should be some overall statutory framework providing adequate local and central co-ordination? We have the resources for training that would enable us to take this whole age group right out of the unemployment register—as they have done successfully in Germany and other countries.
It is my hope that this House will continue to give continued deep thought to the pattern not just of ameliorating unemployment but to the pattern of employment and training that needs to be prepared and laid down; otherwise a whole generation may very easily go by the board. I hope therefore that I may be excused for having raised this matter, as have others, in the debate today. We from these Benches have a very remarkable opportunity in our dioceses of observing the whole picture, and not just the ecclesiastical one. I, for my part, feel that a very serious new situation is upon us affecting a whole generation, affecting a whole community, which will not easily be swept away. It is a whole problem, it is a problem that affects a considerable proportion of our population and it calls for fresh thought and fresh planning.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will allow me to say how sorry many of us, if not the entire House, will be that this is the last time we are likely to hear the right reverend Prelate. I have known him for a good many years and I think that many of your Lordships will feel as I feel: that while he has
44
been here he has served not only this House very well but the Church very well. There was a time when I complained that we heard very little from the bishops; but in recent years—and whether they have done what we on this side of the House wanted them to do does not matter—they have taken very strong action in a number of ways. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester has been one of them and we have been all the better for his contribution and experience. We are sorry to lose him and we wish him all that he wishes himself.
My Lords, it was not my intention, nor is it my intention, to deliver what might be termed a political speech. I really wanted to follow the road taken by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor; but he having gone down that road has made it abundently clear to me that it would be presumption on my part to try to accompany him or to add anything to what he has said. Many of us admire his great thought process even if we do not always agree with him. What I want to do is to talk to noble Lords opposite. When I say "noble Lords opposite" I exclude the Front Bench, because I do not think I could make the slightest impression upon them if I were to speak day and night; but I hope that behind them there will be some fertile places that I might be able to reach.
The reaction of the press to the gracious Speech, if we are honest about it, from the Government's point of view, must leave much to be desired. The noble Baroness the Leader of this House yesterday said that while she could not promise very much in the forthcoming Session, she could promise us less legislation. But if your Lordships look at the legislation that is coming, you will see that it is going to be just as controversial, and, I think, as time-consuming, as anything we had in the last Session. I do not object to that. I really want to talk about our differences because I think that the situation we are facing at the present time is one of supreme importance and one that we have got to do something about very soon.
I think that it is perfectly right and proper that we should defend our principles—principles which are held very strongly on both sides of the House. For example, the principles of privatisation, which come from the Conservative side; principles of state control in some fields and also of public utilities, which come from this side. It is right and proper, because they are deeply held principles, that we should hold them strongly, defend them and do what we can to implement them. I have no quarrel with the other side for doing that. What I do say is that there is a moral obligation on every Government, and particularly the present Government. I say "particularly the present Government" because it the past two years we have seen that they have lost a good deal of support in the country. They have lost a good deal of support among their own supporters, both inside Parliament and outside Parliament. Therefore it should be a matter of supreme importance that they examine the reason why their particular beliefs are at such a low ebb at the present moment. The reason for that is, as many of us feel, that there has been an almost complete and utter disregard for those who have fallen by the wayside.
There is much legislation which affects the standards of living of ordinary people. No government can get

45
through a term of office without having to face up to the standards of living of ordinary people, particularly the aged, the mentally and physically handicapped and the families where the breadwinner is unemployed. It may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, is right when he says that you cannot attach too much importance to the problem of unemployment when it conies to anti-social behaviour. It is not the anti-social behaviour which exercises my mind at this present moment, although it does, generally speaking. What exercises my mind is this: I believe that there has been too little thought given to the standard of living and the standard of life which so many of our people have had to endure in the past two years, and are likely to endure unless the Government really step aside and take a look at what is happening.
We talk so easily about 2 million, 3 million or 4 million unemployed; but do we realise that the problem is an individual one? One cannot lump all these together. I believe—and I want to say this as nicely as I can—that over the past two years the Government have been unbelievingly callous to the needs of so many people in the community. One has only to look, as I say, at the record of the past two years. Recently one daily newspaper went so far as to say:
"Had any board of directors defrauded its shareholders like this Government has cheated the voters, it would have found itself in the dock of the Old Bailey".
The Government's performance illustrates the quite remarkable difference between what they do when in government and what they promise to do when in opposition.
If one looks at the local authority social services departments, which have already had to make substantial cuts in their services, they need increased resources to enable them to maintain the present reduced services. It cannot be argued, as it has been argued in the past, that everybody, including the unemployed, must share in any cut in living standards. I imagine that your Lordships will be as surprised as I was when I read some official statistics quite recently which said:
"What is less often recognised is that each year there are 4½ million separate registrations for unemployment".
Every year 4½ million! Not 3 million, not 2,900,000. It means that the unemployment period is of short duration—thank goodness for something!
I wonder how many of your Lordships realise that a single unemployed man receives £20.65p per week. If he has a wife or an adult dependent, he receives another £12.75p unless the wife is earning more than £12.75p. These are the people that we are told would sooner be on the dole.
A noble Lord: "Get on your bikes".
Lord Wells-Pestell: Or, my Lords, "get on your bikes". At the dinner held at No. 10 Downing Street last Tuesday those attending were asked to pay £23.50p for the meal, which was £1.50p more than last year. I mention that—and I do not object to it—as I am merely illustrating that the price of that dinner is more than a single unemployed man gets for one week to pay his rent, heating, lighting and everything that he needs. Your Lordships may think that it is a poor
46
comparison—I might even agree with you. I do not object, for if one has dinners one has to pay for them, and I do not suggest that this is going on every night. But it is more than a single unemployed man gets for a whole week. I know that was a very special occasion, but it should serve as a reminder to those attending that they were spending something considerably in excess of what is being given to one single unemployed man for one week.
The social security budget has already been cut by almost £1,500 million. Can anyone seriously say that those affected could afford a reduction in their standard of living which such cuts mean? I read yesterday that, under a new rent rebate formula imposed by the Department of the Environment, thousands of pensioners will have to pay up to £1.30p per week more in rent from 23rd November. Where in the world are they going to find the £1·30p? There is a lot of hidden reductions in the standard of living: a large number of young people who are working today in full-time employment, are, because of increased bank rate, paying as much as £5 per week—£20 a month—more in rent. This is not provided for. It means tightening the belt and cutting the expenditure. In The Times of 28th October I read this:
"The Government's own advisory committee on social security declared yesterday that not only does it believe there is no room for further cuts in benefits but that those affecting the unemployed should be restored as soon as possible".
This is a Government committee, not a political committee—an independent Government committee recently set up.
We are facing the possibility of cuts in the next few months affecting not only social services but social security, and even possibly some of our long-term benefits. Only this year some short-term benefits were reduced, the unemployment benefit by 5 points. You may say everybody has to make a contribution. What I want to say is this: I believe that there is a moral obligation on every one of us to see that those in the community who are having a difficult time find some greater relief than they are getting from society at the moment. There is abundant evidence that in the last two years the poor have got poorer and rich have got richer. Is it beyond the wit of the experts to see that the "haves" contribute a little more than they are contributing at the moment, for the benefit of those more unfortunately placed in the community? I know this means some form of taxation, but Chancellors are very good at increasing taxation when they want to, and it is not difficult to devise a scheme of taxation where perhaps a little more can be taken from those who can afford a little more than they are giving at the moment.
I do not want to talk about all the social evils that are stemming from the kind of existence so many people in this country are being subjected to at this moment. They are legion. For the first time in our history, in recent months there has been a very, very substantial increase in baby and child battering. But what is also significant is that there are now more and more husbands who are unemployed and are doing the battering, where before it was certainly mother and child. This is because, so I am told, so many men are so, shall I say? demoralised by their continuing to be unemployed. We do not know what the suicide

47
rate is at the moment among the unemployed, but certainly it is going up.
All I would say to my noble friends—because many of them are—is this: I invite you to look really hard at what is happening. I am inviting you to make representations to your Government, to our Government, to see that far greater consideration is given to the needs of a vast army of men and women who are finding it very difficult to lead a normal life. If we look at the situation from that point of view, and if the pressure can come from those noble Lords in this House who support the Government, I think there might be even a more effective result than anything we on this side of the House can bring about.
5.25 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, before I start on my few words this afternoon I should like to add my voice to those in your Lordships' House who have paid tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. I have long admired him and I know a great deal about his work, as he represents in Worcester the see in which I was born and brought up. Therefore I know a great deal about him; and we shall miss him very much indeed and also his words of wisdom. I should like also to congratulate the noble Lord the canny Scot from over the Border who addressed us this afternoon in his maiden speech. I am sure we shall all look forward to all the wisdom he has to give us in the future.
The debate this afternoon, from my point of view anyway, is about people. I am therefore delighted to be able to follow my noble friend Lord Fairfax in the very eloquent and caring speech from one of the youngest Members in your Lordships' House. He must indeed, I feel, have given many in this Chamber a reassurance that the future is in good hands. I want to concentrate my few remarks on the present plight, as other noble Lords have done, and the future hopes of the young unemployed. I am indeed grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, for giving us the statistics—I have them all too, but I need not say them again. I am sorry I was nodding my head in agreement with the noble and learned Lord. He just caught my eye and I did not know until that moment that I could still blush.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will forgive me, I was enchanted by her approval.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, through research and personal knowledge I have built up a picture of these young people, which is this. A young person leaves school with high hopes but often with the prospect of time on his or her hands instead of the routine to which they have become accustomed in school. They apply for jobs—perhaps 70, 80 or even up to one hundred jobs—and they get no reply. They get depressed and bored and think that nobody wants them. They start frequenting the pubs, the discos and street corners. A boy then finds a girl who wants him and they live together either at his home or at hers, or in a squat. Within a year a baby is born; they apply to the council for accommodation which they can rarely afford because neither is earning. He is encouraged by his common law wife—they are both
48
at this time 18 or 19 years of age—to look for work again: more applications, more disappointments, no job. Money is short and the quickest way to get it is mugging, robbery or burglary—all of which, as we know, in this age group are on the increase.
By this time there are two children and the common law wife is getting frustrated at having him under her feet all day. He frequents the pub much too regularly, the football matches occasionally, and otherwise loafs around unwanted and with nothing to do. The Government are doing a very great deal and I certainly do not want this afternoon to underestimate their endeavours, but, according to the figures, even after some training jobs are still very scarce. I should like to see the training of the more enterprising of the young people extended to a year. I say "enterprising" because I want them to be encouraged to go abroad to help in third world countries and try to follow on the ideals of the Brandt Report. I am well aware of the Community Service Volunteers and of all the good they do, but I should like this country to pay people to go abroad. We all know that the needs of some of the African countries are very great, but we also know that they are very poor. I should like to see young people, who have some skills, invited to go out on the unemployment pay supplied by us to transmit those skills to the emerging nations.
But, surely, we must now face the fact—although I submit it is late—that the age of technology means that never again in these almost over-populated islands will there be full employment. We read that from Japan they can export a full, roboted factory for £9 million. We know that cars are made without being touched by human hand. We look at the countryside to see machines cutting our hedges, to see machines digging our ditches, to see machines gathering fruit crops. How many thousands of people have therefore become unnecessary in the countryside? We are, of course, getting used to the computer, but that means that there will be fewer and fewer office workers.
Of course, trained people will be needed to make the machines that we are now using, but I submit that if the population of these islands remains as high as it is, there will not be enough occupation for them all. This is why, following my noble friend's remarks yesterday, I urge the Government to legislate for leisure, to use the usually empty soccer fields that we see every day, to encourage the building of more games complexes, to try to restore interest in crafts of all kinds—those that have been lost to us for a very long time. But we also need to legislate for people's lives, because the idea of many of our citizens being condemned to live their lives in boredom, depression and despair, with no incentive to use the talents which I believe we all have, is a tragic waste.
I was delighted this afternoon to hear the noble Baroness the Leader of this House give us the outlines of a Select Committee,
"appointed to consider and make recommendations on long-term remedies for unemployment",
because, for the present, I sometimes wonder whether the system is the servant of the people or their master. For the future, I feel that an urgent priority is that we should adapt our thinking to the well-being of the citizens of this technological age.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it seemed to a committee of your Lordships' House of which I have the privilege to be a member, that sometimes repeated eulogies to a maiden speaker bred a feeling of some insincerity by the time the eighth or ninth eulogy had been expressed. Nevertheless, I should like from these Benches to say how much we enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston. I especially enjoyed it, because he referred, as one knew he would, to local government, on which I want to say a word or two in my speech.
That self-same committee also said—and said it from time to time—that the speeches in some of your Lordships' debates could well be curtailed. Bearing in mind that there are some 25 speakers who are casting their eloquence into your Lordships' tolerant ears, I feel that I ought to set an example as a member of the committee by making four concise, short points on matters referred to in the gracious Speech relating specifically to home affairs. The first point which I should like to make is on the reference in the gracious Speech to measures which will be brought forward
"to amend the law relating to the assumption of civil jurisdiction by courts in the United Kingdom and for the reciprocal enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters".
I do not have the slightest doubt that that is entirely meritorious and will, no doubt, have the unanimous approval of your Lordships' House when such legislation is brought forward. But if we are dealing with matters relating to civil law, may I put in a plea that the now fairly ancient Pearson Report, which was presented to Parliament some four and a half years ago and which, as your Lordships will well remember, was the report of a Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury, is, at long last, dealt with?
It was only within the last month that the Court of Appeal referred to the most unsatisfactory state of the law relating to damages in civil injury cases. If I may paraphrase what two of the learned Lord Justices said, including, indeed, the Master of the Rolls, the law is confused and confusing; it is unjust and it is unbalanced. The learned judges appealed to Parliament to put the matter right by appropriate legislation. The Pearson Report was debated at length in your Lordships' House some time ago and I put in a plea for something to be done by way of a measure to deal with this very important matter which, at the present moment, is not dealt with satisfactorily in our law.
My second point is in regard to a matter which has been dealt with so eloquently and adequately. It is the part of the gracious Speech which says:
"Legislation will be introduced to improve the criminal justice system in England and Wales".
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, referred to a report—which, happily, is rather more recent then the Pearson Report—by the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, which was presented to Parliament in January 1981. One of the grave difficulties in regard to our criminal procedures at the moment, which certainly reflects no credit upon it, is the great time and expense taken and incurred in our criminal trials. It is a matter which I know is of great concern to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, as indeed it was a matter of the gravest concern to my noble and
50
learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones when he was Lord Chancellor.
The Phillips Report dealt with reforms that could be made to the pre-trial procedure and, in rather touching terms, the report ends at page 196 of its first volume by saying
"If the fundamental balance in pre-trial procedure is to be held firmly and steadily within the limits of public understanding and tolerance, and if the best use is to be made of scarce resources, a critical responsibility falls on Parliament. Our proposal for regulating in a comprehensive statutory framework arrangements for the investigation of offences and the prosecution of offenders affirms that Parliament has the duty of striking the fundamental balance and of keeping it under regular review".
I hope that in the legislation that we are to see this Session something will be done to deal with the recommendations of that Royal Commission.
The third point which I want to mention is that part of the gracious Speech which refers to local government, an area in which I was privileged to serve for over 20 years. My love for local government is undoubted even if my great service to local government is a matter of doubt. There is a brief reference in the gracious Speech to a matter which has had a lot of publicity and which has been debated already not only in local government associations, which are dominated in regard to membership by the party to which I am proud to belong, but also in the county councils association where the party of the Government has the predominant membership. There are grave fears that yet again this Government will be dealing a mortal blow to one of the most valuable parts of the body politic. I am referring to the area of local government.
All that we have in the gracious Speech is the last sentence, other than the vague one which is usually there that:
"Other measures will be laid before you",
which reads:
"Legislation will be introduced to improve the accountability of local authorities for the level of their rates".
It would be highly injudicious of me to anticipate what may be in the legislation which will be promoted by a Secretary of State who is known for his moderation and for his respect for local government but whose actions somewhat belie the reputation which I have just given him. All I am going to say is that the hint which has so far been dropped and which has found its way into certain papers is that there will have to be a referendum if a local authority exceeds in its supplementary rate demand a percentage or an amount which does not meet with the approval of central Government.
As I have said, we must wait for more details of the proposed legislation, but quite apart from any question of the blow—and this is a serious matter—to the whole status of local government and quite apart from the way in which central government is most foolishly making itself the enemy of local government I just wonder where we are getting to constitutionally by the suggestion of a referendum. The question arises: who is allowed to word the referendum and the question in the referendum? Who is going to pay for the documents which support an answer "Yes" to the referendum? And who is going to pay for those who

51
wish to procure an answer, "No" to the referendum? Is there to be yet a further burden upon the emasculated funds of local authorities which are meant to be spent on social purposes? Is the referendum fairly going to say: "If you object to a surcharge on your rates, a supplementary rate demand, do you also object to the high rate of central Government taxation, and if you do object to the supplementary rate demand do you also object to a VAT level of 15 per cent.?" If the answers to both of those questions happens to be "yes", will central Government pay the same courteous attention to those answers as they will to the answer, "yes", to the first question? If not, where are we getting with our democracy and our constitution? And where are we getting with this mess-up of a relationship between central and local government which up to the past few years has been a pretty good one?
I refer lastly and very shortly to that part of the gracious Speech which deals with a matter which I believe has the universal approval—I shall be very surprised otherwise—of your Lordships' House and, indeed, of all civilised citizens throughout our land.
"My Government's policies"—
says the gracious Speech—
"will seek to ensure that all individuals, whatever their race, colour or creed, have equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities".
Nobody would ever object to the pronouncement of a principle of that nature but what is asked for is something other than a pious expression of a principle.
I must remind this House—it was a matter which was referred to in the correspondence columns of today's Times, in a letter signed by 13 Members of another place—of the racialist attacks which are made, so the Joint Committee against Racialism told the Home Secretary last February, between 3,000 and 8,000 times each year in this country, of which the Asian community suffers the main brunt. In other ethnic minority groups the attacks have led to death. There is abundant evidence that there are some organisations—I cannot call them political parties because the name "political party" to me has got some dignity and decency attached to the very description—which are planning these attacks and which are seeking that individuals, who are absolute brutes, carry them out upon innocent members of the minority ethnic groups in our country. I wish that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, could have been present in his place, because some of us remember those wonderful words of his judgment in the Notting Hill case some years ago about the rights of every one of us in this land, whatever be his colour, whatever be his race, whatever be his creed, to carry out his lawful purposes peacefully and to walk through our streets without being molested.
There are ways—maybe, specialist ways. It may be that the police, as was suggested in this letter, should have a special branch in order to deal with these matters and go into them in depth. I do hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, replies to this debate he will tell us of some measures which he has in mind and which the Government have in mind in order to implement the principle which, as I have said, nobody in the world would quarrel with and which every one of us would support.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, as the first to address your Lordships from these Benches, I would beg to be allowed to associate myself with the tributes that have been paid to the noble Lord on his maiden speech. The gracious Speech adumbrates a number of important measures and raises some momentous issues and they have been gravely and cogently debated by your Lordships, but having heard the speeches with which your Lordships have been favoured it would be idle to pretend that they do not raise acutely matters of party political controversy.
As I still give some small judicial service in your Lordships' House, it would be inappropriate for me to attempt to enter into them. Originally I intended to raise a matter indeed of controversy but not of party political controversy; namely, the great dissatisfaction that I find and sense with the way that the new divorce law has been working out. That is not my theme this evening, but in passing from it I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, if he would be good enough to tell us what has been happening to the Bill on matrimonial homes and co-ownership. Your Lordships gave that Bill an enthusiastic Second Reading. I withdrew it at the request of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack so that it might be reconsidered by the Law Commission in the light of a then recent judgment of your Lordships' House judicially. But that was well over a year ago and perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to tell your Lordships what has happened to that Bill and when we can expect to receive the Law Commission's views on it. I very much hope that it is among the "other measures" that are referred to as usual in the last paragraph of the gracious Speech. I know that your Lordships will be awaiting it with eagerness and that the women of this country will be awaiting it even more eagerly.
What I wanted to address your Lordships on this evening is a matter remote from any that has been raised yet this evening; namely, the threat to the amenity of one of the architectural glories of this country; namely, Beverley Minster. That was recently debated in your Lordships' House on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I could not attend that debate, but I read the speeches from all parts of your Lordships' House with admiration. They were unanimous in condemnation of what is contemplated and the word that was most frequently on the lips of your Lordships who addressed the House was the word "outrage".
I venture to return to that matter because there has been some recent development and the sands are now running out and a decision is urgently required. I think it is only the Secretary of State who can now save the threatened amenities and the matter raises not only questions of amenity but questions of considerable constitutional moment in the way of control of local administration.
The facts were fully canvassed in the debate on 14th October so I can state the outline very shortly. As your Lordships know, Beverley Minster is one of the greatest glories of European architecture. It dates from the 13th century. There are very few buildings to rival it and none, I think, to surpass it. Its unique

53
glory, however, is the fact that it is situated on the edge of the beautiful and historic town of Beverley, with open country to the south, giving unsurpassed, unrivalled views of the minster from the distance. It is that open land which is now threatened with development—and threatened with development in particularly outrageous circumstances.
The land was bought by the local authority from a charity for £4,000 for the purpose of dedication as a public open space, and it was so shown on the development plan. The very low price reflected the restricted use that was contemplated. A few years later the Secretary of State rejected an appeal against the refusal of planning permission to develop the land for housing, but it is now proposed to sell it for precisely that development; land that was bought for £4,000 not to be developed to sell now for £32,500 for development.
The cruel thing is, as I understand it and as was stated without contradiction on 14th October, that there is no lack of alternative land for building. As your Lrodships can imagine there have been strong protests form amenity groups, from the Fine Arts Commission, from the Church at all levels, from Members of Parliament, from Members of your Lordships' House and from many others. Some of the local objectors appealed to the Commissioner for Local Administration, popularly known as the "local ombudsman", and it is this that raises the constitutional issues which I venture to mention to your Lordships. The finding of the local ombudsman was that there had been
"Maladministration…which had caused injustice to the citizens of Beverley who had complained to me."
That is surely a terrible finding to be adjudged against any local body.
However, although that was the finding, the report itself was a balanced and conciliatory one. It recommended compromise and accommodation, which the ombudsman obviously envisaged as being well within the bounds of possibility; and the speeches in your Lordships' House on 14th October reflected that theme. They urged compromise, urged accommodation, were notably restrained. However, they had no effect whatever on the local authority, as I understand it.
The scheme of control of local government by the ombudsman I think is this: he makes a first report; that gives an opportunity for comment by the local authority; and he then issues a second report. However, in this case, without, I understand—and perhaps the noble Lord will check this—waiting for the second report the development committee on the 7th October insisted that the development should go forward. And since your Lordships debated the matter, as I read in the press—and perhaps the noble Lord will again check this—the town council has endorsed the view of the development committee. In other words, there has been obstinate adherence to a decision which it has been found was based on maladministration, a decision which has caused widespread outrage and threatens to impair part of the glory of one of our most glorious works of architecture. What is worse, the disregard of the views of the commissioner has been accompanied by expressions of contempt for the commissioner's findings. They were quoted in the debate in your Lordships' House, and I shall not repeat them.
I know that the Secretary of State is reluctant to interfere with a local planning decision, and I have
54
every sympathy myself, as I imagine your Lordships generally have, with that approach. But it has been done. The Labour Government was contemplating precisely such an overriding of a planning decision in relation to the Lyceum area in Liverpool, and their successors, the Conservative Government, in fact carried out that same policy, refusing planning consent. So it can be done; it has recently been done. And this is, of course, a far stronger case.
It is not merely a matter of an arrogant and obstinate bumbledon. If it were only that it would be serious enough but would not justify the action of the Secretary of State. But what is in issue beyond that are two further matters. The first is the whole scheme of the Commissioner for Local Administration. It is notorious that our system of law lacks any proper system of administrative law. Together with some colleagues a number of years ago I suggested that there should be an administrative division of the High Court operating somewhat on the lines of the Conseil d'Etat in France. Needless to say, that aroused intense bureaucratic objection. But public opinion gradually became so aroused that the system of parliamentary and local commissioners, the ombudsmen, was established in its place. Many of us had doubts at the time whether that was a sufficient measure. This is the test. If this commissioner's findings are to be flouted, if the commissioner's judgment is to be dismissed in contemptuous terms, there will be no doubt that the system of parliamentary and local commissioners is quite inadequate to secure justice to outraged citizens and to prevent bureaucratic abuse.
The last matter is, of course, the one transcending all, and that is the impairment of a piece of glorious national heritage. Even if the local representatives are in due course dismissed by the infuriated electorate, that will do no good. The damage will have been done. Nothing can then put back the view of Beverley Minister from the south. I think that, now, only the Secretary of State is any safeguard to proper administration and the preservation of our national heritage. He can, and, my Lords, he must, act.
6.7 p.m.
Lord de Clifford: My Lords, I have now had the honour of attending your Lordships' House off and on for some 53 years, but I think this is the first occasion on which I have been delighted to welcome a speech, the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, and regret a speech, that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, who is departing. I hope we shall hear much more from Lord Stodart; I much regret that we shall not hear much more from the right reverend Prelate.
I rise to address your Lordships on something on which I probably tend to become rather pressing. That is the subject of what the Government are going to do as it affects the rural areas of this country. There are two paragraphs that frighten me in Her Majesty's gracious Speech. One is the last one.
"Other measures will be laid before you",
because that is the one which always takes us on to having at least two or three weeks extra at the end of any Session. The other one is:
"Legislation will be introduced to improve the accountability of local authorities for the level of their rates".

55
This is one of those things which when applied to a very big authority might well be accepted, but when you come down to your rural areas, where you have a very scattered population, the level of rates and the expenditure affects people who are so very dependent on services which the authority provides. Unless you are there it is very difficult to understand how a cut in rates feels. For years the policy of various Governments has led to the depopulation of rural areas. Year after year schools have been closed down, services reduced and, on top of that, there has been the imposition of higher petrol prices and higher telephone charges. Practically everything which happens affects the people who live in the widely scattered areas far more than it does the people who live in concentrated urban areas.
I would ask the Government when taking control of rates or any other council expenditures to look with the greatest care at the situation of rural areas. In the rural areas people have the impression that the only thing which is in the minds of the Government and their advisers is the intensely populated areas where all the terrible troubles occur, where all the difficulties happen and where there is racial trouble and so on. However, there are other areas where people—actual people—live and exist.
I would ask your Lordships to consider one very small matter. There has suddenly been a rise in telephone charges. The rental has risen and so has the charge for calls. How can people who are on pensions in the ageing population in rural areas—and it is an ageing population, whether one likes to accept it or not—afford to keep these services? An elderly couple may live a mile and a half from a public telephone and they are asked to pay something, I believe, in the range of £18 a quarter just to maintain a telephone through which they can keep contact with the outside world. I ask your Lordships to imagine some probably quite happy pensioner living a mile and a half away from the telephone. Suddenly there is a fire in the house, but there is no telephone. How can he or she summon help? It quite frightens me to think of that situation because I know of a number of people who are without a telephone.
Let us consider a rise in petrol prices. That may not affect so badly people who live in urban areas, but in rural areas it affects people very considerably. Someone may have a travelling shop but the instant there is a rise in petrol prices so all the prices of the goods go up. There may be a number of people who have smallholdings and other places who have to collect the feed for their animals themselves. Goodness knows! the price of animal food is high enough as it is, but when you have to add on a load of ever increasing price rises how do people keep small-holdings going?
I urge the Government as regards whichever way they do it, or whatever they do—the basic principles of which I entirely agree with—please to consider the areas of population which are not intensive and to consider that there are people living in those areas, actual people, who suffer from these things. I wish the Government well in what they do, but please do not go on adding to the burdens of the rural populations and depopulate those areas even further.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, with other noble Lords I wish the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester well. I would say to him that those of us who retire from a job within three months find ourselves busier than ever. I am sure that it will be the same with him. To the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, I would say that many of us are looking north of the Border to the juvenile court procedure which is being carried out there and wondering whether perhaps we should not follow in the wake of our Scottish friends in dealing with juveniles.
I wish to speak on that part of Her Majesty's most gracious Speech which deals with legislation which will be introduced to improve the criminal justice system in England and Wales, and also to take note of an earlier paragraph which said:
"My Government's policies will seek to ensure that all individuals, whatever their race, colour or creed, have equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities".
I should like to underline the word "responsibilities". The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said as regards young offenders that we were all, on all sides of the House, concerned and that it is not in any way a political issue. I would suggest that we have perhaps all gone along the wrong path.
Since 1975 the figures have changed alarmingly. However, before drawing your Lordships' attention to the figures, I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, that of young people, children and young persons—that is children up to 15 and young persons from 15 to 17—only 3 per cent. of those under 14 and 7 per cent. of 14-to 17-year olds were, in 1978, found guilty of serious crimes: robbery, violence against the person and sexual offences. I feel that it is necessary to put this in context because there is so much publicity over one terrible crime, when, in fact, overall the figures are not high. Since the passing of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 our figures have changed in the most extraordinary way. One would think that it is because the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 was not a good Act. I would submit that it was a very good Act which we have badly administered and badly carried out. Indeed, a German criminologist said to me a little while ago, "I am going to go back to Germany to carry out this good Act of Parliament which you in your country have so mismanaged".
Between 1969 and 1978 the borstal figures have risen. In 1969 they were 818; they are now 2,117. Of those boys and girls who go to borstal, 85 per cent. are reconvicted within two years. As regards detention centres, in 1969 there were 2,228 boys and girls in detention centres and in 1978—the latest figures that we have—there were 6,303, and of those 75 per cent. Re-offended within two years. It costs £104 per week to keep a boy or girl at a detention centre; in borstal it costs more. Community schools for education, which are what used to be approved schools, cost infinitely more. Yet from 1969 to 1978 there were 4,000 fewer supervision orders. Therefore, the conclusion we draw is that more of our young people are in custodial care. In fact, we have the highest number of young people in custodial care within the EEC countries. Yet it is not being effective.

57
The White Paper is in some ways advanced. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has outlined a number of proposals in the White Paper, with most of which I agree but with some of which I do not agree. We recommend the emphasis that the White Paper puts on non-custodial strategies, if I can put it that way; and when I say "we" I am referring to myself as the chairman of, and the members of, a committee called New Approaches to Juvenile Crime, which consists of eight organisations of all the professions dealing with young offenders, social services, probation and youth workers. I am also privileged to he a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Penal Affairs. By and large these two groups agree.
I absolutely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that the residential care order—which is recommended in the White Paper—will not work. Indeed, if it stands under the new law that is to come into force, I think that we shall be in trouble. When I was a director of social services and when the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 was passed, under no circumstances at any time did any of my staff leave a child at home on whom a care order was made. It was quite simple. If the magistrates wished a child to stay at home and if the local authority wished a child to stay at home, there was a recommendation that a super-vision order should be made. If the local authority social workers or the probation officers recommended that a child should he removed from home, a care order was made and that child was removed from home. It was quite simple.
Unfortunately, up and down the country—perhaps rightly, but I think wrongly—a number of both magistrates and social workers have made and accepted a care order, but have placed the child at home, saying to the parents and the child that if the order does not work, they will quietly remove the child. A short while ago I spoke to a parent who said, "My child is under a care order but he is kept at home. If he stays out late at night, whose responsibility is it—mine or the local authority's?" I said, "If I were you, I should ring up the local authority at 10 o'clock at night because the care order puts them in loco parentis".
I simply mention that to point out that the magistrates and the Association of Directors of Social Services have agreed that when a care order is made the child should be removed, from home and placed into custodial care. Under this new Bill if the magistrates are to make a residential care order for children who are already in care, there will be a great deal of difficulty over the residential establishments. At the moment local authorities are having to cut their expenditure. If they cut their expenditure and the magistrates then make a residential care order, when they might otherwise have made something else, what will the local authority do? Until we know what is in this Bill, they must keep open their residential establishments at the expense perhaps of more productive work. Therefore, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and I agree on this point.
Detention centres are an extraordinary phenomenon. There are two types: those that have been running for a long time and those—and there are many—that offer educational and therapeutic treatment. I speak with feeling because I live near and am interested in Campsfield Detention Centre. I visited it the other
58
day, when two boys said to me, "We get teaching here by ourselves. We were not able to read and write until we came here". That was a detention centre with educational and therapeutic treatment. The detention centre at Send and the one at Glenochil in Scotland—and more may be set up—are certainly the "short, sharp, shock treatment", where you get up in the morning and you do not stop all day. A little while ago I said to a boy, "John, how did you enjoy the detention centre?" He said, "Well, Miss, the food was good, I slept well, the exercise was good and I am fitter for other jobs when I come out". He had not learned anything other than to be fitter, better and stronger. I do not say that that will happen with all children; of course it will not. But I would say that as yet we have no evidence that the detention centres work. In fact, the evidence is against the fact that detention centres work. As it is so expensive an experiment, are we really right to spend so much money on an experiment that we do not know will work when we could spend it on other things? If it works, fine. But I much regret to say that to date the figures do not show that it works.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has said, although we really do not approve of youth custody, youth custody orders would certainly be an improvement on the present borstal situation. I would make a plea to the Government—indeed, I am not sure that I need to make a plea because I think that the Government are totally convinced about this—for what is known as "intermediate treatment", which is treatment with the child at home but giving a programme of activities, a programme of consultation and a programme of therapeutic treatment within the community.
That brings me to the responsibility of parents. The question of fines has been mentioned. It sounds very good to fine parents for the misdemeanours of their children, but many of the children who come before the courts come from backgrounds, not necessarily of poverty, but of difficulty and disruption in the family and unhappiness. I feel that this will cause even greater unhappiness and disruption within a family.
What I would ask the Government is to consider the responsibility of parents. In the gracious Speech the word "responsibility" is mentioned. Many a time I have taken a child to court and only mother has turned up and never father. I feel that until responsibility for a child is experienced by both father and mother we shall not get very far. I hope that perhaps the Government will see a clear way to advise magistrates that they might invite father to be present at court hearings, and not always mother, and only mother.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, would the noble Baroness give way for a second? I have been chairman of a very large juvenile court in a difficult area for many years. Unless the father was at work and could not get time off, I never heard a case—and I was chairman—without both parents being present if they were living together. If they were separated then, as the noble Baroness knows, sometimes problems arose.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I should say that that does not happen up and down the country in every court. Certainly now that the fathers are perhaps more available, maybe it might be possible. What of the future? I would say that this Bill is a somewhat cosmetic measure. I wonder whether this Bill could be a forerunner to more creative, effective, far-reaching measures which are preventive, and which will help the young offender in the context of his family, of his school, and of his community.
In conclusion, may I say that those of us who deal with the young offenders believe profoundly in the primacy of the rule of law, as was stated by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. But we also believe that they should not be alienated from their community. We believe that children and young persons should be treated with compassion, care and understanding, but coupled with structure and with discipline. Finally, we would like to see children and young persons, for whom many of us have been and are responsible, living in the community, receiving services in the community, in partnership with the parents, rather than being moved into custodial care.
6.33 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, it is exactly one year ago today that we concluded our deliberations on the Local Government Planning and Land Bill. I argued then that that was a Bill which fundamentally restructured the relationship between central Government and local government, and that it gave too much power over local government to the Secretary of State, to any Secretary of State. I argued further that it had gone a long way towards destroying the mutual trust and confidence that existed between local authorities and central Government, trust and confidence that had taken many decades to build up.
Once again at this very moment the local authority associations are united against the proposed legislation based on the technical memorandum on the proposals for the new rating procedures, because they believe that if this measure is enacted it will strike right at the heart of local democracy. I want to concentrate my remarks today on that part of the gracious Speech concerning local government. In the last two and a half years we have seen a steady erosion of the powers of local government. This has caused bitter resentment and it runs quite contrary to the Government's own avowed intention of giving more freedom to local authorities. The proposed legislation in the memoranda is not only ill-conceived but is a threat to the very existence of local government today.
I believe that most local authorities will accept in principle that the Government have a right to control public expenditure, but if the proposals of the technical memorandum are accepted then it will effectively bring to an end local democracy throughout the country. The main proposal is that the Government should set a maximum rate levy for each class of authority, or even for each individual authority. There is no suggestion in the memoranda that a Secretary of State could be prevented from setting an unrealistically low ceiling, which would result in drastic cuts in public services and massive redundancies, or to prevent the
60
present, or any future, Secretary of State from declaring that an authority is spending too little and therefore must expand and improve its services.
The local electors and their councillors are the ones who should have the right to determine the level of expenditure and the service required in their own locality, and by basing the poundage on the grant related expenditure assessment local authorities are going to be encouraged to provide only a typical standard of service, and in practice the decisions are going to be taken by non-elected and non-accountable civil servants working through the Secretary of State. That, my Lords, is not local government as I have understood it over 30 years.
The proposals for the supplementary rates are unnecessarily punitive to the domestic ratepayers, and they seem to have been devised also to be particularly cumbersome for the administrators. The proposal is that the first supplementary rate cannot be levied until after 1st July, and that is quite unrealistic. An authority will know its budget in February or March, and it could include such a rate on its initial demand note rather than incur any additional cost by sending out a second demand. If it is necessary, then attention could be drawn to the supplementary rate, and the extra amount could be specified on the original rate demand. But if local government is to be successful then it must be responsible, and it must have very clearly defined and established powers and duties for which it can be held accountable.
Responsible local government derives from the nature of the services which it provides. Those services are largely personal and must be responsive to the needs of the individuals within the area. The people also need a convenient access to the point where the actual decisions are being made. Which services are required must depend on local desires and on local conditions, and they will not be the same in every area or with every type of authority. But these services cannot be determined by civil servants or by a Secretary of State in Whitehall. Only the locally-elected representatives in the town hall really know what is needed for their authority, what their electorate want and need, and how much they are willing to pay to have those services.
We are about to face the eighth assault on public expenditure in two and a half years. Yet while programmes for education, for housing, for roads, for social services and for welfare have been cut back time and time again, the overall level of state spending has actually increased. The more the monetary policies have been pursued, the more they have sent spending shooting up in other areas, often as a direct result of those policies.
Recently the court ruled that the Secretary of State for the Enviroment had acted illegally when he decided to impose financial restrictions on the six London boroughs. The ruling was that the Secretary of State had the power to withhold the grants from the so-called offending authorities, but since those powers had only just received parliamentary approval he should have listened once more to those who tried to persuade him not to exercise them.
Relations between the Secretary of State and local authorities have never been worse than they are today. What the Government seem to overlook, or perhaps

61
conveniently forget, is that central Government are spending nearly 8 per cent. more than they did in 1975–76, while the local authorities are spending about 20 per cent. less, and even in 1980–81 local government in general met its expenditure targets. Is it proposed to hold referenda on items of Government spending too? Should we not have a debate in both Houses as to whether it is good a thing to institute referenda into our proceedings and constitution? Should we not have clear decisions as to who will decide on what issue other referenda might be determined and, even more important, who will meet the cost?
The strengthening of local government depends on the strengthening of local government finance, and in the last two and a half years it has become very clear that the destruction of the local authorities' financial base is leading to the destruction of local responsibility. The tax base of the local authorities has been eroded over the years by successive Governments because they refuse to have the periodic revaluation of properties, and this Government have abolished altogether any obligation to mount regular revaluations.
The Government promised to abolish the local rates system. I do not believe that this or any other Government will willingly give up an annual tax on property, which is what rates really are and which will yield some £7,700 million in England and Wales in this year alone. I believe the real question is: Who will collect that tax, the local authorities or central Government? In my view, a healthy democracy requires that rates, if we are to have them, have to remain a local government tax, and, if not, that there should be a local income tax collected by PAYE and returned to the local authorities. Other sources of local finance have to be found, and it is these other sources which have been the subject of conjecture in recent years, and we look forward to learning the Government's view on this question of extra resources.
I make no apologies for getting right down to the grass roots of local government, the parish councils. I admit there are problems between district and parish councils on the financing of concurrent powers, but the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, agreed to look at a suggestion I made in July last, to see whether he could define the calculation of a penny rate attracted by parish expenditure. I should like to know whether there is likely to be any progress in this Session on this issue because the noble Lord then accepted that the equity of the parish case was unanswerable.
It is essential that all tiers of local government, from the parish council to the county council or the metropolitan authorities, can work together in harmony. Local government today is in a state of turmoil. If the proposals are approved by Parliament, it will mean that for the first time ever, central Government will control not only what money they put into local government but also what money local government can raise for itself. The proposals would mean that the rate-making process would become a continuous one and, by the time any referendum could take place, it would be necessary to start work on the following year's estimates. The situation would be so confused that it would be impossible for councils to make any sensible decisions; and that would be damaging not
62
only to the discretion of local authorities but to the orderly planning of local services and expenditure.
The grant-related expenditure assessment was intended to be only a crude method for grant distribution and not to take account of authorities' needs or services. It was supposed to be only a guide for grant distribution, with such topping up by the local authorities as they thought fit. It works most unfairly in the case of the new town areas because there is no factor in the formula which makes any allowance for the fact that an expanding new town area has to provide facilities which, in a normal growth situation, would evolve only slowly over generations as the town or city grew.
It is all very well for a city with a declining population, but it is very unfair to a city expanding as rapidly as my home town of Peterborough. For 1981–82, my city council is likely to spend £8·8 million, compared with a grant-related expenditure assessment of £5·9 million; or, in effect, they are 49 per cent. over the grant-related expenditure assessment. For 1982–83, the indications are that the gap may be even wider because the assessment may not fully take account of inflation and because the council may be deemed to be capable of making a surplus on its housing revenue account. In effect, the council would have to halve its expenditure, and since debt charges of £2·2 million cannot be avoided, it will be left to try to find £3 million out of about £6·6 million which it needs.
There is no doubt that the assessment calculation does not reflect my council's need to spend as a fast-expanding new town partnership authority with the Government. The assessment not only underestimates our population but the number of houses, the planned workload and other factors, and it totally disregards any requirement to spend money on renewal in the older city areas. The Association of District Councils has done a profile of district councils which shows that if the assessment is taken as the base this year, Peterborough will be 49 per cent. above it, and next year it will be 84 per cent. above it. Where will the Secretary of State set the figure for next year, and what percentage will he add? And even more important how soon will the local authorities know where they stand?
In these circumstances, a large excess over the grant-related expenditure assessment must be expected in 1982–83, with the prospect that in my city we shall have to have both first and second supplementary rates, including a referendum; that will be required of us. The levying of the first and, if approved, the second supplementary rate will be not only confusing and annoying to the ratepayer but will involve the city council in considerable extra expense. It will mean that up to three demand notes will have to be sent to 35,000 ratepayers; all the tenants of the council and development corporation houses will have to be notified of additional rate requirements; instalments and rebates will all require recalculation; and the requirment for differential rates for non-domestic ratepayers will also add another element of complexity. All those factors will require a great deal of explanation to the ratepayers and will lead to additional complications in the collection process.
The extra cost in terms of staff overtime, printing, computer time and so on is likely to be in the region of

63
£50,000 for the two supplementary rates. Taking the cost of operating the referendum as being broadly comparable with that of a full council election, it would cost £16,000 with a further estimated £10,000 for the extra cost of preparing, producing and distributing the statements for and against levying the rate. The income from the supplementary rates would be considerably delayed and additional borrowing would therefore be needed; and if some £2 million is required from the supplementary rates, then the additional interest charges would be another £20,000. If the second supplementary rate is rejected at a referendum, requiring borrowing against the next year's rate income, then the additional interest charges could well be as much as £50,000. All that means that if my council is made to go through the full supplementary rate procedure, the total amount of unproductive expenditure involved could amount to £116,000 if the second rate is approved, and up to £200,000 if it is rejected.
My county council in Cambridgeshire has described the proposals as a direct threat to democracy, with wide constitutional implications. It believes that decisions taken by locally elected representatives, in touch with local needs, are a vital constitutional safeguard against excessive centralism. The freedom of local authorities to take their own taxation decisions is, and has been, a fundamental issue of local government. The duty of central Government is to limit their own contribution to local authority spending in the form of grant, and the cash limited block grant system already ensures that. My county council goes on to say that the proposals breach the long respected financial safeguard whereby local authorities decide how to raise the whole of their income on the same day that their spending is fixed.
The ADC has described the proposals as a major step towards centralisation of the spending decisions of each individual local authority and as inherently constitutional in nature, and it affirms that
"local government, as we know it, is at risk".
The Local Government Chronicle has said that if this assault does not unite all the local authorities and their associations in total, implacable and uncompromising opposition, then nothing will, because local government is under Beige and all who believe in it should stand up and be counted. A recent Times leader said that the proposals were,
"bureaucratic centralism decked out in democracy's borrowed plumes"
and that councils were being reduced to,
"querulous agents of departments of state".
Central Government, in order to manage their economy, do not need control of local government expenditure. They need two controls only. Central Government should determine the amount of grant that they give to local authorities, and how much they are able to borrow. Within those two constraints local government expenditure can, and should, be left to local authorities to determine, so long as that expenditure is financed by local authorities' own taxes, for which they will be accountable to their own electorate.
Even at this late stage I appeal to the Government to think again before they produce an administrative juggernaut of the type suggested in the technical memoranda. It can result only in managerial chaos and
64
confusion and can only be misunderstood by the public. The Government should not change the rules of the game mid-term. If they want local government to be the absolute pawn of central Government, they should get a mandate for it by submitting themselves to a referendum in the form of a general election. Recent local by-elections have acted as safety valves for a dissatisfied and disillusioned electorate, but if central Government take over from local government, then there will be no safety valve for local electors. There will be no point of appeal to which they can go, and the Secretary of State and his civil servants will be the only arbiter. I make this final plea to the Government to play the game and to keep local government locally responsible and locally accountable.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I wish to deal with three proposals in the gracious Speech, and first I should like to follow the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Mishcon in dealing with the proposals regarding local government. I am certain that noble Lords will have been deeply impressed by the excellent contributions of the noble Baroness and my noble friend on this issue, based as they were in each case on very long periods of service in local government. The gracious Speech referred to legislation
"to improve the accountability of local authorities for the level of their rates".
I realise that often in a gracious Speech the actual details are unclear, but I think that on this particular point we have fairly good information as to what is in the Secretary of State's mind, because he has set out his intentions.
However, I have been under the impression that local councils are already accountable to their ratepayers and to the electors who elected them. But perhaps I am still thinking of real local government and the independence of local councils, whereas the present Government seem to be going farther along the path of central direction of local agencies. As the noble Baroness has said, throughout the passage of the Local Government and Planning Bill time and time again Government spokesmen stressed that the Government's purpose was to set councils free to give them the right to decide on what to spend their money. Fears were expressed that the Bill would place considerable powers in the hands of the Secretary of State in consequence of the arrangements for block grant and capital expenditure controls. But now the Government are to go even farther. I was going to say, the wizard of Whitehall, but presumably I must change it to the master of Marsham Street, is to lay down what he considers a council needs to spend. If a council wishes to spend more than he is prepared eventually to approve, there must be a referendum in the area.
No one likes paying rates, any more than anyone likes paying income tax. People complain about rates and with their next breath they complain about the lack, or inadequacy, of services and facilities provided by the local council. My noble friend Lord Mishcon has outlined some of the problems that would have to be faced in drawing up the correct question if there is to be a referendum. But I would say that the use of referenda will undermine our constitutional

65
provisions for local elections to determine the accountability of locally elected councillors. I hope that this matter will be looked at not from the narrow, financial aspect, but from the effect of further centralism on local government. That I believe is the key issue.
I am certain that all noble Lords will agree that a vigorous and independent local government is absolutely essential to our democratic system. So many noble Lords in this House have served, and are still serving, in local government and they know that that is correct. But local government has to be enhanced and not weakened, as would happen through the Government's proposals set out in the gracious Speech. Should any noble Lord consider that that is an exaggeration, I hope that he will keep in mind what has already been stressed, and which I want to reiterate. It is significant that all three main local authority national associations have expressed their bitter opposition to the proposed legislation.
The second point with which I wish to deal might impinge on debates to be held on other days. In the gracious Speech there is the vague statement that
"A Bill will be introduced on employment and labour relations".
We do not know what are the Government's actual intentions in this respect. We have only press comments to go on, and there are even suggestions that the Government have not yet made up their minds on what will be the final proposals. I had hoped that after the last few days at British Leyland the Government would reconsider whatever they might have in mind on labour relations legislation. British Leyland has been saved by the commonsense of workers, who had already shown their desire to see the firm prosper by the way in which they have co-operated during the past 12 or 18 months in improved productivity arrangements. It has also been saved by the courageous leadership shown by trade union officers.
There is surely a clear lesson here that employees cannot be threatened and intimidated. Those days are well past. One good thing that may have come from this very near tragedy is that there is apparently agreement to establish improved labour relations at BL, and the development of more employee participation. It is shameful that the Government stood aside. They may be applauding themselves that they left this issue to the management and the workers' representatives to settle. But say the vote on Tuesday had gone wrong. I lived in Birmingham for 13 years, and I know the devastation that would have taken place in the whole West Midlands if the vote had gone wrong on Tuesday and the Government were still washing their hands of any intervention.
The kind of situation which faced this vast undertaking is one that can no longer be left with a chairman and his board, no matter how brilliant they may be. BL is a national responsibility. There is £1,000 million of public money involved, and the Government are the sole shareholder. The Government are acting on behalf of all of us, who really have a share in what would have been the development of BL. On 21st October—that is, only some 14 days ago—we debated in this House the proposed EEC directive on the supply of information to, and consultation with, trade unions by the multinationals and other complex undertakings. In that debate most noble Lords stressed
66
that these are the important issues which we ourselves ought to be considering when we arc talking of improved labour relations.
Yesterday, the New Standard headline was,
"Maggie takes aim at the unions"—
and this at a time when, we understand, the CBI is seeking joint action with the TUC to put forward proposals to deal with the vicious problem of unemployment. Further legislation on the unions will not be helpful at this time. It will not help industrial relations, and could be divisive. It will not help the national effort, to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred in his speech to us. Concentration should be on better industrial relations and more participation by the employees.
I hope that reports that the Government are not to proceed with the original intention to deal with the political affiliation of unions and union members is correct. I shall be pleased if that is the position, although it may disappoint those nine MPs and one former MP who are now Social Democrats, who were willing recipients of union and co-operative financial sponsorship until apparently their recent sudden conversions to criticism of the present law in these respects.
The last point I wish to deal with is on transport. In general, I welcome the fact that proposals will he put forward for new fixed penalties for some traffic offences, but naturally we shall need to see the precise details and to study them carefully. Then, in the gracious Speech there is the vague statement:
"State involvement in transport will be further reduced.…"
What is proposed? I have seen no statement of any kind as to what is proposed by those words. I hope the Government are not proposing to introduce the threat of legislation for the transfer to the private sector of the testing of heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles.
There is one interesting statement:
"The present test system has done a very good job over the years. The industry respects the system and quite rightly values the quality of the service, its impartiality and its contribution to road safety".
I, too, believe that to be true, but this statement was made by Mr. Kenneth Clarke, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, as recently as 8th October. But, despite that praise for the present service Mr. Clarke added that the Government propose to dismantle that system and pass it to the private sector.
I must stress that all organisations involved in road passenger transport and in road haulage are opposed to any Government transfer of the present testing system to the private sector. Whether they be publicly-owned undertakings or whether they be privately-owned undertakings, they all support the present system and oppose any suggestion of change. I should like to know: Is the reference in the gracious Speech to mean that the Government are determined to go ahead with this proposal despite the praise given to it by the Under-Secretary of State and despite the opposition from all the interests involved? If so, I can only say that this can he solely for political doctrinaire reasons, and for no other reason whatever.
There are two other questions I should like to ask the Minister on the matter of transport. There is no

67
reference in the gracious Speech to the Armitage Report, to deal with heavy lorries and the environment. Is it the intention of the Government to proceed with this during the coming Session? I had hoped—I have a Motion down for debate—that in the course of the last few months we might have had a debate on this. So far we have not had it; but I think noble Lords would like to know what are the Government's intentions.
There is also growing concern at the decreasing ferry links with Northern Ireland. The Government seem once again to be washing their hands of the matter. If the private operators cannot cope because of the losses being sustained, then this, again, is a matter which may have to be considered and should be dealt with by public ownership.
The references to reducing state involvement in transport, to selling off some of the interests in BNOC and British Gas, seem to be indicative of the Government's doctrinaire attitude. Naturally, I am not going into the details of British Gas or BNOC in this debate, but I believe that in readiness for the debates on economic affairs the Government ought to tell us quite clearly where they stand on the mixed economy. Time and time again I have said to Ministers that we on these Benches accept a mixed economy. I am rapidly getting the feeling that the Government use words about the mixed economy but will do their damnedest to criticise and interfere with public ownership and public service wherever they can possibly do so. We ought to know: where do the Government really stand on the mixed economy? Where do they hold the line for public industries?
I see in today's Daily Telegraph a report, which I hope is untrue, that the Secretary of State for Energy is to put—and I quote—"rebellious gas chief on the carpet". I hope that is not true. If it is true, I hope it will not take place. I am certain there would be strong resentment if any company chairman was to be rapped over the knuckles for making comments on proposed legislation. Surely it is the duty of someone who has pride in his industry to put forward his particular point of view. I hope this report will be denied, but if it is true I hope it will not take place.
May I, in conclusion, be permitted to make one plea—nothing to do with home affairs? There is no specific reference in the gracious Speech to the Disarmament Commission now sitting in Geneva, nor to the United Nations Second Special Assembly on Disarmament, which will be meeting next year, in the course of this parliamentary Session. My appeal is that I hope that during the debate on Tuesday on foreign affairs and defence noble Lords will deal with this important question of what lead the Government will give with a view to ensuring that constructive proposals are brought forward to the United Nations special session next year.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, a controversial Session of legislation is now before your Lordships' House, but while there is much that will inevitably be politically controversial—and since I entered this House in 1958 I do not know of a gracious Speech which has not been
68
politically controversial to a greater or lesser degree—yet there are other aspects of the gracious Speech which will command considerable unity between the parties. I wish to concentrate on one aspect of the gracious Speech which I think has not yet been touched on. I quote:
"A Bill will be brought forward to improve the safeguards for detained patients and to make other reforms in the law on mental health in England and Wales".
For 18 years I served on the house committee of the major mental hospital in Epsom, near where I live in Surrey. It was only with the reorganisation of the National Health Service that I and many others were, if one may put it that way, "deposed" from our posts; but I continue to take a considerable interest in mental health generally. I believe that this Bill will be one of major importance and I understand that it is to commence in your Lordships' House—which will ensure that it receives careful, practical and sensitive discussion.
My Lords, one of my first speeches in this House was on the Second Reading of the Mental Health Act 1959. This Act made considerable reforms over the whole spectrum of mental health. It abolished the stigma of the asylum and brought into being far more voluntary patients. I would hope that this forthcoming Bill will expand on this already favourable situation. The Bill will obviously have a number of problems facing it. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Belstead, at the end of this debate or by letter, can comment on a matter of which I have not given notice. It is that while it is important that patients should receive these considerations, I would hope that the staffs of these hospitals will also receive similar considerations.
Those of your Lordships who are concerned with mental health, with committees of these hospitals, will know full well the intolerable conditions which nurses and other staff often face in these hospitals, particularly in what one might call the grey areas where staff are difficult to obtain. I should like to pay a tribute—and I have done so before in your Lordships' House—to those nurses from this country, from the Commonwealth and from elsewhere who give devoted care to these unfortunate people. The 1972 report on the nursing profession by the then Professor Asa Briggs commented (in paragraph 267) on the shortage of nurses not only in general hospitals but in mental hospitals, and on the requirement that there should be at least one qualified nurse on hand round the clock.
I think it fair to say that there have been all too many instances, particularly in the long-stay hospitals, where this has not been the case. This has resulted in unfortunate accidents, sometimes fatal, to the patients; and at times the media have given a very slanted view on this because it has been suggested that it is the nursing staff who are at fault. In any profession, and in nursing perhaps most of all, those who do fall by the wayside should be subject to the normal format of discipline; but, my Lords, let the matter be fairly reported. This has not always been the case.
My Lords, the 1982–83 expenditure survey envisages, I think, something in the region of £7,500 million being spent on the National Health Service. It is quite apparent that, a considerable amount of this expenditure will have to be devoted to mental health because this forthcoming worthwhile Bill is going to place enormous responsibilities on the nursing staffs, and,

69
particularly, on the doctors who will have to decide when a patient is fit to be allowed out to the outside world. Of course, it is the wish of everyone that mental illness patients should be released as soon as this is considered by expert opinion to be medically possible. But we all know that there have been some tragic errors of judgment on this. Since to err is human, I do not think that we should be too hard in every case on those who have made these decisions; because, undoubtedly, they have been made in good faith.
The House will obviously be interested and anxious to know what the safeguards are. Those who are compulsorily detained under the present 1959 Act undoubtedly need safeguards and I take it that this will place an enormous responsibility on the Ombudsman. I wonder whether my noble friend at this stage can comment on the part which the Ombudsman is likely to play. Of course, the Bill has not yet been published, but I imagine that Her Majesty's Government have some views on this matter. This is a Bill of great importance; it will need very careful thought and study, and I would hope that when it comes to your Lordships' House it will be examined very thoroughly.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, I am glad that attention has been drawn to a vital part of the health service in a manner which was worth while and in a manner which we seem to be neglecting. It is sad to find that one of the finest health services in the world is being neglected. It was good to see last week that a famous American surgeon who had spent £78,000 on operations in America to try to get himself into good health had the same operation here as a private patient at a cost of £6,000 and was cured. He has decided to settle down in Britain. There is a lot to be said all over the world for the National Health Service, and if a private one is run side by side then that is up to other people. But let us keep the National Health Service for those under-privileged, and even privileged, people who are prepared to use it. I am grateful to the noble Lord who has spoken on these matters.
I am going to cut my speech because we have had a brilliant analysis of the local government situation from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. To do otherwise would be usurping the time of this Chamber when we have had such an excellent analysis. In passing, I want to refer to local authority spending. At the moment it is about £17 billion per year and takes about a quarter of all public expenditure in Britain in the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, I believe it to be the prime target of the Conservative Government today. Its new austerity programme is something which is now going deeper. There is every indication that the Thatcher Government—and I am quoting from a document—are using the fight over local authority spending as a golden opportunity to discipline local government, or they think they are disciplining local government, to increase the powers of central Government over the regions and wherever possible to weaken or overturn, I regret to say, labour controlled authorities, by forcing them into bankruptcy or on to the money market. This is because of the intense feeling that we must move vast areas of public enterprise into the hands of private enterprise.
So what happens today? I wish that there was a
70
real social accountancy of the roads of Britain. The roads of Britain today are tumbling to pieces. We have nothing in the gracious Speech about the weights of lorries and their axle weights. Local authorities in the great transport areas are worried about the vast potential expenditures, which will be realities in the next year or two, on sewers and sewer systems. Despite all the statistics about moving goods from the ports for use quickly by road transport. I believe that if one weighs up the social accountancy of road transport, including some 7,000 deaths on the road and a third of a million accidents on the roads over the years on the average, the social accountancy of road transport cannot stand up to railway transport. The nation, irrespective of politics, should take a new look at transport, and in the age of the train develop better railway systems and rebuild some of the systems which they broke up. It is a sad fact that the mighty railways of Britain, built by the old navvies of the past with muscle, blood, sweat and wheelbarrows, were a greater piece of building than the efforts on the pyramids.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: And more useful, too.
Lord Davies of Leek: "And more useful, too". Exactly. Actually, the railways under "Beechingisation" were destroyed at a moment when they were needed. They were needed strategically. And if we are worried about all this talk about moving people if we have nuclear bombing—and the Americans seem to be going "crackers" about this, if your Lordships will excuse my colloquialism—do we think that on the roads of Britain we can move 10 million people out of London and it suburbs? What are we talking about? We are talking about an age which is completely different from any previous occasion, and transport should be part of our strategic and logistic analysis of defence.
Time is on the wing and your Lordships are tired. The matter I want to deal with now is the pathetic insecurity of the educational system. I have devoted my life to all aspects of it, not quite in the nursery school, but right up to adult lecturing. We look at it today and we are the ugly ducklings of Europe. Our educational system is a disgrace to the British nation. We are neglecting our treasures. I used the phrase last week in a supplementary question asking a noble Lord whether he knew Ruskin's famous axiom: "There is no wealth but life". Children are our greatest source of building the future and the greatest source of our economic activity. They are neglected. Local authorities can no longer maintain a decent local education service. The outgoing president of the Assistant Masters' and Mistresses' Association said at their meeting in Sheffield last week:
"The particular responsibility of this association locally and nationally will be to persuade the community at large that the consequences of an undermanned, under-financed and impossibly over-stretched school system will be far more calamitous in the short and long term than the undeniable problems that will be involved in making the investment necessary to develop it".
The same president called the Youth Opportunities Programme a "cruel charade". It does not lead to genuine employment. I do not know whether I would go so far as to say that it is useless, because I

71
know of some who are glad of the opportunity and feel that for six months they have some kind of security.
I have an old pamphlet in my hand from 1931 and I am threatening your Lordships with quoting from it. The then Prime Minister, Mr. Stanley Baldwin, admitted long after the 1931 crisis that the Labour Government had kept alive democracy with their small, 30-odd Members in the House keeping alive question, answer and debate. Today there is an attitude among the party opposite that seems to think that there are no alternatives to their policy. Sir Keith Joseph—bless his heart!—gets himself in trouble like the American generals. This week Sir Keith admitted that nursery education is not high in his priority. But he suggested that parents could afford to pay £5 a week. Britain has more working mothers than any other country in Europe. That is a fact that is not well known—there are more working mothers in Britain than in any other country in Europe. Working mothers are important; they are an important adjunct to Britain's economic prospects. In the potteries industry, in textiles, in pharmaceuticals and light industries we could not do without them.
In 1931 one woman in 10 was working in industry. In 1978 it was five out of 10. Now it is more like six or seven out of 10. An essential is that these women—and 42 per cent. of women are at work—should have nursery schools available. It is not wasting money to have nursery education. It is an essential stabilisation especially in the days of 3 million unemployed.
If you want to know where trade unionism was most dynamic and most militant, it is easy to answer—in Scotland, in Wales and in the Durham area, where there was no alternative work for the women. In South Wales in my day there were the pits and pretty well nothing but domestic service for our women. Nottingham had the lace industry. Stoke-on-Trent had the pottery industry. Consequently, if there was trouble in the mines you had a less militant workforce because the woman could bring in some income, and there were often double incomes where you had the most peaceful trade union movement. In other words—it is a lesson not yet learnt on the other side of the House—if you want peace in industry, the labourer is worthy of his hire and should get some sort of wage commensurate with that.
One essential aim of education is to remove drudgery and produce skill. Noble Lords opposite have had the privilege of public school education and I do not deny them the joy of it. Those of us who roughed our way through red bricks and tough elementary old-fashioned schools to university, we did not have the lovely comfort and succour of the public school—
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Davies of Leek: Look at them—born to rule. Eton produces potential Cabinet Ministers; ours have to fight their way to the top without any swimming apparatus in rough seas. It is time that side of the House realised that one of our greatest economic assets is to provide first-class education. What do we find? They mourn with the local authorities and the nation that because of the declining population
72
we are closing more schools in the country districts than ever in history—shutting them up, sacking 18,000 teachers and putting them on the dole, and we do not even think of reducing classes to the size of public school classes. What a wonderful opportunity, if you could have the 15 or the 20 in classes that could have the personal attention of the teacher; and in the end the nation would regain something worth while.
In this age, from childhood more and more we are becoming familiar now with the gadgetry of progress in micro-electronics, as I mentioned the other day—the new mathematics, the calculators and computers. Yet what do we do? The Tory election manifesto said—and their people thought it would happen—that each child should be given the chance to progress as far as his or her abilites would allow. We have sacked 18,000 teachers and closed more schools than ever. The Tory Government's first Budget in 1979 cut Government spending by £55 million on education and 3 per cent. on the authorities, and £300 million cuts from 1979 to 1980 on the rate support grant.
The November 1979 White Paper on public spending announced £280 million cuts in real terms and the loss of 18,000 teachers. Despite this, and universal protest by local government authorities of all political opinions, they went on with it—and the frightened Cabinet around the dear lady who is the Prime Minister are there like mesmerised rabbits. They do not seem to have any policy that this calamitous, obstinate Government can change. There was a day—and let me say I have seen signs of this even in the Labour Party—when Ministers of fibre, whatever party they belonged to, thought of their duty to the public and their electorate, and resigned. Nobody resigns today. They are either called "wets" if they have a different point of view, or on our side they may be called "militants". But that was something the old Conservative and Labour Parties were proud of—that there were men who had the courage to take sometimes a different point of view and be prepared to pass by the fruits of office.
You will be glad to know I have been speaking for five minutes and I ought to finish.
Several noble Lords: Fifteen minutes!
Lord Davies of Leek: Oh, you can read the time—I thought you would fall for that. Having said that, I will finish with this. Looking at this gracious Speech, it is one of the most arid speeches that I have seen in my 38 years knocking around these buildings. There is no reference in it to the realities of the world in which we live, but a decided effort to increase the privatisation of profits and the socialisation of losses in every possible enterprise this Cabinet can put its hands on. This is folly. This is leading this great nation in the wrong direction. Somebody said there have been a lot of philosophical speeches. Mine may not have been philosophical, but in the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, whose philosophical speeches and logic I have enjoyed for many years—he may not agree with a word I have said—was a warning of the direction in which we are going. As old Tom Paine said:
"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the nation".
7.36 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I wish to address my remarks also the last item referred to in Her Majesty's gracious Speech:
"Legislation will be introduced to improve the accountability of local authorities for the level of their rates".
I attach great importance to accountability and in long years of experience of both rural district and county local government I have welcomed it wholeheartedly, whether it be in the village shop, the village fete or, as it was yesterday evening, in a village meeting. On one occasion I was asked about a "demountable" classroom at a wedding reception. People are quick to tell you when you are doing things wrong, and just occasionally they might be grateful. That is the virtue of local government—closeness to projects and the people you serve. Also, the ballot box is a very good constraint on local councillors when they are thinking of their actions for the future.
The proposed legislation is related to local government expenditure. There has been a long tradition of voluntary co-operation between local and central Government, whichever Government are in power, to achieve nationally-set economic targets. This summer my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in pursuance of this tradition and faced with an overspend by local government as a whole, requested local authorities to look again at their budgets and find further economies. The majority of local authorities set to in this most difficult task and did their best to meet his request and saved £196 million. A small number actually increased expenditure, and as a result the final possible overspend was greater than at the start of the Secretary of State's exercise.
This was particularly galling to many of us in local government who had made extremely difficult efforts once again to make economies, and we found that due to the actions of a few local authorities our efforts were put at nought. I still hope that, in the interests of local government as a whole, those authorities will voluntarily control their expenditure within the limits of the national economic targets.
The gracious Speech also spoke of
"further improving the efficiency of the economy and … strengthening industry, so as to restore competitiveness abroad and prosperity at home".
Yesterday, some doubt was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, as to whether Life Peers might support the Prime Minister. As a very new Life Peer, I am sure that I would be in good company with many others in supporting our Prime Minister in her most courageous fight against inflation, which is the enemy of us all. I hope very much that she will achieve victory, and will see this country back on a path of economic prosperity, in pursuing this part of the gracious Speech.
We in local government are very much aware that our finance comes from rates and taxes. The domestic ratepayer pays from his wages, and the commercial and industrial ratepayers from money that might otherwise be used to further their business interests. If our expenditure is too high, jobs are lost. Speaking of accountability, industry and commerce have no vote. This year there has been the added problem of supplementary rates levied by some councils and
74
that is expenditure for which neither domestic nor commercial ratepayers had planned. I believe that supplementary rates should be used only in an emergency. At their budget meetings in March, councils should plan their expenditure for the year and state clearly how it is to be financed, so that people will then know how to plan their own expenditure.
There is the long-standing problem of local government finance, which was highlighted some years ago by the Layfield Commission. I understand that this autumn there is to be a Green Paper on the subject, leading to changes in the future. It is of the utmost importance to local government to have a stable base for its finances, so that it can plan accordingly. The block grant system is certainly a great deal better than the old progressional analysis system. The local authority with which I am involved lost over £130 million in rate support grant, due to that. It always looked at past spending and rewarded people who had been spending highly, whereas we are now talking in terms of needs and one hopes that this will be an incentive to economy. The sooner the results of the 1981 census can be included in the block grant, the more up to date it will be and that will be of benefit to the system.
New legislation is planned to improve the accountability of local authorities. I hope that careful notice will be taken of the strong feelings expressed in this debate today of all the local authority associations, and that the legislation will be carefully drafted to preserve the freedom of local authorities to continue to attract members and officers of judgment and responsibility, who will exercise sensible initiatives and solve their problems locally, based on the sure foundation of local knowledge. Local government is a valuable and long-standing bulwark of British democracy which we must do all we can to maintain.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I shall not follow the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, in everything she said, except on one aspect of accountability, which most of her speech was about. I want to touch on the accountability of the Conservative Party for what they told this nation during the general election they would do, and on how they basely, and in an almost corrupt manner, did not carry out one single promise that they made to the nation. I would say to the noble Baroness, when she starts talking about accountability, that she should have a look at the manifesto of the Conservative Party and ask those who are now in power: Why are you disgracing us, when we try to hold you accountable for the things you said you would do and which you have failed miserably to do?
I want to concentrate for a few minutes on the National Health Service. I listened with great care and admiration to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. I am involved with the National Health Service and have been involved with the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the Trades Union Congress on this aspect. I am sure noble Lords will agree that there is nothing so poignant as mental health. The absolute agony is that if this Government remain in power much longer, we shall have to build more mental health institutions for worried and distressed people.

75
I thought that the tone of the debate was set at a very high level by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I listened carefully when he said that he had made a trip in 1926 and repeated it a few weeks ago. I have an immense admiration for the noble and learned Lord's logic and courage. I do not agree with everything he says, and he does not agree with everything I say, but I hope that we have some mutual regard. He struck the right note when he mentioned the national strike of 1926 and went on to say that the coalminers were still out on strike and asked what that was costing this nation. There is a similar smell of decay and anger abroad in our nation today, although the reasons might be different.
When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made his trip in his old motor car in 1926, I was just seven years of age and I can remember the discussions. I can remember that the talk was still about the war and—I say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Platt—the people were trying to make accountable the politicians who, during the 1914–18 war, promised those men that they would come home to a land fit for heroes to live in, and then betrayed them. The men in the pits of this country tried to defend their standards of life. I know that there are those who are eager to smile and laugh and to criticise the coalminers, but people who do that have faced the possible danger only of being impaled on their fountain pens. So they should have just a little respect, because those men were bitter as the noble and learned Lord said. Those men in South Wales, Derbyshire, Yorkshire and Scotland had made the steel to build the battleships, and had produced the anthracite coal to power those battleships, which made a massive contribution to the winning of the First World War.
In 1915, Winston Churchill had to introduce a Rent Act, because of a possible revolution in the trenches. This is accountability. Tens of thousands of men were getting letters from their wives, saying that the increase in their rents meant that they could not possibly raise their families and would be thrown out on the streets. So in 1915 we had the first Rent Act ever, and the originators of that loathsome violation were supporters of the Liberal and Conservative Parties. In Yorkshire, Scotland, Derbyshire, Kent and South Wales they are still held accountable for their traitorous action, and I hope that their behaviour will be condemned by every noble Lord and Baroness in this House. That is accountability.
We in this House should understand that organisations such as the Trades Union Congress, the British Medical Association and the CBI also recognise that one of the great things that happened to us at the end of the last war, which was so different from what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor mentioned in his poignant and fascinating speech, was that we started to launch a society based on understanding and compassion and recognition of real patriotism—not the patriotism that makes you a multi-millionaire while your countrymen are dying, but the patriotism of going to fight for your nation and win for your nation and achieve a victory for freedom and democracy.
When the troops came home we immediately embarked upon the construction of national insurance,
76
upon the construction of a housing programme and, perhaps above all, upon the construction of the finest piece of legislation that has ever been put on the statute book of this country or any other country in the world, including Russia and America; namely, our National Health Service. There are people in the Trades Union Congress who do not get much publicity for it. The General Secretary and the national officers of the Confederation of Health Service Employees, affectionately known as the nurses' union, are deeply concerned that there has been a deliberate attempt to sow a cancerous decay into our National Health Service.
As they see it and as I see it, the Government have a strategy. The first part of that strategy is to encourage private medicine—to make money out of sickness, to make money out of pain, to make money out of worry and anguish. This is really designed, in my judgment, as the first heathen move to sabotage Great Britain's National Health Service—this in a society where already the wealthy enjoy tax reductions which are greater than the entire salaries which people in British Leyland and the coal miners are earning. They know this. The research officers of their trade unions are making this clear. They have to; they do not wish to cheat their members. It is a difficult role to play but it has to be done.
Time will not permit me to make a full exposition of everything that is involved, but I believe I have enough facts to show that our National Health Service is to be sacrificed on the altar of avarice and greed, and that Government action over the past two years has done enough to make it ready for the massive sacrifice that is going to be made. Consequently, we have seen a decline in quality in all our health services. The Government are not maintaining the level of spending planned by their Labour predecessors.
I feel very deeply about the National Health Service. I come from a part of the country where people cheated doctors. If a child was taken ill the doctor came and sometimes helped with the payment of the prescription. Then, with malnutrition ravaging South Wales from 1926 up to the 1930s, about which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spoke, another child was taken ill; so they looked for another doctor to call in because they were ashamed that they had not paid the first one—this at a time when there were some 30 doctors throughout the valleys of South Wales and 70 in the Royal Borough of Kensington. This is accountability. It makes the argument about local government, serious though it is, fade into an insignificant little fable when one tries to compare it with the New Testament. The Lord Chancellor warned us. He was quite right.
It may be for different reasons that I make my submission in support of his. In the ultimate, I believe that what we are both concerned about is that the massive freedom that was born in this country and defended by this country is in danger. It could be in danger because of some of the things we are doing. Therefore, it behoves us all to see that we contribute, somehow or other, towards preventing that happening. The Conservative manifesto proclaimed:
"It is not our intention to reduce spending on the health services".

77
The Prime Minister herself reiterated this point during the election campaign when she said:
"We shall not reduce the resources devoted to the health service".
In fact, the Government wasted little time in cutting back on the health services as well as all other public services. In July 1979 the Government acknowledged that a refusal to increase cash limits in the National Health Service would in real terms reduce National Health Service expenditure. And because of the increase in VAT and the failure to increase cash limits, no less than £1,000 million was lobbed off the budget of our National Health Service. In the November White Paper, the expenditure plans for 1980–81 detailed cuts of £3·5 million in various areas. A great deal of this was to fall on the National Health Service.
It is generally accepted that an annual increase of about 2 per cent. on National Health Service expenditure is needed merely to maintain existing services and to meet demographic change. In January the Prime Minister said that further cuts of about £2 million were needed to restore economic growth. This is being implemented and has meant a National Health Service reduction of £500 million, compared with the Labour Party's plans for the same period. Therefore, one has to check this accountability. The Government said that they do not intend to damage the National Health Service. When one checks on the accountability of that statement one discovers that the National Health Service has been slashed by £500 million per annum. This is the sort of thing which makes ordinary people very angry.
In the White Paper of 1980–81, leading forward to the future in 1983 and 1984 (this prognostication was published at the same time) cash limits were set at 14 per cent. while inflation was running at about 19 per cent. If cash limits had been set at 14 per cent. when the Conservative Party took office we should have been in clover because inflation then was only just over 8 per cent. Within a year it was soaring into the twenties. The Prime Minister deliberately created all that gave birth to inflation, but says that she is the champion by bringing down the hideous inflation which she created. This point is not lost on working people. Indeed, it is not lost on the CBI or on the TUC, and those are the sort of people who are important. It is those sort of people who can help the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I in trying to bring some sense back so that people will understand that they are not going to be cheated any longer.
There is another aspect which I must mention. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, mentioned the problems—and they are many—which afflict nurses in mental hospitals. I have tried on other occasions in your Lordships' House to outline some of them. It has to be realised that nurses employed in the National Health Service are now fewer by a total of 14,095 than two years ago. This was when we were probably all involved in the clash and the clang of the hustings. Since those days and up to this evening 14,000 British nurses have been put on the dole. This I find is both a very sad and a very sorry thing. It would make both Florence Nightingale and Aneurin Bevan shed tears in heaven.
Another aspect that has been affected has been
78
research and preventive medicine. I am one of those who believe that preventable pain is a blot on any society and if we deliberately set about not preventing pain we are deliberately creating a blot which is a disgrace for any society. All forms of charges within the NHS, or the creation of a private sector, simply mean delayed action. Hence there is a possibility of sickness and some form of illness creating a permanent disability because of the failure to take early action. When a minor operation might well cost £500 or £600, trade unionists will say, "The private sector have now taken over the health service so we are going to put in claims for our wages which will allow us to meet those bills". That is what I beg noble Lords opposite to try to bear in mind for the future of our country—not merely for the health service.
I have said time and time again in your Lordships' House that we hear a great deal about strikes; we hear a great deal about industrial unrest—but when shall we recognise that industrial disease costs our nation, in time lost at the workshop or at the pit or at the steelworks, twice or three times as much as the most terrible period of strikes in our history? When shall we acknowledge that fact, for the sake of our nation? The incidence of industrial unrest and industrial disease was reduced by the creation of the National Health Service, and in that aspect alone it pays for itself. I believe that if we ignore these things it will be both economically dangerous and, perhaps what is more, from the ethical point of view it is both callous and bereft of any form of compassion. A hospital waiting list increases the duration of pain and anxiety and so does the failure to exploit medical technology. All Governments—Labour Governments and Conservative Governments—have failed to exploit the brilliance of our technologists in the field of medical technology. We have to debate whether or not we should have more kidney machines or spend £20,000 per patient for a heart transplant. There is no need for that horrible equation to be put. Everyone who has someone who needs to be put on a kidney machine cannot see the justice of someone else getting a heart transplant which costs £20,000. There is no need for that sort of equation.
Some of the newspapers have even hinted and adumbrated that some Ministers are involved in private schemes—that is a very serious thing for me to say and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has noted it and will make some declaration about it. It is a very serious thing and I could hardly believe it. If it is not true, it should denied. If it is true, it is sad. The private schemes have for their aim the consumption of the apparatus of the National Health Service, but leave the creation and maintenance of that apparatus without any plan or without any central direction. I want all my fellow Britons to have at the back of their consciences that not only themselves but all their fellow citizens should have access when ill to the best that medical skill can provide.
The free and comprehensive National Health Service in the form in which it was introduced by Aneurin Bevan—I beg your Lordships to listen to this—was recently examined by a Royal Commission of totally independent people who were expert in their various fields. They made a unanimous recommendation which urged a complete return to the original

79
concept upon which our National Health Service was based when it was introduced to this nation by the late Aneurin Bevan and the first Labour Government after the war. In conclusion, I want to say that our National Health Service is no part of any political dogma but rather, I believe, the implementation of the parable of the Good Samaritan, and I do not believe there is anything wrong in that. So even now I say to this Government, at this late hour, it is not too late not to pass by on the other side.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has said in addressing your Lordships, but he will no doubt forgive me if I do not follow him in what he said. I doubt whether I should be qualified to expatiate upon the afterlife of either Florence Nightingale or Aneurin Bevan. May I start, as a simple Scots lawyer, by echoing the many congratulations which have been extended to the self-styled "simple Scots farmer", the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston. He will understand that at this late hour I leave my eulogy there.
In politics, as I imagine in love and much else besides, perhaps the worst fate that can befall one is to be ignored, and it was accordingly a great encouragement to those of us on this Bench—and it may shortly be these Benches and even nearer the front, who knows?—that we were not ignored by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack when he opened this debate. We all enjoyed his good humoured digs at us in the tradition of party political fun and games—leaderless, without policy and indeed without a party; a mere alliance with the old Liberal Party. These were fair remarks, but I hope he will not think me too sullen if I say with respect that of course they missed the point completely.
What gave birth to the Social Democratic Party? It was not just the performance of the Conservative Party and the Labour Party and their Governments, distressing and disturbing though that was, and it was not just a kind of twinkle in the eye of Mr. Roy Jenkins. It was a profound feeling among the ordinary people of Britain that the time was ripe for a secular change in British politics. That is what gave rise to the birth of the Social Democratic Party—a sense felt widely by many people who have never previously taken part in politics in this country, that our political life had reached a new low. Certainly it has never been very high in my lifetime but there was this feeling that it had reached a new low. However, this debate is not about the Social Democratic Party but about the gracious Speech.
I would not dare to talk about English criminal justice. That is not for a Scots lawyer to do, but I would say that I agreed with much of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said about the proposals. Certainly I did not disagree with much and I agreed with almost everything—and this augurs well for the alliance—that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said. I agreed with everything in his speech and I venture only to say that I hope the proposals which this Government present for English criminal justice are a bit better and more impressive than those which
80
they presented for Scottish criminal justice. I am sorry that I was not able to take part at that particular time in the debates on that Bill.
Beyond that I want to speak only upon the Scottish question. I hope that does not sound too insular or inward-looking. But I want to talk about the Scottish question because the only reference to that country in the gracious Speech suggests that either the Government are unaware of what is involved in that question today or they suffer from the illusion that if it is ignored it will go away; and if the latter is the explanation, the very opposite is the case.
Are the Government aware of, are they alert to, the various circumstances which put the integrity of the Union of that country with England under strain, somewhat at risk? Of course it has been under strain before. Indeed, one could make a good historical case for the view that it has been under strain ever since 1707. But it is the combination of circumstances presented in the political and economic climate of today which, if ignored, could lead to the disintegration of that Union. Of course, an unknown, but I think a not insignificant, number of Scots would welcome that. Less acknowledged publicly, quite a number of English would not regard it as a tragedy either. After all, they did not welcome us much in 1603, and they thwarted Jimmy the First's and Sixth's anxiety to achieve a union of the Parliaments then, and I doubt if they would have accepted us in 1707 if they had not been a bit worried about the implications for their northern flank of the old alliance with France.
But, my Lords, while that is all true—and I am not too serious about the last point—there is no doubt that most Scots and English alike would agree that in the world in which we live today political disintegration would be damaging to the peoples of both countries and contrary to their interests. What, then, are the circumstances which in combination, I suggest, are a danger to which the British Government should be alert? First, there is the force of Scottish nationalism, the Scottish National Party with its strident xenophobic fringe. The party and its fringe gain adherents with every failure of British Government, and these are not notably thin on the ground at present. Secondly, there is the acute unpopularity of the present Government in Scotland and the fact that they have the support of only a minority of Scottish Members.
Thirdly—and I say this not in any spirit at all of offence—there is the inadequate appreciation and understanding among the English ruling classes, be they members of the Conservative Party, of the Labour Party or any other party, of Scottish history and aspirations, and this contributes to the Scottish view of them as arrogant, overbearing and patronising. Do not let any one think that I am saying that the English are arrogant, overbearing and patronising. It would never occur to me to say this. But this is a widely held Scottish view. And it is not just the view of the football supporter on his way to Wembley, it is not just the view of the Scotsman of Dr. Johnson's writings; it is the view even of responsible and respected Scottish historians like Professor John Mackie. Just in case anyone finds this observation offensive, let me confess that I am perfectly well aware of the English view of the idiosyncracies of my own countrymen, and I can enjoy talking about them as well.

81
The fourth circumstance—and this is the last one I propose to mention—which I suggest gives rise to this strain on the Union is the great illusion of the Scots that a legislative assembly in Edinburgh per se and today—and I emphasise per se and today—would contribute significantly to the alleviation of Scotland's present discontents. Some in Scotland even think it might restore Edinburgh once again to be the Athens of the North, as in the course of the century immediately following the Union she in fact was. Of course, there was a time when Scotsmen of vision within and without the political parties rallied under the banner of home rule. There were those in 1707 who wanted federation, and it may be that had we heeded them and taken a different path in the years before 1914 we would be better governed today and a healthier society socially and politically.
The short point that I seek to make is that, having moved into one of these recurring periods of political instability, after 300 years of integration political and other, if the experience of the last 16 years is anything to go by, any plan for a legislative assembly in Edinburgh, spatchcocked together by any of the political parties we have to catch the votes of the Scots, is more likely than not to carry within it the seed of political disintegration. And yet this illusion that any old assembly in Edinburgh would he better than none persists. It will not die. It has been encouraged by none more than the professional politicians whose shortcomings in those assemblies we already have to go some way to explain the trouble that we are in. I hope I am wrong in seeing some signs that the new party of which I am a member may act to encourage this same illusion. I think I am wrong; I hope I am wrong. The point in the context of this debate is that, while I am glad there is no glib promise of an assembly for the Scots in Edinburgh, there is nothing in the gracious Speech to suggest—and this I think ties up with some remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, made—that the nature and urgency of the Scottish question is appreciated by Her Majesty's Government.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, following the affairs of Scotland, I should like to say a few words about Northern Ireland, to which I think my noble friend Lord Belstead is no stranger. I had the opportunity to spend two weeks in Ulster earlier this autumn, and I should like to mention one or two things that I found of really great encouragement. I had the chance of meeting several ex-members of parliamentary organisations, men who had renounced violence and terrorism, and I am glad to say that those I met came from both main communities. I was able to visit Lagan College in Belfast which has been mentioned in your Lordships' House earlier this year. This may not be the first Protestant and Catholic school in Northern Ireland, but it is probably the first to be established by the deliberate wish and intention of the parents concerned. Religious education in Lagan College will not be some compromise syllabus; it will, I understand, offer both traditional and ecumenical teaching, as requested by the parents. The children studying there will, I hope, be the first of many growing up in a Christian atmosphere as members of one undivided
82
community, where each may cherish his own religious tradition.
On another occasion I was able to attend the Saturday evening service of a local Christian fellowship in County Down. It has some 500 members and the membership covers the whole spectrum from Catholic to Evangelical Protestant. The members seemed to me to be mostly in the age group from 18 to 30. I would emphasise that it is not a new sect; it is an example of ecumenical renewal which will in time, with God's help, convert both the leadership and the rank and file of existing denominations.
On several previous occasions—to be precise, on 12th December 1979, 14th February, 11th July and rather more briefly on 25th November of last year—I spoke in your Lordships' House of the politics of forgiveness in relation to Britain, Ireland as a whole and the Irish question. I believe that concept to be a valid one, but I begin now to feel that I was perhaps premature in putting it forward when I did. I think that I should have spoken first of the politics of repentance.
Repentance can be explained in theological terms, but today I would much prefer to refer to it in human terms or, one might even say, in humanist terms. I see repentance as a turning away from an unsatisfying past and present in a deliberate attempt to create a better future. It involves not only the abandoning of entrenched positions, but willingness to compromise and, in addition, qualities of vision, of imagination and of necessarily risky creativity.
Some people may object that repentance is too diffuse or too personal a thing to be translated into politics. I would, therefore, like to point to some examples of the process actually happening in different parts of the world. Since 1945, as we know, the relations between France and Germany and between Germany and Poland have been totally transformed. It might be argued that the process in those countries simply represents a peace of exhaustion after war. If so, I should like to produce some other examples. In 1972 the Addis Ababa Conference brought an end to 17 years of civil war and religious persecution in the South Sudan. In 1979 the Lancaster House Conference here in London gave peace to Zimbabwe after 14 years of illegality and war. Those are instances of countries turning away from self-destruction and coming back, one might say, from the jaws of disaster with—and this is important—the help of some sympathetic outsiders, among whom I would include my noble friend Lord Carrington.
Repentance and reconstruction have many implications for Britain and Ireland and I shall touch on only a few. I hope we in Britain will recognise that our involvement with Ireland over the centuries has caused great injustices and major suffering. I trust that we shall renounce all attitudes of superiority. Some of these still exist, as witness the contemporary Irish jokes that portray Irish people as brainless peasants. We need to accept the Irish as fully human and as being every bit as civilised as ourselves.
In Northern Ireland it would be good to see both sides of debate abandoning harsh moral judgments. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said earlier, there is no excuse for bigotry. One hopes that all parties will accept that there is no immediate agreement on power-sharing or devolved government,

83
and yet at the same time how much one hopes that they will set themselves to work with determination towards agreed solutions within, at the most, 10 to 15 years. An article by Professor Desmond Bowen in the October issue of the Northern Ireland periodical Fortnight stressed repentance and forgiveness. Professor Bowen, I know, is not the only person in that area to emphasise these things.
Again, from the Republic of Ireland there are signs that the politics of repentance are well understood. The Constitution of 1937 is beginning to be seen as part of the overall problem. The laws on divorce and other sensitive matters have been identified as deeply disturbing and, indeed, unacceptable to many northerners. I am sure that our Prime Minister will respond with generosity to the courage and vision of Dr. FitzGerald, when they meet here in London. Both he and his immediate predecessor have advanced considerably the cause of peace.
I come now to the Churches throughout Ireland. With the help of their colleagues in Britain I suggest that they have much to contribute to the whole area of repentance. They will come to see that their past behaviour has exacerbated economic, political and constitutional difficulties. I shall give only two instances: first, the rigid Roman Catholic attitudes over mixed marriages; and secondly, the politico-religious stance of the Orange Order in Northern Ireland. Repentance for the Churches, I believe, means the giving up of attitudes and behaviour which generate fear among other denominations.
I have touched on some of the long-term issues. I shall conclude by putting more immediate points to Her Majesty's Government. I think we have to accept that direct rule will continue for some time. It is up to us to improve its workings. I should like to ask whether the Government would make it possible for Northern Ireland Members of Parliament and perhaps, indeed, some Members of your Lordships' House, to sit and meet for perhaps two weeks a year in Belfast, and maybe even Londonderry. That, I think, could achieve a better scrutiny of local issues and help with the redress of grievances, for direct rule of its nature is bound to appear to many to be both remote and unaccountable.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, mentioned earlier today the proposal for a joint north south court to try fugitive offenders and trans-border offences. I very much hope that this morning's edition of The Times was wrong in what it forecast about such a new court. I beg the Government not to reject out of hand the idea of a joint or mixed court. It is a most serious issue and one that deserves very careful consideration indeed. The Irish question may seem to be a perennial one. I have suggested that there are major signs of hope, and I think that it is up to us to address oursevles, not only to short-term but also to the longer-term approaches to the peace that we all so much desire.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Stewart of Alvechurch: My Lords, I take part in this debate as a governor of an evening institute which, like many other such institutes in this country, undertakes work of great educational and social
84
importance with very little publicity and without the financial support required to meet all the needs of the students. It is my hope that the Government may be able to make larger contributions towards the financial costs of these institutes than has recently been possible.
In the institute of which I am a governor about 9,000 students attend classes in the course of a year; about 11 per cent. of those students are under 20; about 20 per cent. are over 60; the rest represent the ages of all in London. A very wide range of classes is offered, including university extra mural studies, art and pottery, music, cookery and many others, including—and perhaps this is the most important of all—language classes, which meet the needs of many of the students who come from other countries, particularly those who have to learn our language. These classes for illiterates are very much appreciated.
Classes have also been held in local hospitals for long-stay patients. On one occasion I visited a local hospital with a distinguished artist and he spoke to patients. One patient, who was officially bedridden and who had not been up, certainly for months and I think possibly for years, insisted on getting up so that she could paint a picture. That is what she did, and she was up for many weeks, although until that time she had been unable to move about at all. I hope that today, as a result of the painting, she is pretty fit.
My Lords, I am sorry but I seem unable to read what I have written down, which makes life rather complicated. However, one or the great assets of the evening institute is that the students are treated as equals by members of the staff. The works programme, as far as funds will allow, is based on what the students themselves have expressed a wish to join. I am sorry, my Lords, but I am afraid that I cannot continue.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, at this hour I think that it is too late to make a speech with closely reasoned argument, but I should like to make two brief points on the subject of law enforcement, about which there has been reference in very general terms, during this debate, apparently taking law enforcement for granted as against all the figures and details on the other subjects like the prison population, child delinquents and so on, into which we have gone in some depth. I hope that when we come to debate the Scarman Report we shall get well below the surface, because in my view this House, more so than the other place, ought to be able to help the police service in its present difficulties.
Too many police officers are over-suspicious and they think that no one can usefully judge the police service, its duties and responsibilities unless he has worn blue uniform for half his life. Of course it is an advantage to have had close contact, but police officers, who are not very good at communicating with politicians, encourage the misunderstanding among politicians of themselves and of their problems. Against that background I make my two points.
Frequently we hear about the numbers of the police service in this country; we do not hear very much about training. I think that we ought to take the two together. Young police constables today frequently run into increasing criticism, but they, rather than their seniors, are in contact with the people whom they

85
police and it is they who uphold the high reputation of the British service, not just within this country but overseas as well, and need support.
It must be admitted that the present initial training system has produced miracles in the past, but I am less happy that it is the right beginning for a young man or woman starting a police career, today, not least as the time spent in training, which is approximately three months, is the shortest in Western Europe. I am sure that this should be looked at again. I suggest that we should double this three months to six months and perhaps delay the swearing in process until half way through, when the recruits can have shown not only that they are, in fact, sufficiently interested, but that they are endowed with the qualities that we want young police constables to have. At present, in theory—the public do not realise this, but it is so—a young man or woman has the full powers of a constable the moment he or she has been sworn in, and that is before a single half hour's training. Naturally, forces look after their new recruits and do not let them loose on the public, but it does not seem to me to be quite right that that should he the order of priorities.
I come to my second point, which is at the other end of the spectrum. In making it I may lose the few friends that I have left in ACPO, but I cannot help that; in this place we ought to say what we think. I consider that the present retiring age of 65 for chief constables is too old; it is out of step with the retiring age for other servants of the Crown, and I believe that the Home Office will agree with me on this. The retiring age for major generals is 55 and for ambassadors and senior civil servants it is 60. Yet chief constables, who hold an operational appointment and who are leading, if you do not like the word "commanding", young men are, in fact, appointed until they reach the age of 65, unless they retire on other grounds or unless something happens. Why should new appointments not be made subject to a retiring age of 60? That would not disturb men who are serving now, but it would mean that new appointments are made subject to this earlier and more appropriate retiring rule.
To conclude, I do not believe that either of these measures would need legislation. Both problems have been with us for a long time, long before the Brixton troubles stimulated the appointment of Lord Scarman's and other committees. So I beg the Government to consider both these two points made in haste at the end of this long and interesting debate, and I submit to the Minister that they could be very valuable.
8.39 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, touched on retirement and it reminded me that I retired in 1974.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, from what?
Lord Wallace of Coslany: I have found a new lease of life and am working harder than I ever did, even when I was in the Commons. However, that is beside the point. We must get on with the debate because time is short. The first pleasant duty that I have is to compliment and extend my sincere congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, on his maiden speech. Certainly I look forward to further contributions
86
from the noble Lord, especially as he is an old colleague from another place. More particularly, I. cannot wait for the time when he and my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock are engaged in verbal conflict. It will be worth attending this House just for that particular occasion.
We have had a number of varied speeches, but the main forceful speeches have been on the position of local government. Like many others who have spoken, I have served my term in local government, and still hold the view that anybody aspiring to election to another place should at least serve a term, if only of apprenticeship, in local government, because local government is the grass roots of our system of democracy. Here it is first-hand administration by elected councillors who know their area and its needs. They are close to the feelings and needs of their electorate and, what is more, the pressure of public opinion.
During the period of the Conservative Government of 1970–74 two measures of reorganisation were introduced; that of the National Health Service and that of local government. Both measures provided greater bureaucracy and remoteness of control. Inevitably greater public expenditure arose as a result. Happily, in the past Session the Government repented so far as the health service was concerned and considerable de-centralisation will take place, with, we hope, financial advantage to the service.
Local government, however, remains obstructed and hampered by intimate local issues like social services and education being administered in the main by over-large and remote authorities. Worse still, local authorities are still faced with and are facing increasing Whitehall control and domination. The "local" in local government is being rapidly eroded. In the gracious Speech we are promised further local government legislation which is calculated to extend Whitehall control over rate fixing, and to blackmail local authorities facing severe problems. As a result, it will force reduction in vital services such as welfare, education, housing, and many other vital services.
The proposal for compulsory referenda on supplementary rate increases is an unwarranted attack on the freedom of democratically elected local authorities. I would ask the Government who is going to pay for the cost of this operation? The Government proposals put local democracy in the melting pot, and recast the constitutional relationship between central and local government. I accept that the rating system is overdue for review and change, but direct interference and dictatorship from Whitehall is a retrograde step and will be strongly resisted. Whenever economies are forced upon local authorities the education service appears to be target number one. Today the situation is already critical. Many teachers who leave are not being replaced. Nursery classes are closed down. Many schools are short of basic textbooks. Maintenance is reduced to a minimum, even to the point of absurdity. I speak from some degree of experience because my daughter is a dedicated teacher and she is always bringing home complaints and expressing anxieties about the future. Even paper for children to work on has in many cases become a scarce commodity, as have pencils and pens.
Maintenance neglect is a false economy. One school I know has not had its external paintwork renewed

87
for 13 years. In Bradford two schools will have to be demolished and new ones built because repairs and maintenance have become victims of spending cuts forced by Government policy. What is more serious is that as a result of not replacing teachers who leave, the pupil/teacher ratio is worsening, and in some cases redundancies of teachers are now arising. Since 1979 more than 600 teaching posts have been lost in Kent, and the present outlook is likely to go possibly to another 600 redundancies.
Generally in the country there is already a shortage of teachers in modern languages, maths, science subjects, crafts, and yet when some of these teachers leave they are not even being replaced. This is a very serious situation. The fact is that we face increasing cuts in education forced upon education authorities as a result of the Government's economic policies. Can we afford to be in this position? We are spending less on education than European countries except Ireland and Portugal. Can we afford to be in this position? The answer lies in the fact that, unless we stop this devastation of the prospects of present and future generations of children, the skills needed in an advanced industrial economy will be mainly lost. We must not fail to equip them with the skills so necessary for work and life in the newly dawning techno-electronic age. We have to face up to that fact. I hold the view that a child's education starts at that most important stage, the primary stage, and it is in the primary stage that some of the worst are being made.
There is also, so far as education is concerned, not only the question of the healthy and able-bodied; handicapped children need specialised training after the age of 16. They are among the casualties of spending cuts, and are in urgent need of special provision. This need is underlined by the Manpower Services Commission annual report which showed that the number of disabled unemployed people placed by the Manpower Services Commission fell from 60,000 in 1979–80 to 39,000 in 1980–81. This underlines the need for special provision to be made for the education and training of young handicapped, because young handicapped can perform a vital and useful service. During my holiday I met a young lady who is a spastic. She is a most charming girl, terribly affected by her disability, but doing a first-class job in the Post Office service on checking the errors that computers make, which I felt was a new occupation. There is scope for these people to be useful members of society, but I think as a whole we are all falling down on this particular problem.
So far as housing is concerned it is the view of many of us on this side of the House that housing provisions is an essential social service, with rents geared to need and ability to pay. I put it no higher than that. The fact is that progress in local authority housing development is to all intents and purposes at a standstill. Due to the obsession of the Government with the selling of council houses and their heavy-handed, domineering attitude to local authorities, there is a continued reduction of housing stocks, with the result that the situation is now critical, and is small comfort to the homeless and the overcrowded.
A classic case of domination is close to my heart because it is that of the City of Norwich as reported in
88
the Guardian of 3rd November. It would appear that the Secretary of State for the Environment has warned the city council that his agents, probably local solicitors, will intervene within the next few days to take over the sale of its council houses unless the council gives rapid and firm assurances to do the job itself. I hear a noble Lord say, "Hear, hear!" Well, I dare him to go to Norwich and utter that phrase in the city, because they are a proud and independent people. The city council, I would assure the House, has already engaged extra staff to cope with 800 applications to purchase. But I would remind the House that, although it owns over half the houses in the city, it still has 5,000 people on the waiting-list for accommodation.
Is there to be no end to the bullying and dictatorship from Whitehall of such progressive and well-administered councils as the City of Norwich? I say it is well administered because it is the view of many people involved in local authority affairs that it is a council which has been well run, organised and administered for years.
The proposals in the gracious Speech to shift responsibility for housing benefits from the Department of Health and Social Security to local authorities must constitute an added burden on local authorities and their administrations. It would appear that some 2,000 to 3,000 jobs will be saved by the DHSS; but what effect will that have on the local authorities? The saving by a central Government department will just be put on the backs of local authorities, who are already under severe pressure to make large cuts in expenditure. What is more, the saving of some 3,000 jobs means in human terms an addition to the mounting total of unemployed, with all the anxiety, hardship and misery for the human statistic and his family.
I welcome the proposals in the gracious Speech to bring in legislation to amend the mental health Acts. We on this side must of course give a somewhat guarded welcome because, naturally, we are unaware of the details of the proposed legislation. The House can be assured, however, of a close and constructive examination of the legislation when it comes before us. Meanwhile, I would ask one question: Where will the money come from for this project? Will the extra cash be achieved by reducing allocations to other sections of the National Health Service? Insufficient cash resources continue to restrict services in many health authority areas and the time has arrived for the Government to review cash allocations by regional health authorities, which certainly operate against the needs of London and Greater London.
We are to have yet another social security Bill. With memories of last Session in mind, I had great difficulty in restraining a groan of despair when Her Majesty mentioned that item in Her gracious Speech. Last Session, in the saga of social security legislation, the main theme was the clawback. Will the shortfall be made up? No promises have been made, so none can be kept; we must trust the Government, if trust them we can. Another point affecting social security benefits is that inflation is still far higher than the Government's estimate and looks likely to continue at a high level. What is the Government's

89
estimate now, and what effect on benefits will it have in the future?
The main theme of legislation last Session on social security was that in time of economic strain savings must be made and allsections of the community must make sacrifices. No doubt this Session it will be a case of tell me the old, old story. Of course the Government are facing considerable increases in spending on social security benefits, as they are bound to do with 3 million unemployed and the social consequences of that sad situation. But the spending of many millions of pounds more does not mean social justice in the levels of benefits, or that sacrifices by the poorest sections of the community are just and equitable.
On that theme, we cannot forget that one of the first acts of this Government when taking office was to give over-generous handouts to the better-off. In times of economic stress, such as today, it is the vulnerable sections of the community who suffer most from economy measures, however small on paper and in the statistics they appear to be. In times of unemployment, sickness, disability or low pay, a reduction of income, however small, can only but increase misery and hardship. In such cases there can be no equality of sacrifice. For people in those categories it is impossible to speak in such terms.
The Government's proposal to transfer to employers' the responsibility for the payment of workers' sick pay for the first eight weeks of illness is, of course, an economy measure for the DHSS and the Government, but will it be for the employer? It might well be that the Government will provide for employers to recoup the money paid out from their national insurance contributions. That might be so; but employers with a sizeable workforce will have to engage further staff, and will they be able to recover those costs? And what about small businesses? Will they be able to cope, remembering that they are the people more likely to be hit? There will of course be staff reduction in the DHSS, more recruits to the ranks of the unemployed. Apart from that, the proposal contains a possible threat to industrial relations, for there could, and does, arise a question of dispute between workers and management on issues concerning sick pay. Thus, we shall have to examine the proposals with the greatest possible care.
When people refer to social security, it is in the sense of benefits available, and that is generally accepted to be the case. What is so often overlooked however is the vital part the personal social services, operated by local authorities, play as a back-up in the social security field and the National Health Service. Adequate local social services and housing prevent health problems and reduce demand on the NHS and social security. They are in fact an investment, yet those services are now being drastically cut. Local authorities are at their wits end in trying to maintain a reasonable standard of personal social services. Already, severe cuts have been forced on local authorities. Some have resisted severe cuts and are now facing penal measures for overspending. Further pressure by central Government on local authorities could lead to the widespread closure of old people's homes, children's homes, day centres, fewer home helps and reductions, some of which have already taken place, in services for the sick, disabled and the mentally handicapped.
90
This is not alarmist talk. In a debate last Session on the social services I gave factual figures of reductions already forced on Kent County Council, which included reduced provision for the elderly and terminally ill and the abolition of aid for holidays for the physically handicapped, along with many other items, amounting to a cut of £1.4 million for 1981–82 to meet Government-imposed cash limits.
I could say much more but time does not permit. By nature I am an optimist and, to a great extent, somewhat of an idealist. I really wish I could share in the optimism of the Prime Minister in the speech she made yesterday, but I cannot. The fabric of our society has been shattered and we are a divided nation in a troubled world. The mounting total of unemployed, especially among the young, is breeding resentment and bitterness. The Government cannot escape from the fact that their policies have played, and are playing, a large part in this situation. Monetary policy may in theory be right, but in practice it brings despair and lack of human understanding. There is, there must be, a better way and I earnestly pray that we might find it. Find it we must, but in the present Government I can find no trust.
8.59 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate and we welcome to it my noble friend Lord Stodart, who spoke for the first time in your Lordships' House. My noble friend has had a distinguished career in another place, as both a Scottish Minister and an agricultural Minister, and he spoke today of the forthcoming Bill to implement the conclusions of the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Local Government in Scotland. It is a rare opportunity for a noble Lord to be enabled to make a maiden speech in this House on the report of a committee of which he has been chairman. It was a pleasure to listen to my noble friend, and I am sure we all hope that he will return soon to speak again, not perhaps confining himself to the interesting subject of local government in Scotland, but possibly branching out into rather wider areas.
The gracious Speech makes reference to the importance of the fight against inflation. In the interests of this country, for the protection of the savings of every family, we must never lose sight of this objective, even though it places constraints upon us all. I found very interesting the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, and although he has had a long experience of local government, he seems to have a fine disregard for the need to harbour any resources in any area of public expenditure whatsover. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said, the truth of the matter is that it is the product of industry from which all public expenditure must come, and despite the constraints on public expenditure which are therefore inevitable at the present time, there are areas in the field covered by today's debate which are attracting substantial Government support.
Three weeks ago my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced that the Secretary of State for the Environment will continue for a further 12 months his especial interest in the problems of Merseyside. The Secretary of State will be assisted by a task force from the Environment, Industry and Trans

91
port Departments and from the Manpower Services Commission. At the same time a group of managers seconded from two dozen leading financial institutions will also be looking at ways of improving co-operation with the private sector in Merseyside, and the Government will consider how the work of these two groups can be adapted and extended to other inner city areas.
The gracious Speech also makes it clear that the Government's policies will seek equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities for all the people of this country. Another example of Government support which is at present going on is the urban programme, which continues to be of considerable benefit to ethnic minority groups. More than 350 projects specifically for the ethnic minorities are being funded at the present time, and the Government are considering how best the urban programme may be used to combat racial disadvantage, especially in the light of the report of the Home Affairs Sub-Committee of another place on Race Relations and Immigration.
Several of your Lordships spoke of the effects of unemployment at the present time. I have in mind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, who, in addition to his episcopal experience, also speaks from his experience as a Manpower Services Commission chairman in the West Midlands, an experience that we shall he very sorry to lose from your Lordships' House. For the present and the future the education and training of young people is of vital importance. I know that those were the thoughts that were very much behind the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Stewart of Alvechurch. The Youth Opportunities Programme has therefore been expanded to 550,000 places in the current year, and only yesterday in another place my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced that the number of trainees in the Youth Opportunities Programme rose by 55,000 last month. Within the next two or three months, I understand, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment expects to be able to announce a more comprehensive training scheme for unemployed young people, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, welcomed.
But surely the way to overcome the unemployment that is hitting all developed countries of the Western world is through a combination of special employment measures, the creation of genuine jobs at home, and export-led growth abroad. There are encouraging signs at the present time that productivity is increasing and that unit costs have been kept down. This is the policy which we believe is right for the future, and it is one that we shall continue to follow.
In speaking of young people, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, also spoke specifically about education, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Stewart of Alvechurch. Here again, the Government are providing for an additional £60 million for next year for full-time education for 16 to 19-year-olds, with further expenditure to be devoted in the two years thereafter. I think it right that these facts should be placed on the record, to show that this is what we are endeavouring to do.
92
In addition, the gracious Speech also records the importance which the Government attach to the requirements of law and order. Since May 1979 the police service in England and Wales has increased in strength by 7,000; that is, 7,000 more policemen and policewomen throughout England and Wales. Nearly all forces are now up to strength, and the numbers in the Metropolitan Police stand at the highest point in the history of the force.
I do not in any way dissent from the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Inglewood about the importance of training, but I believe that the increase in the numbers of police over the past two and a half to three years has been of crucial importance in terms of the serious disturbances in public order which we experienced during the summer. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has previously set in hand important studies in the fields of public order legislation and racial attacks, as well as the inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, into the disorders in Brixton last April. I think that all of that is important in the area to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred when he expressed disquiet about the uncertainty and indeed the fear which certain minorities can feel at present. Speaking of those various studies, I know that your Lordships will wish to take serious account of each of those reports as they are completed during this Session. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, asked me specifically about progress with the Scarman Report, which has indeed been presented to the Home Secretary. My right honourable friend hopes to make it available as quickly as possible.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, that answer is a little discouraging. We know that, in Parliament, "as quickly as possible", covers almost eternity.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to assure the noble and learned Lord that in this case my words mean exactly what they say. At the same time, there has been a steady increase in the strength of the probation service. Your Lordships might be interested to know that there was a 3 per cent. increase in the number of probation officers recorded between 1979 and 1980 and a 7 per cent. increase in the number of ancillaries. At the same time, the number of offenders put on probation rose by 22 per cent., but that, of course, for the first time, reversed several years of decline in the number of probation orders made.
In that same period, the numbers dealt with by community service orders went up by 44 per cent. So I am not in any way saying to the House that there is not a huge amount of work for the probation service to do, but I am saying to your Lordships that at a time when it has been extremely difficult to do other than look very critically at the posts in the public service and in local authority services, the number in the probation service has been going up steadily, although not sharply, and we are continuing to make provision for an increase in numbers.
During this time the Government have always encouraged alternatives to custody. Over the last two years, for instance, the number of attendance centres for young people, for girls as well as boys, has been increased by more than 30, so that today there

93
are some 112 of these centres in different parts of the country.
We have also taken, I think, two practical steps to combat the misuse of alcohol, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, referred—a continual and increasing problem which has faced successive Governments over the years. Some time ago, with money specifically set aside by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, a shelter was opened in Birmingham to which drunken offenders can be taken as an alternative to arrest and prosecution, and we have plans for the opening of a second such shelter. But, also, during last Session Parliament passed the Licensing (Alcohol, Education and Research) Act which established the Alcohol, Education and Research Fund, which is to be under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Windlesham. This is a fund which is going to have an initial capital of £2 million, which will be released through the offices of the Brewers' Society but which becomes available because of the legislation to which I have referred. I understand that the fund can expect to receive additional funds over the time from the drinks industry, and I very much hope that it is a fund which is going to provide a practical eontribution to the alleviation of alcohol misuse at a time when it is not easy, as it has not been easy in previous years, to lay our hands on money for these purposes.
In this Session legislation will be introduced to improve the criminal justice system—a matter to which most of your Lordships have referred it will, we intend, be a Bill which will give effect, among other things, to the proposals published in the White Paper on Young Offenders last autumn. The Bill will give the courts more flexible powers in sentencing young offenders when there is no alternative to a custodial sentence.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said that he would welcome a tidying up of the indeterminate sentence of borstal training. Section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 will be repealed, and the present measures of borstal and imprisonment as separate disposals will be replaced by the single determinate sentence of youth custody. We believe that this will have the advantage of giving the courts the responsibility for reflecting the seriousness of the offence in the length of the sentence; and we shall not, of course, lose the benefits of borstal régimes in the training aspects of youth custody—a sentence which I understood from your Lordships' speeches was pretty generally welcome this afternoon.
But this does not mean that the Government are trying to make a move towards longer or more frequent periods of custody for young offenders. The detention centre order will be retained, but with a minimum, now, of three weeks' detention. On this particular point, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, referred, I think it is fair for me to say that there is a growing awareness of the need for shorter sentences, and that, of course, is the purpose of reducing the threshold of the detention centre sentence.
The residential care order, and what we have called a strengthened supervision order, which I bracket together only because they will both depend upon the necessary resources being available, will both, I belive, in their different ways, give the courts more confidence that they can deal with young offenders in such a way as to prevent their going too far down the
94
road of crime. May I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, that again the Government in no way dissent from the expression of view of the noble Lord that the place for a child is at home; but the residential care order as it was envisaged in the White Paper, of course, would have been for children who are already in care for offenders and who then commit an imprisonable offence, and it is very difficult in some cases, at any rate to know what should then be done with them. We propose for this legislation also the extension of community service orders for 16-year-olds and the introduction of stronger and clearer powers to require parents to shoulder their responsibilities by paying fines imposed on their children in appropriate cases or entering into recognizances to ensure their children's good behaviour.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull referred to the need for courts in their discretion to require fathers as well as mothers to attend—a good practice which my noble friend Lady Macleod said that she always endeavoured to see occurred before the bench on which she was for many years chairman. I accept the soundness of the advice of my noble friend Lady Macleod, but may I say that the financial proposals for penalties for parents which my noble friend was not so keen on would be also at the court's decision and the court's decision should be brought into effect only in appropriate cases. The need to reduce pressure on the prison system is one of our foremost priorities. I should like to say that to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, to whom I am grateful, as are the Government, for the way in which he spoke about this ever-present problem. The House might he interested to hear that at a time of the year, namely, the autumn, when I understand that habitually the prison population is very high, it has shown some reduction and now stands at under 44,000. But that is far too high none the less for the available accommodation. A series of reports, including the report of the Home Affairs Committee of another place and the Parliamentary All-Party Penal Affairs Group, has shown unanimously that the demands upon the prison service must be brought more into line with the resources available. We now have a programme for new prison building. Starting this year, we are starting six new prisons within the next three years but each of these new establishments has to be built, and meanwhile the pressures are great.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is the noble Lord able to say anything about the early release of short-term prisoners to which the Home Secretary attached such great importance?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it was in this context that the Home Office report on the parole system canvassed a proposal for a scheme of supervised release for short-term prisoners only, to which I was just coming and about which I see that I have a note saying, "The noble and learned Lord Lord Elwyn-Jones, asked specifically…" If I may say a word about this, this is a proposal which the noble and learned Lord spoke about and which has attracted support from the House of Commons Select Committee, but, at the same time, it is a fact that those responsible for sentencing, the Magistrates' Association and members

95
of the Judiciary have expressed concern about the gap that could be created automatically between the nominal and the real effect of custodial sentences and that the introduction of such a scheme could lead to an increase in the length of sentences.
If that were the case, such a move would run counter to the trend towards shorter sentences which the courts are undoubtedly giving in appropriate cases. It is in this context therefore that the Government are considering also what legislation to introduce in this area. In particular we are re-examining the case for implementing Section 47 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 which provides for the partial suspension of sentences. I realise that there have been fears in the past and which were voiced in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that this is a provision which could be used as an alternative to wholly suspended sentences; but in the present climate of judicial opinion which has shown clearly a determination to reduce the length of sentences in appropriate cases, there are grounds for believing that Section 47 could be a valuable additional power for the courts.
If I may leave that area of the gracious Speech and go to another, your Lordships have had plenty of experience of a heavy weight of legislation towards the end of a parliamentary Session. I hope your Lordships will welcome a major Bill to be introduced, I understand next week, into this House on the subject of mental health which will be designed to amend the Mental Health Act 1959—a piece of legislation referred to by my noble friend Lord Auckland as being a Bill of major importance. Its objectives will be to clarify the legal position of staff (a matter about which my noble friend asked specifically) and will provide stronger safeguards against detaining people who need not be detained in hospital or who are sufficiently recovered to return to ordinary society.
It is a Bill which will take into account some of the conclusions and recommendations of the Butler Report and will also reflect an extensive process of consultation on mental health matters generally which has taken place over the past few years. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked where the money was to come from. If the noble Lord will allow me to say so, perhaps he will wait and look at the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. I think that is the only answer that I can give tonight.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked me about the case which has been before the European Court of Human Rights. I understand that judgment was delivered today. I am not aware that we in the Government departments in London know what the effect of the judgment was, but I should like to say to the noble Lord that the Government will wish to give urgent consideration to the terms of this judgment before deciding what legislative changes may be necessary to comply with its terms.
If I may end by trying to reply to some of the points which your Lordships have put, there was a particular point which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, asked about regarding the product of a penny rate for parish councils. She referred to a view which was expressed by my noble friend Lord Bellwin. The best thing for me to do is to draw my noble friend's attention to the point made by the noble Baroness and to ask him
96
whether he would contact the noble Baroness on that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble Lord Lord Mishcon, drew attention to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure—the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, talking particularly about pre-trial procedures. Without going into any detail, this was a report published in January. The Home Office sent out a consultative memorandum on 9th August inviting comments from a wide range of interested organisations by 9th October this year. We recognise that the deadline for comments was a demanding one. I am pleased to say that, notwithstanding that, a considerable number of organisations and individuals have submitted comments. We are very grateful for those efforts and must now consider as quickly as possible what has been said.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, raised the question of the Law Commission's proposals for the ownership of the matrimonial home. As the noble and learned Lord reminded us, the Matrimonial Homes Co-ownership Bill, which was designed to implement the Law Commission's recommendations in book 1 of their third report on family property, was introduced by the noble and learned Lord and received a Second Reading in February 1980. It was subsequently withdrawn so as to enable the Law Commission to consider the implications which a decision by an Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House, in a case called Williams & Glyn's Bank v. Boland, had for their recommendations relating to protecting the rights of co-owners and their work on land registration. The Government will consider this matter once the Law Commission have submitted their advice on the Boland problem. I cannot hold out any prospect for a Government Bill on this matter, not least because there can be no question this Session of providing time for it.
Several of your Lordships—and finally the noble Lord, Lord Wallace—spoke about the position so far as the gracious Speech is concerned with local government. I take the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that controlling the level of rates by central Government is a matter which is sensitive and difficult. But I find it hard to agree that very high increases in spending by a few local authorities is something to which in some way the Government are supposed to be indifferent.
I should like to assure my noble friend Lady Platt that the Government are well aware that the majority of local authorities have played their part conscientiously in contributing to the reductions in public expenditure which are essential for economic recovery. The Government welcome and appreciate their efforts. Yet those efforts—considerable in many cases—are threatened by the irresponsible minority of authorities which persist in planning for increases in expenditure despite the economic realities which we face.
I am a resident in Central London and I understand that the London boroughs are about to receive a substantial supplementary rate demand. For some people this is going to mean real hardship—and also for industry. What an encouragement! I know that the noble Baroness speaks with very deep and long experience of local government. But that is not exactly synonymous with the trust and confidence

97
which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, spoke about in connection with local government and not to my mind, as a resident in Central London, exactly playing the game.
The measures announced by the Secretary of State for the Environment at the end of September are intended as a more selective and equitable response to the over-spending authorities rather than across-the-board pressure on all authorities, regardless of whether or not they are at fault, which has been the system in previous years. My right honourable friend's plans envisage that in the highest spending local authorities accountability to the electorate should be increased and there should be a degree of protection for non-domestic ratepayers in such authorities. My noble friend Lady Platt asked that the views of the local authority associations should be taken into account. The local authorities were consulted about the details of the scheme in October. Their comments are now being evaluated and will be taken into account in the formulation of any legislative proposals.
May I finally come to two questions which were asked of me about Northern Ireland. My noble friend Lord Hylton put forward an idea for a joint committee of both Houses, sitting on Northern Ireland matters in Belfast. I must say that is certainly a novel idea and I think we would like to consider it; but I have to say that the main priority in seeking political development in Northern Ireland at the present time must surely be to give responsibility for the Province's pressing social and economic affairs back to locally-elected representatives.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me specifically about the closure of the P and 0 ferry service between Liverpool and Belfast. The decision to end that service was taken by the company for commercial reasons. I know the noble Lord's view about this, but the Government, although much regretting the decision, must respect it and they feel they cannot subsidise merchant shipping interests. However, a number of alternative operators have expressed a positive interest in reopening the service, and the Government are hopeful that a new Liverpool-Belfast ferry service can be provided on a sound commercial basis.
Today's debate has covered a very wide field and I am probably guilty of not having answered even more questions. However, I believe there is a single theme to all the different legislative proposals in the gracious Speech. They are designed to bring improvements which are desirable and practicable and for which we can find the resources without returning to the old ways of stoking up inflation. That, my Lords, is the way to proceed.
Lord Denham: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Carrington, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned until Tuesday next.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until Tuesday next.—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

  ARCHITECTURAL QUALITY
  ARCHITECTURAL QUALITY