Sitting of 6 July 1982

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

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time upon Thursday.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (LIVERPOOL STREET STATION) BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Unemployment Statistics
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the numbers of unemployed, both nationally and regionally; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit): At 10 June the number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 3,061,229. Regional figures were published in the press notice issued on 22 June; a copy is in the Library.
    The total number of unemployed is rising as school leavers come on to the register, but the rate of increase is much slower than a year ago. There are also more vacancies, less short-time working and more overtime than a year ago. Unemployment may be expected to level out and begin to fall in the wake of further improvement in the economy.
    Mr. Skinner: Has not the Secretary of State a duty to tell the nation when the suffering of the dole queue will end and the unemployment figures will fall? Does he recall that when the Government came to power they said that they would cut taxes for the wealthy and that the figures would fall; that they would increase taxes for the poor and that the figures would fall; and that they would have a monetarist policy and clobber the nurses and that the figures would fall? All that has proved to be of no avail. Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman came to the Dispatch Box and told us categorically that the unemployment figures will fall before the end of the year? If he cannot do that, he ought to get out.
    Mr. Tebbit: I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting his question as courteously as usual, although not, if I may say
    132
    so, with his usual intellectual rigour or normal clear memory. The hon. Gentleman will remember that although the Government that he supported from time to time more than doubled unemployment, he did not ask that sort of question then.
    Mr. Parry: When will the Secretary of State for unemployment make a genuine attempt to reduce unemployment instead of attacking the trade unions through his Draconian legislation? May I advise and inform the right hon. Gentleman that next Monday in Liverpool the Labour movement will fight and begin—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Question Time is for asking questions, not for giving information.
    Mr. Parry: I wish to tell the Secretary of State that we on Merseyside will fight his Bill next Monday—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have just said that Question Time is not for making statements.
    Mr. Parry: We shall kill his Bill.
    Mr. Tebbit: Since the end of the war Labour Governments have presided over a loss of almost 1½ million jobs, while to date, under Conservative Governments, there has been a small increase in the number of jobs. The hon. Gentleman should consider the long-term record.
    Although competitiveness in British industry has increased by some 10 per cent. over the past year, we are still a third less competitive than in 1975. We still have to make up the ground that was lost largely by the Labour Government, before we can get these matters right.
    Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the stupid strike that the country is suffering at the moment can lead only to increased unemployment? Does he further agree that the action of some union leaders is industrial suicide and will mean only that they are acting against the work force that they are supposed to represent?
    Mr. Tebbit: I agree with most of what my hon. Friend said, but the leaders are not committing industrial suicide, they are murdering the jobs of their members, and their members will remember it.
    Mr. Harold Walker: Will the Secretary of State confirm that since the general election unemployment has increased by almost two and a half times? Is he aware that the 3 million victims of the Government's policies are becoming sick of his monthly platitudes and hope that he will eventually switch from rhetoric to action? Is he not aware of the CBI's support for the Labour Party's call for massive investment in infrastructure? Will he urge his Cabinet colleagues to generate desperately needed jobs? If not, is it not time that he got on his bike and looked for another job?
    Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman lowers his standards when he refers to the Government being responsible for 3 million unemployed, because he left us with more than 1¼ million of those. Therefore, he had better get the facts right. I again remind him that we inherited not only a doubling of unemployment but a doubling of prices and a massive loss of competitiveness in the middle of a world recession. Britain is not the only country that is affected. For example, in Germany unemployment has increased by 50 per cent. in the past 12 months compared with 14 per cent. here. Vacancies there have halved, while vacancies in Britain have increased.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This subject comes up repeatedly in later questions.

    Young Workers (Training)
    Mr. Leeasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the quality of training available to implement his statement of 21 June on training of young workers.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I am satisfied that the support that our training proposals have received from employers, unions and others, and the arrangements for quality assurance proposed by the Manpower Services Commission, will ensure the success of the new scheme.
    Mr. Lee: What discussions has my hon. Friend had with the MSC and similar bodies with regard to the monitoring of the quality of these schemes? Is there any likelihood of any certification or similar proposal at the end of the young person's period of training?
    Mr. Morrison: We are closely in touch with the MSC on the monitoring of the schemes. It intends to set up a national supervisory board and local area boards to supervise the schemes, and those boards will include industrialists acting as advisers. The intention is that there should be a certificate at the end of the year.
    Mr Flannery: Does the Minister realise that all our young people now feel that the training that ought to be given is how to enter the dole queue, because that is where the vast majority of them end up? Is that not the reality? What will the Minister do to prevent those young people from going on to the scrap-heap and the dole?
    Mr. Morrison: The hon Gentleman is probably not aware that in the last survey more than 70 per cent. of the young people on the youth opportunities programme said that they were very satisfied with the programme. With the increased training element in the youth training scheme, I am sure that that figure will increase substantially.
    Mr. Needham: Will my hon. Friend congratulate employers, particularly the CBI, on the determination and spirit that they have shown in an effort to get the new training initiative off the ground? Does that not compare favourably with the carping and negative attitude of the TUC and Labour Members in their approach to this whole question and with their failure to introduce such a scheme when they had the chance?
    Mr. Morrison: I certainly take this opportunity of congratulating employers, not least because they will be the sponsors of the 400,000-plus places that will be needed in September next year. I agree with my hon. Friend that certain Labour Members seem to be out of step with what the rest of the country thinks of this scheme.
    Mr. Barry Jones: It was the TUC which in effect, saved the scheme and gave it the chance to exist. Will the Minister accede to the request of the MSC's task group and merge the young workers scheme with the new training scheme? Is he not apprehensive that £260 million has been earmarked by his Department for the young workers scheme, with no guarantee of any training?
    Mr. Morrison: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is "No". The young workers scheme fulfils a different purpose from the youth training scheme, and I believe that each can work alongside the other.

    Youth Opportunities Programme
    Mr. Trippierasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people entered the youth opportunities programme in 1981–82.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): The number is 553,000.
    Mr. Trippier: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. How successful is YOP in getting young people into employment?
    Mr. Waddington: A survey carried out last autumn showed that about 60 per cent. of trainees went either into jobs or further training at the end of their period on YOP. Further improvements seem to be indicated by another survey, which is now being analysed.
    Mr. Tilley: Is the Minister aware that recently in a written answer I was supplied with details of the number of injuries sustained by young people on YOP in the last year? What assurance can he give that the health and safety aspects both of YOP, if it continues, and the new training initiative, when it begins, will be improved so that we do not have a doubling of the length of the programme leading to a doubling of the number of injuries?
    Mr. Waddington: We are determined to ensure that safety standards are as high for trainees as they are for ordinary employees. There is no reason why they should not be.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Was there any evidence of many young people wilfully choosing not to go on to the YOP if an offer was made to them?
    Mr. Waddington: I know of virtually no evidence of that happening.
    Mr. Newens: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that at the end of these schemes many young people find that there are no opportunities for them to take up, as a result of which they merely become unemployed and completely disillusioned? Does he appreciate that until the Government change their attitude to the economy and embark on a policy of reflation to give more jobs for all, this process will be only a palliative and will not succeed?
    Mr. Waddington: I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I have already said. We should like to see every young person go into a permanent job at the end of his training. It seems that the number going into permanent jobs is increasing, and that is a good sign. I disagree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about how we might increase employment opportunities. His method would have precisely the reverse effect.

    Unemployment Statistics
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the percentages of unemployed in the United Kingdom and in the West Midlands at the latest date and in May 1979.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): At June 1982 the rate of

    135
    unemployment, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, was 12·2 per cent. in the United Kingdom and 14·7 per cent. in the West Midlands region. The corresponding rates at May 1979 were 5·4 per cent. and 5·1 per cent. respectively.
    Mr. Winnick: That is a grave indictment of Government policy. Will the Minister take note that, set against the tragedy of millions of our fellow citizens being denied the opportunity to earn their living, the usual jeering remarks of the Secretary of State are a grave insult to the unemployed? Will he also bear in mind that there has been no let-up in the factory closures and massive redundancies that constantly occur in the West Midlands? The people there have paid a dear price for the Tory electoral victory of May 1979.
    Mr. Alison:
    "To an extent, present unemployment is international"—
    Mr. William Hamilton: We are talking about ours.
    Mr. Alison: I repeat:
    "To an extent, present unemployment is international and beyond the control of the United Kingdom Government; record levels are being registered in most industrialised countries."
    The words that I have just quoted come from the report on unemployment by the Select Committee in another place, signed by Lord Lee, Lord McCarthy and Lord Melchett.
    Mr. Bulmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in my constituency believe that jobs have been lost in the Kidderminster carpet industry because selective help has been given to firms in other parts of the country, with which it competes? Will he discuss that with colleagues and ensure that such discrimination does not continue?
    Mr. Alison: I take note of what my hon. Friend has said and undertake to look into the matter.
    Mr. Golding: Where else in the world has unemployment in an industrial area increased as much as in North Staffordshire in particular, and the West Midlands in general?
    Mr. Alison: As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, a sad loss of competitiveness was registered as a result—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"]—of our appallingly poor performance in terms of output and unit labour costs in manufacturing industry, which are unmatched anywhere else in the Western world. That explains why we have such high unemployment.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is deep distress in the West Midlands and that until that area recovers properly the economy as a whole is in dire danger? Does he accept that many of us believe that there is a great deal to be said for a Minister with special responsibility for this area, just as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was given special responsibility for Liverpool?
    Mr. Alison: I note both what my right hon. Friend has said and his strong constituency links and roots in the West Midlands. He will appreciate that the level of manufacturing activity in the West Midlands is much higher than the average for the United Kingdom. That leaves the West Midlands more exposed to the cold wind of recession than any other part of the United Kingdom.

    Long-term Unemployment
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of long-term unemployed at the latest available date.
    Mr. Tebbit: At 15 April the number of people registered as unemployed for over 52 weeks in the United Kingdom was 994,395.
    Mr. Dormand: Is that not the highest-ever figure of people who have been unemployed for more than 12 months? Does the Secretary of State agree that the number of long-term unemployed is one of the most significant indicators to the state of the economy? Is he aware that the MSC has forecast that that number will be over 1 million for the next three years? How much evidence do he and the Government require to make fundamental changes in their policies?
    Mr. Tebbit: We should require evidence that better policies were available, and that evidence is in extremely short supply. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, I suggest that he takes a short trip to France to see what has already resulted from the implementation of policies similar to those advocated by the Labour Party and the SDP. Fortunately, that Government have now seen some of the difficulties and their policies are converging with ours.
    As to long-term unemployment, I hope that the hon. Member will use all his influence with his friends to persuade them to support the scheme being discussed within the MSC for expansion of help for about 100,000—[Interruption.] When hon. Members shout and interrupt they only cut other hon. Members out of Question Time. They should persuade their friends to support the scheme designed to help another 100,000 of the long-term unemployed back into jobs.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Secretary of State agree that unemployment and the long-term unemployed are the major issues now facing the country? Therefore, is it not important that we should debate these matters fully in the House? If so, does he agree that it is deplorable that during the debate on unemployment last night only six hon. Members were ever in attendance on the Labour Benches, and that none of the Labour Members voted in the Division last night?
    Mr. Tebbit: That is probably accounted for by the fact that they had not expected to hear anything new—
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: From the Government Front Bench?
    Mr. Tebbit: —from the party that proposed the debate or from those who spoke from the Liberal and SDP Benches.
    The problem of the long-term unemployed is a major one. That is why the Chancellor offered to make available an extra £150 million to help ease that problem, and that is why we have to regain competitiveness to win back lost markets, not least at home.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, after being unemployed for some time, many people wish to take on work within the community, often without pay? However, they are inhibited from doing so by fear of losing benefit. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to

    137
    review the regulations so that those who genuinely want to help the community while seeking work will be more freely able to do so?
    Mr. Tebbit: That was one of the principal objectives of the scheme put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are always anxious to do that, but we are sometimes frustrated by those who believe, rightly or wrongly, that it would damage voluntary institutions, and others who believe that it will lead to widespread undercutting of regular wages. Both those beliefs are misconceived.
    Mr. Radice: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unemployment in France is much lower than it is in the United Kingdom and has stabilised, whereas here, since the Conservative Party came to power, long-term unemployment has risen by two and a half times? Is it not time that the Government increased the community enterprise programme, which accounts for only 30,000 places, when the long-term unemployed number 1 million?
    Mr. Tebbit: Inflation in France is 14 per cent., it has just devalued its currency for the second time, it has a massive problem of a balance of payments deficit, and it is imposing freezes on prices and incomes. I do not think that its Government can be said to be holding to the policies on which they were elected, policies that are similar to those of the hon. Gentleman and his party.

    Flexible Retirement
    Sir David Priceasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has made any assessment of the extent to which flexible retirement for men between the ages of 60 and 65 years would provide job opportunities for younger people.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: A recent survey of the job release scheme, which allows people nearing retirement age to give up work early provided that their employer undertakes to recruit an unemployed person as a replacement worker, showed that 40 per cent. of replacement workers are aged under 25.
    Sir David Price: That is an encouraging start, but is my right hon. Friend aware that over 900,000 men at work are aged between 60 and 65, and that more of them would be willing to take earlier retirement—
    Mr. Canavan: Speak for yourself.
    Sir David Price: —if the State pension scheme could be made fully flexible?
    Mr. Morrison: I heard my hon. Friend, but he will agree with me that the conditions of the job release scheme are perhaps the most effective way to get people into work.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Minister agree that the most effective way of getting people back to work would be to allow men to retire at 60 if they wished, allowing some of those thousands of people out of work and desperate for those jobs to get them? Is it not a ludicrous paradox that in constituencies such as mine there are hundreds of men desperate for dignified retirement, while there are thousands of young people in desperate need of those jobs?
    Mr. Morrison: As the hon. and learned Gentleman is no doubt aware, if the retirement age for men were reduced
    138
    to 60 it would result in about another 420,000 jobs, but it would cost £2,500 million, and the Government must have regard to resources.

    Merseyside
    Mr. Allan Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will meet the officers and board of the Merseyside urban development corporation to discuss measures to reduce unemployment on Merseyside.
    Mr. Waddington: Although my right hon. Friend has no plans at present to meet the Merseyside development corporation he would be most interested to discuss with it how this major initiative can contribute towards making Merseyside more attractive to industry and employment.
    Mr. Roberts: Will the Minister consider three specific proposals when he meets the Merseyside development corporation, bearing in mind that my constituency has 16 per cent. more unemployed now than at this time last year? First, will he consider giving it urban aid powers to give grants in the same way as local authorities? Secondly, will he consider extending the area covered by the Merseyside development corporation, especially in my constituency? Finally, will he consider with it giving development area grants in Merseyside to service industries and commercial concerns related to the docks, as well as to manufacturing industries?
    Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that these are matters far more in the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I shall study the points that he has made. I should not like it to be thought that the Merseyside development corporation was not already doing some very important things in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I have in mind the 45,000 sq ft of advance factory units already put up and the reclamation of 27 acres at Langton goods depot and the Rimrose improvement area.
    Mr. Alton: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many of these factory units are empty and that, however desirable trees and shrubs may be, they are no substitute for the 89,000 jobs that have been lost in Liverpool over the past 10 years, where there has been a 200 per cent. increase in unemployment? Is he further aware that the city planning officer estimates that in four years' time a further 30,000 people could become unemployed in Liverpool? What will he do about that? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that youngsters on Merseyside—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is more than enough.
    Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman is aware that there is no part of the United Kingdom where more Government incentives are available than in Merseyside. There is the Merseyside development corporation, which has already been referred to. There is the special development area, the Speke enterprise zone, the Liverpool inner city partnership area and my right hon. Friend's task force. Abundant aid is being made available, and Liverpool and Merseyside will benefit with the revival of the economy, as will other parts of the country.
    Mr. Tom Benyon: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle), is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the plight of the disabled and handicapped who are trying to get work? Will he ask the

    139
    Treasury to revise the rules for people, especially those who have multiple sclerosis, who are trying to work and who are in danger of losing their invalidity benefit because there is no scaling down for people who suffer from this disease and who wish to take part-time work?
    Mr. Waddington: I should point out to my hon. Friend that the question is about the Merseyside urban development corporation. I shall, of course, note all that he says and do what I can.
    Mr. Parry: Does the Minister agree that the Mickey Mouse gimmicks introduced by his right hon. Friend the Minister responsible for Merseyside, like the development corporation and the enterprise zone there, will in fact produce few jobs? Will he have a word with his right hon. Friend to see whether he will introduce measures that will make a positive attempt to reduce the 20 per cent. unemployment on Merseyside?
    Mr. Waddington: It is difficult to follow what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) is saying. I thought that most Opposition Members believed in assistance for the regions, and if one looks at the area one sees that it is getting more of that assistance than anywhere else.

    Wages Council Awards (Survey)
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will commission a survey to investigate whether, and to what extent, employers are inhibited from recruiting new employees by reason of the level of wages council awards.
    Mr. Tebbit: It is self-evident that wages are ultimately limited by the ability of employers to pay, which is in turn limited by the prices which, in the light of home and overseas competition, they are able to obtain for their products. There is, therefore, little doubt that the higher the level at which councils set minimum wages the fewer people will be employed, but I am doubtful that a survey could readily quantify this effect.
    Mr. Atkinson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Does he agree that the weekend speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he referred to the Conservative manifesto commitment to abolish wages councils, will be warmly welcomed by both unemployed people and trade union members alike—[Interruption]—because of the interference by wages councils, which has resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs in the private sector?
    Mr. Tebbit: Let us be quite clear about what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said. He asked: is there really a case for wages councils imposing minimum rates that frustrate market forces? In my opinion, any reasonably minded man must come to the same conclusion as my right hon. and learned Friend. To put it mildly, the answer to the question would appear to be "No".
    Mr. Ashley: Does the Secretary of State accept that, of all the methods for reducing unemployment, the most offensive and despicable would be to cut the wages of those who are already receiving the lowest wages in our society?
    Mr. Ashton: Scrooge.
    Mr. Tebbit: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands that no job can exist for long if what it
    140
    produces is less than what the market is willing to pay for the product. That is the problem of wages councils, when they set wages above what the market will bear.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our main priority should be the preservation and creation of jobs? If, as many of us believe, wages councils destroy jobs, should we not take prompt action, regardless of the International Labour Organisation? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a case for turning a Nelsonian blind eye to that body, in the interests of unemployed people, and especially the young unemployed?
    Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that Conservative Members who are asking questions have a vested interest—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) runs a sweat shop.
    Mr. Tebbit: Opposition Members could not run a sweet shop—I do not know about a sweat shop.
    The British Government do not lightly turn aside from treaty commitments. We are bound by the treaty into which we have entered, and we should comply with its provisions.
    Mr. Radice: On the subject of the Minister's theory of job creation by lower wages, has the Secretary of State seen the report issued by his own Department, showing that variations in youth unemployment have little systematic relationship with changes in earnings? Are the Department of Employment Ministers frightened of being confused by the facts?
    Mr. Tebbit: No, not at all. That is not the central point at issue. The central point of that survey was the relationship between youth wages and adult wages. Here we are talking about the overall level of wages. Unless someone has repealed the law of supply and demand, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has to accept that the higher the price that is asked for labour, the less labour will be employed.

    Northern Region
    Mr. David Watkinsasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current numbers and percentage of unemployed persons in the Northern region.
    Mr. Waddington: At 10 June the number of people registered as unemployed in the Northern region was 223,010 and the unemployment rate was 16·7 per cent.
    Mr. Watkins: Is the Minister aware that, serious as those figures are, male unemployment in my constituency is now 33·3 per cent. and rising? How does that, together with the regional figures that he has just given, reflect the alleged improvement in the national economy about which the Government keep telling us?
    Mr. Waddington: I fully appreciate the serious situation in Consett, but I think that Labour Members know that even there people are getting jobs. Indeed, 2,300 former BSC employees have found jobs or gone into training since the plant was closed. That is no mean achievement. Consett remains a special development area. Forty-five new small firms have been established since the

    141
    steel closure. Other firms in the Consett travel-to-work area have expanded, creating 300 new jobs. So it is quite wrong to say that the situation is hopeless. Consett is recovering from a traumatic and terrible experience.
    Mr. Dormand: Does the Minister agree that the three new towns in the Northern region have made a significant contribution in attracting new jobs to the North? In those circumstances, what possible justification can there be for the Secretary of State for the Environment—I realise that this is not the Minister's Department—winding up those three development corporations at the end of 1985? Will he undertake to make the strongest representations to his right hon. Friend to extend the life of those corporations for as long as there is a job need?
    Mr. Waddington: I shall, of course, pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. Friend. However, I do not want the House to imagine from what the hon. Gentleman said that no aid is going to the Northern region. Far from it. Only the other day the hon. Gentleman heard that Teesside was to become a special development area.

    Apprenticeship Reform
    Mr. Cadburyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has received representations on the need for reform of the traditional apprentice schemes.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: Consultations on the new training initiative have shown widespread agreement that traditional approaches to the skill training of young people need to be modernised. The Government have declared their support for the removal of both the time-serving and the age barriers in the apprenticeship system.
    Mr. Cadbury: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that we need to move away from narrowly defined craft-based apprenticeship schemes towards a system that is capable of producing multi-skilled technicians who are more relevant to modern technology? Does he agree that that would help immensely to improve productivity in British industry, by helping to break down demarcation barriers?
    Mr. Morrison: The short answer to my hon. Friend is "Yes". We should have a much more flexible approach to skill training in this country. The objectives in the new training initiative, with which the Government agree, are designed to that end.
    Mr. Christopher Price: How much responsibility will industry take for the new training initiative? What proportion of that training does the Minister expect to take place in private industry and what proportion does he expect to have to dump on the further education system because employers are not playing their part?
    Mr. Morrison: At this stage the response from industry is very encouraging indeed. To give proportions would be impossible, because we are talking about a scheme that will be launched in full in September next year. Certainly industry is playing its part at the moment.

    General Employment Service (Rayner Review)
    Mr. Craigenasked the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements have been made for the process of consultation on the report of the employment services division Rayner scrutiny on the general employment service in Great Britain.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: The report was published on 3 June 1982 by the Manpower Services Commission with an invitation to interested organisations and individuals to comment on its conclusions and recommendations by 9 July 1982.
    Mr. Craigen: Why has there been such a hole-in-corner approach to the publication of this document, which has such damaging prospects for the jobcentre network?
    Does the Minister subscribe to the implicit view of the authors that it is not worth bothering about the placement in employment of unskilled and semi-skilled workers in future and that they should be left to their own devices?
    Mr. Morrison: There has not been a hole-in-corner approach to the publication of the document. The Manpower Services Commission has made it available to whomsoever wanted it. It has been available in the Vote Office and has been given to the Clerk of the Select Committee on Employment. The matter rests at the moment with the Manpower Services Commission and the Government await its conclusions before making their judgment.
    Mr. Timothy Smith: As the report makes recommendations which, if implemented, would lead to savings of more than £10 million, will my hon. Friend ensure that in so far as he agrees with them they are implemented as soon as possible?
    Mr. Morrison: I certainly wish to see the jobcentre network run in as cost-effective a way as is possible. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), when he was Secretary of State for Employment, suggested the review to the Manpower Services Commission.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Is the Minister not ashamed that the MSC's employment services division has already sustained a staff cut of 1,700 and a budgetary cut of £60 million? Is it not the case that the disabled, the long-term unemployed and the young blacks will bear the brunt of cuts in jobcentres?
    Mr. Morrison: I am certainly not ashamed. I should be ashamed if the jobcentres were not run on a cost-effective basis. The point of the review is to ensure that they are.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that, generally speaking, private enterprise can run an employment agency far more efficiently and at far lower cost than a State undertaking? The sooner they are all taken over by private enterprise the better.
    Mr. Morrison: There is a place for the private employment agency alongside the public employment service, which should be run on as cost-effective a basis as possible.

    Long-term Unemployment
    Mr. Leightonasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many long-term unemployed are registered at East Ham; and what was the comparable figure 12 months ago.
    Mr. Waddington: At April 1982 the number of people registered as unemployed for over 52 weeks in the East Ham employment office area was 1,308. The corresponding figure at April 1981 was 491.
    Mr. Leighton: Does the Minister recognise that those atrocious figures show an increase in the long-term unemployed over 12 months of well over 100 per cent.? Was that the Government's intention, or is it an indictment of their policies? Does the Minister realise the despair and social tension that such figures cause? What hope can he hold out to those of my constituents who are afflicted by such problems?
    Mr. Waddington: One thousand and seventy-three people have been placed in employment by the employment service in the past 12 months. Vacancies are well up compared with a year ago. It is wrong to paint a completely gloomy picture. East Ham and the hon. Gentleman's constituency will, like other parts of Britain, benefit as the Government's policies begin to work out.

    Unemployment Statistics
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures.
    Mr. Tebbit: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) earlier today.
    Mr. Cryer: Are not those deplorable figures brought about by the deliberate policies of the Government? Is the Secretary of State aware that under Tory rule—nothing to do with the Labour Government—there has been an increase in unemployment in my constituency of almost 200 per cent. and a similar increase in supplementary benefit payments to the unemployed? Is it not madness to cut back on public expenditure and create unemployment that results in over £4 billion being spent each year on supplementary and unemployment benefit? Would it not be better to use that money to create the jobs that the Government promised at the last election than to have their training scheme cosmetics?
    Mr. Tebbit: In turn, the question might be put to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] The House will notice that I did not ask a question of the hon. Gentleman. I said that, in turn, the question might be put to the hon.
    Gentleman—[Interruption]—whether he took the view that the increased unemployment in his constituency while he was a Minister in the last Government was his responsibility. The fact of the matter is—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister must be allowed to reply. Whether hon. Members like the answer or not, he must be allowed to give it.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I refer you to your comment that the Minister is entitled to make a reply? The right hon. Gentleman said that he was going to ask the hon. Gentleman a question.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but we are taking time from Prime Minister's Questions. The Minister must be allowed to answer.
    Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) did not hear me. I did not ask a question.
    Under the last Government, Britain's competitiveness suffered massively. We lost about 50 per cent. of competitiveness. In the past year we have regained about 10 or 15 per cent. of our competitiveness. That must continue in order to regain the jobs that the Labour Government exported to our rivals overseas.
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally inadequate nature of the Secretary of State's reply, I give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment. The people of Keighley would like to return to the level of unemployment that existed under the Labour Government.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Sainsburyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with Sir Anthony Parsons. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I suspect that during my right hon. Friend's busy day she might have occasion to consider the implications of the strike action being undertaken by some train drivers. Can she confirm that, given the acceptance by the work force of the necessity of operating the railways in the most efficient way possible for the benefit of the consumer, the Government would wish to continue their financial support for the railways and see the new investment that could give Britain the railway system of which it could be proud?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that we very much want a railway system of which we can be proud.
    There is already considerable investment in British Rail—about £3 billion since 1976 and about £350 million last year. However, if investment is to continue on anything like that scale we must be sure that it will secure a proper return. Therefore, we must have excellent productivity practices and not be dependent upon those that were agreed in 1919. There will then be greater hopes for an efficient railway. Where the Government request British Rail to run specific services that would not otherwise be commercial, they expect to meet the cost with a special operating grant.
    Mr. Foot: We have always urged, and will continue to urge, that there should be increased investment in British Rail. As the present crisis is undoubtedly causing great hardship and difficulty to all concerned, could not a settlement of the dispute be sought on the basis of the proposals that the British Railways Board put forward on 25 June?
    The Prime Minister: Investment itself is not necessarily good. It must be productive investment. Unproductive investment merely takes away from investment that could otherwise be made and produce a better return. The board has made every effort to solve the dispute. It is quite right to insist on the introduction of flexible rostering and to insist that there cannot be any more money without greater efficiency.
    Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady answer my question? It is important, because the railways will suffer losses as a result of the strike. Does she favour a settlement on the basis of the proposals made on 25 June? Having put

    145
    forward those proposals, why did the British Railways Board withdraw them last week? Will the right hon. Lady consider the matter and try to secure a proper settlement?
    The Prime Minister: ASLEF went on strike. The handling of that stike must be left to the British Railways Board. It cannot be handled in the House or at No. 10 Downing Street. However, we can lay down the very important principle that it is totally wrong to try—as the Labour Party has frequently done—to encourage the unions to believe that there will always be more money without more efficiency and better working methods.
    Mr. Foot: We want to overcome this crisis. Will the right hon. Lady say whether she supports the board's proposals, which have now been withdrawn?
    The Prime Minister: I leave the negotiations—rightly—to the British Railways Board. The Government have stood behind the British Railways Board in its negotiations.
    Mr. Timothy Smith: Did my right hon. Friend hear Mr. Ray Buckton this morning when he explained to Radio 4 listeners that we live in a democratic country? Is it not about time that he introduced a little democracy into his union and consulted his members about this damaging dispute?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that a number of ASLEF members have made precisely the same point. A considerable number of them are now working because they attach more importance to serving the travelling public—which is quite right—than to insisting on increased pay without improved working practices.

    Falkland Islands
    Mr. Allan Robertsasked the Prime Minister when she intends the inquiry relating to the Falkland Islands to report.
    The Prime Minister: The inquiry must be given whatever time it needs to complete its review, but I hope that it will be able to report within six months, and sooner if possible.
    Mr. Roberts: Will the Prime Minister therefore confirm that she has categorically ruled out an October general election, because she realises that before any electoral contest the House and the country should be given the full facts about the causes of the Falklands crisis and about the Government's responsibility for it?
    The Prime Minister: I should be utterly amazed if there were an October election.
    Mr. Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an extremely happy event will take place at 11 am this Sunday when "Canberra" returns home with 3,000 of our fighting men on board? If possible, will she send a message to the ship's captain and perhaps accompany me to the quay at Southampton to welcome the ship back?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that everyone is extremely grateful for the excellent services provided by the whole of the Merchant Marine during the Falkland Islands crisis. We should like especially to congratulate the captain and crew of "Canberra" on having performed such a wonderful service on behalf of our country.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Might I welcome the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]—to the ranks of those who wish to get rid of the 30-year rule of secrecy for Cabinet documents?
    Is she aware that compared with her attitude to the Bingham report—which would have exposed some of capitalism's shortcomings—her change of heart is very welcome? Will she extend her strictures on the 30-year rule.
    The Prime Minister: I happen to be very much in favour of the 30-year rule against the publication of Cabinet documents. That is quite a different matter from revealing Cabinet documents, and Cabinet Committee documents, to Privy Councillors for an inquiry that wishes to draw its own conclusions. However, that does not mean that the documents can be published.

    Engagements
    Mr. Leightonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 6 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Leighton: Does the Prime Minister recall the answer that she gave on 9 February to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), when he warned her of the serious error of paying off HMS "Endurance" and of the consequences of such action? I believe that it was to be sold for about £3 million. Events in the South Atlantic have, I understand, cost rather more than £3 million. What has been the cost of the killing and maiming? As the Foreign Secretary honourably resigned, is it not time for her to accept, in grace and humility, her share of responsibility and culpability?
    The Prime Minister: HMS "Endurance" was between the Falkland Islands and South Georgia at the time of the invasion. It was there throughout the invasion of the Falkland Islands. The ship has only two 20 mm guns and two Wasp helicopters.
    Mr. Marland: During the course of the day will my right hon. Friend find time to consider the proposed increase in charges that has been announced by British Telecom? It seems to illustrate the insensitivity of the nationalised industries, which pile more and more charges on private industry and individuals.
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the point underlying my hon. Friend's question. We need much greater efficiency from British Telecom and from every other industry. We need to reduce overmanning and restrictive practices. However, much money is being invested in new equipment for British Telecom. Over the year British Telecom's profits are about £450 million, which is only about one-quarter of the amount that we are investing in British Telecom. We trust that that new investment will be used efficiently.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins rose—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Jenkins: On the Falkland Islands inquiry—[Interruption]—will—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very unfair if a right hon. or hon. Member is not allowed to put his question. If the House stands for anything, it stands for freedom of speech.
    Mr. Jenkins: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the inquiry's terms of reference will not now involve any leisurely ramble over the history of the past two decades, but will concentrate on immediate events, although possibly with a right to look back for the purposes of comparison and clarification?
    The Prime Minister: By kind permission of Mr. Speaker, the answer to a written question from the Leader of the Opposition was published at 2.45 pm today, setting out the terms of reference of the proposed inquiry in the following terms:
    "To review the way in which the responsibilities of Government in relation to the Falkland Islands and their dependencies were discharged in the period leading up to the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands on 2 April 1982, taking account of all such factors in previous years as are relevant; and to report."
    I am also glad to announce—as is stated in that reply—that Lord Franks has agreed to be chairman of the committee.

    Falkland Islands
    Sir David Priceasked the Prime Minister if, pursuant to her reply on 18 June, Official Report, column 353, she is now in a position to announce the result of her consideration of a suitable form of commemoration for the recovery of the Falkland Islands and their dependencies for the British Crown.
    The Prime Minister: As I said in the House on 1 July, a service of thanksgiving and remembrance for those who fell in the campaign will be held in St. Paul's cathedral on Monday 26 July at 11 am. Her Majesty the Queen, together with other members of the Royal Family, will attend. The next-of-kin of those who died will be invited, together with representatives of the Services, Merchant Navy and other direct participants in the conflict. Representatives of those involved in the support of the Falklands operation from Britain will also be invited. Seats will be available for the public and they will be allocated by ballot.
    Sir David Price: While thanking my right hon. Friend for making those proper and traditional arrangements to commemorate our victory in the Falkland Islands, may I
    148
    ask whether she will also ensure that our victorious Service men have an opportunity to parade through our capital city?
    The Prime Minister: We have not yet made arrangements for such a parade. It is likely that there will be one in the autumn. In addition to the Government, the lord mayor of the City of London is considering the matter, so that we may provide some entertainment.
    Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not dispute your decision to release the terms of reference of the Falkland Islands inquiry exceptionally at 2.45 pm. Many hon. Members who have questions down for written answer for a specific day would wish the terms of the answers to those questions to be available so that they might put supplementary questions to Ministers in the House. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that it is not right that the Government, at their caprice and whim, should be allowed to switch the traditional time for answering questions tabled for written answer simply for their political convenience?
    Mr. Speaker: I understand that this was the wish of both the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister and that it meets the wishes of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] The House has had information that it would not otherwise have received because it could not have been revealed until later. Secondly, I am following precedent; it has been done before. I did not create the precedent and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, from time to time, in the interests of the House, we find the appropriate precedent to follow.
    Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As Prime Minister's Question Time started two or three minutes late, why should the Prime Minister be defended by not allowing it to run for 15 minutes rather than terminating it after 12 minutes?
    Mr. Speaker: When the hon. Gentleman is appointed Speaker, he can put that point of view, but in the meantime the House has asked me to accept that responsibility.
    Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As there is some dispute about the flexible rostering of the business of the House, may we have a secret ballot on it?

Business of the House
3.33 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a short business statement.
The business on Thursday 8 July will now be as follows:
Until about 7 o'clock, debate on a Government motion on the decision to appoint a committee to review matters leading up to the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands. Afterwards, Supply day debate on the Army, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call a few hon. Members to put questions, but this is a brief statement about a debate being available to us on Thursday.
Mr. Frank Hooley: Will the Supply day debate run until 10 o'clock or midnight?
Mr. Biffen: The motion that will govern the day's business will enable the Supply day debate to run long enough to make up for the time that will have been for-gone.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the interests of those of us who are not Privy Councillors, and reflecting what happened on Saturday 3 April when a truncated debate in the House led to a reflection of opinion that may not have been the true opinion of the entire House at the time, is it satisfactory that such a crucial debate should be limited to three hours?
If it is limited to three hours, will the Prime Minister outline the events that led to the firing of torpedoes on the "General Belgrano" and tell us especially whether Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse consulted her before giving the order to fire?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Those questions can be raised during the debate on Thursday.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: May the House debate the terms of reference and amend them?
Mr. Biffen: The motion will be amendable.
Mr. Christopher Price: Will the Government announce the full membership of the inquiry committee before the debate or simply in the opening speech of the debate?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot anticipate the contents of my right hon. Friend's opening speech, but doubtless she will have heard the hon. Gentleman's point.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call the four hon. Members who have been trying to catch my eye.
Mr. Michael English: Will the motion include South Georgia as well as the Falkland Islands? I believe that Argentina invaded South Georgia first.
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the debate will be sufficiently elastic to cover the point that worries the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Although the Leader of the House cannot
150
anticipate the Prime Minister's opening speech, will he ensure that she explains to the House the constitutional point raised by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), because she appears to be saying to the nation that she has the right, without asking permission, to examine the papers of previous Administrations?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that that matter will be fully and adequately covered.
Mr. George Foulkes: Further to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), will the Prime Minister ensure that the names of the other members of the committee are made available before the debate and not in her introductory speech?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot go beyond the answer that I have already given.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Leader of the House make it clear whether the inquiry will be set up by a motion of the House or whether it will be an inquiry appointed by the Government on which the House is invited to make observations?
Mr. Biffen: The House will be invited to approve the inquiry.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would I be right in thinking that the time for Back-Bench Members' contributions to the debate on the Falkland Islands inquiry will be limited to one and a quarter hours or, at most, one and a half hours, because there will be four major Front Bench speeches? Do you, as Speaker of the House, believe that it is satisfactory that Back-Bench Members' contributions should be limited to that extent?
Mr. Speaker: I do not decide the timing of the debate.
Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Points of order simply take time from the major debate in which many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas), will hope to catch my eye.
Mr. Douglas: It was not my intention unduly to take up the time of the House, Mr. Speaker. The name of the head of the Falkland Islands inquiry has been widely leaked to the press. May we have an assurance that information about the other members of the committee of inquiry will not be leaked to the press but will be given to the House?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 7298/80, concerning Energy Labelling, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Disablement (Prohibition of Unjustifiable Discrimination)
3.40 pm
Mr. Jack Ashley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that discrimination of an unjustifiable nature against disabled people shall be illegal.
The basic issue of the Bill is one of human rights because too many disabled people are suffering from a denial of those rights. They are being burdened with the dual handicap of their disability and of completely unjustified discrimination. Examples of such discrimination abound. It must be hard for a disabled person to be told that people like him should stay at home; that he is to be sacked because his work mates will not work with a disabled person; that teachers will not teach him because he is disabled; or that employers will not interview him as he has a disability, although the disability is irrelevant to that job.
Sometimes the discrimination is bizarre or downright silly. For example, a draughtsman with an artificial leg was offered a job, but the offer was withdrawn when his disability was discovered. Therefore, I can presume only that the employer thought that he drew with his feet. A Butlin's holiday camp refused to accommodate disabled people in the summer but said that it would accept them in the spring or autumn. The people there said that they could not accommodate them because of the hills in the area, so I presume that those hills disappeared during the spring and autumn.
Those examples are taken from the report of the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People, called CORAD, under the chairmanship of Peter Large. The committee was in no doubt that the evidence of discrimination that it received was the tip of the iceberg. After studying the problem for three years it felt that discrimination against disabled people was just as extensive as discrimination on the grounds of race and sex.
So the question I want to put is: how should the House try to deal with the unnecessary burden of discrimination placed on disabled people? CORAD was in no doubt that discrimination should be made illegal and that there should be legislation. I am convinced that that is the most realistic and effective solution to the problem. I am not suggesting that legislation is the only method. Of course, it is not. There is room for education and for persuasion, which have an important role to play. However, we need something stronger. What we require is strong legislation.
The Bill, which follows the recommendations of CORAD, would make illegal unjustified discrimination on the ground of disability. It would cover all areas where discrimination occurs, including employment, education, transport and the provision of goods and services. There would have to be a commission with powers to investigate and to conciliate, if necessary with the power to take
152
appropriate legal action to stop unjustifiable discrimination. I emphasise the word "unjustifiable". I am not asking for something unreasonable. I believe that a sense of proportion is necessary. That would be embodied in my Bill.
No one pretends that disablement does not pose problems. I am not making absurd or preposterous demands for blind bus drivers; I am not suggesting that there should be deaf piano tuners. No one is making ridiculous suggestions. The Bill cannot be laughed out on those grounds.
The Bill does not seek an unreasonable ban or discrimination. For example, it would not be an offence to discriminate where the costs would be disproportionate to the benefits, if it was absolutely impractical to make changes or if the changes created definite safety hazards. I recognise all those problems and I take them into account in my Bill.
However, the Bill is necessary because unjustifiable discrimination exists. To outlaw discrimination is the most direct method of reducing it. The Bill will not immediately affect attitudes towards disabled people, but it can affect the behaviour of the public towards disabled people. In time its influence would be felt on attitudes, because antidiscrimination Acts approved by Parliament have a vital declaratory effect in contrast to the bromides that we have been hearing in recent years. Above all, such legislation would confer legal rights rather than hopeful expectations. In a generally law-abiding society such as ours, those rights will be respected and observed.
Similar legislative provision for disabled people has already been made in the United States. It is operating successfully. There has been legislation in Canada. In this country we have not proposed legislation to outlaw discrimination against disabled people, but we have legislation to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of race and sex. Therefore, we have recognised the principle of legislating against the evil of discrimination.
So far disabled people have suffered discrimination in silence, but there is absolutely no doubt that there is now a new awakening among them and a growing demand that they should have the same rights as everyone else. They look to the House to provide those rights. Although the Bill is merely a modest first step in according those rights, I hope that the House will show today and in the months ahead its determination to lighten the burden and enhance the prospects of our disabled people.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, Mr. Jack Dormand, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

Disablement (Prohibition of Unjustifiable Discrimination)
  DISABLEMENT (PROHIBITION OF UNJUSTIFIABLE DISCRIMINATION)
  Mr. Jack Ashley accordingly presented a Bill to provide that discrimination of an unjustifiable nature against disabled people shall be illegal: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 July and to be printed. [Bill 160.]
Orders of the Day

  Defence
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [1 July]:
  That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1982, contained in Cmnd. 8529.—[Mr. Nott.]
  Which amendment was to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "fully supports the United Kingdom's continued membership of NATO; recognises that this involves both a commitment to detente through negotiations for multilateral arms control and disarmament and to deterrence through conventional and nuclear forces; declines to approve Her Majesty's Government's decision to purchase Trident missiles but despite the present economic difficulties believes that the NATO commitment to an annual increase of 3 per cent. in defence expenditure should be maintained."—[Mr. Crawshaw.]
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  3.49 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Peter Blaker): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence spoke last week largely about the direction of the defence programme. Today I shall speak first about people, especially the men and women in the South Atlantic task force and those who organised its despatch. My hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie), if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, will say something about the role of British industry.
  The Falklands campaign has been a combined operation in two senses. First, it was a combined operation of the British people. The national upsurge of resolve when Argentina invaded our territory exceeded anything since the Second World War. Not only the Armed Forces, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service, but the dockyard workers, the civilians who back up the forces in every part of the country, workers in the factories and supply depots and men and women in every part of the country were determined to do what they could to put right what they correctly saw as an international outrage. The speed with which the task force put to sea astonished the country, and, I believe, the world. It may even have surprised some of those who were directly involved in the operation. After years of self disparagement, the British people asked themselves in disbelief "Can it really be we who are doing this?".
  I pay tribute to the logistic and supporting elements of all three Services—I hope that I do not offend the other two Services if in this context I mention the Navy—and all the others who worked round the clock to get the task force ready for sea.
  In a narrower sense, the campaign has been a combined operation between the three Services. In peacetime there is normally a healthy rivalry between them. In wartime, especially in modern war, it must take second place.
  The Falklands campaign was a remarkable demonstration of combined operations between the three Services and the Merchant Navy. It was one of the main reasons for our victory. A good example of it was demonstrated in one of the most important and critical operations of the entire conflict—the landing of 3 Commando Brigade and the 2nd and 3rd battalions, the Parachute Regiment, at San Carlos. An amphibious assault is one of the most complicated and risky operations of war.
  154
  We have all read or heard graphic accounts of the action. What is less well known is the fact that at the same time as that landing, diversionary attacks were launched by RAF and Navy Harriers on Argentine positions at Stanley, Goose Green and Fox Bay. Frigates and destroyers bombarded Stanley and raiding parties of marines and paratroops went ashore to harass Argentine positions elsewhere on the islands. A Vulcan bombed Stanley airport. The aim was to convince the Argentine commanders that the threat of an invasion lay on the east or south of the islands. The strategy worked and the beachhead was established without serious opposition from Argentine troops and with no battle casualties.
  For each of the Services, a great deal could be said of their individual achievements while much is still not yet fully known. However, I should like to tell the House of some of them.
  For the Royal Navy, all our missile systems achieved success. With the land-based Rapier and Blowpipe, they were responsible for destroying about 38 Argentine aircraft. Naval gunfire support proved immensely important in the re-taking of South Georgia and in raids and the land battle in the Falklands. Nearly 8,000 rounds were fired by 4·5 in guns. The effect of our submarines on the Argentine navy was profound both before and after the arrival of the task force. After the sinking of the cruiser "General Belgrano", the Argentine navy did not venture again outside their 12-mile limit. Our submarines thus played a fundamental part in the exercise of sea control. Our anti-submarine warfare capability appears to have deterred Argentine submarines from playing an active part in the operations. For the Fleet Air Arm, the fact that throughout the operation we achieved 90 per cent. availability of all aircraft embarked, demonstrates the immense skill and dedication of the Fleet Air Arm support crews.
  I should like to say more about the outstanding success of the Sea Harriers. They shot down at least 28 Argentine aircraft, about 23 of which were fast modern jets such as Mirages and Skyhawks. Even when outnumbered by a factor of two to one, as was often the case, Sea Harriers continued to outperform and outfight the Mirages and the Skyhawks. On one raid, two Sea Harriers accounted for three Skyhawks of a flight of four. The fourth flew into the sea while attempting to evade. We suffered no losses in air-to-air combat during the campaign.
  The Sea Harrier's success can be attributed to a combination of a highly manoeuvrable and versatile fighter, a reliable and capable missile—the Sidewinder—and, above all, to the resourcefulness, skill and courage of our young pilots who fought in the highest tradition of the Fleet Air Arm. Together with the RAF's Harriers, those aircraft accounted for a total of about 36 Argentine aircraft in the air and on the ground.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Minister break down the figures? He said that 30 Argentine aircraft were shot down by missiles from ships and Blowpipe. Will he give the number of aircraft that were shot down by missiles launched from ships alone?
  Mr. Blaker: I would rather not do that at this stage. Attributing success to one missile or another or to one Service or another is a delicate operation. We are engaged on it now and I would prefer to wait a little longer until

  155
  we are more sure of the figures. I would prefer to get them right and publish them rather than break them down prematurely.
  Some 18,000 men from the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Royal Fleet Auxiliary and Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service, Merchant Navy and supporting civilians sailed in the ships of the task force. Several ships had already been at sea for some months away from the United Kingdom and were due to return to Britain when the operation started. It is difficult to find adequate words to describe their performance. After long periods at sea, closed up, at high states of readiness, some not seeing daylight for many weeks, often in very bad weather—a good deal worse on average than in the North Sea—they kept their ships, aircraft and equipment in working condition without shore support and then fought well, without the help from shore-based aircraft and allied forces that we expect in the eastern Atlantic. By the time some of the ships return to the United Kingdom they will have been continuously at sea for more than six months.
  Mr. James Callaghan: I am sorry to interrupt, but I should like an answer to a question that I have been asked to ask by the representatives of the families of those who are on HMS "Endurance" which has been at sea continuously, I am told, for nine months. It is said that there is an inexplicable delay in their return and that they will not come back until September. The families are asking about the delay and the Ministry of Defence is not answering. The families are worried and anxious at not being able to discover the reason. We were told that "Endurance" would be one of the first ships to be relieved. Will the hon. Gentleman give me an answer, either now or later, that can be passed to those families as to when "Endurance" will be brought home? That would dispose of some of the reasons that I will not give in public here as to why it is being suggested that she is being kept in the Falklands.
  Mr. Blaker: I pay tribute to the crew of "Endurance". They have performed a remarkable feat of stamina. I was not aware of the right hon. Gentleman's point. I shall look into the matter immediately and let him know what is happening as soon as possible.
  Mr. Stanley Newens: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the success of our operations at sea, will he deal with our defences against sea-skimming missiles which the majority of the public believe are inadequate?
  Mr. Blaker: I preface my reply to the hon. Gentleman with a request not to be asked to give way too often. I have much to say and I want to deal with disarmament, a subject that I know hon. Members want to discuss.
  I gather that the hon. Gentleman is referring to Exocet. It is a dangerous and effective missile. That is why we have equipped our ships with the surface-to-surface version. The air-launched version that was used against us did not have entirely its own way. A high proportion of missiles were successfully countered by the ships against which they were aimed. The position is therefore not quite so bad as some members of the public have thought, but we are certainly looking at this.
  Turning now to the men who fought on the ground, part of the initial landing force was 3 Commando Brigade, Royal Marines. These troops were, of course, ideally suited to this operation, first because of their amphibious
  156
  experience and techniques, secondly, because they are trained and equipped to operate in the cold and wet of the Arctic, and in the Falkland Islands it has been very cold and wet, and, thirdly, because their commando training enabled them to march 50 miles across the mountains and peat bog of the East Falklands with full equipment and then conduct a series of successful night assaults in the mountains west of Stanley against an enemy who had had nine weeks to prepare their positions. The same is true of the training of the parachute battalions who landed with them who shared their forced marches to Stanley and who carried out the now legendary attack on Darwin and Goose Green.
  Mr. Anthony Buck: The whole House will be glad that my hon. Friend has paid special tribute to the Royal Marine commandos. Could he at some stage say something about their command structure? They particularly captured our imagination. It is a small force and the pyramid is very thin at the top. Would it be possible occasionally for a commandant-general of the Royal Marines to become a member of the Admiralty Board and go on to become Chief of Defence Staff?
  Mr. Blaker: That is not a subject to which I have previously given attention, but I certainly undertake to look at it.
  It is difficult to overstate the achievement of any of the land forces, be they from the Royal Marines, the Parachute Regiment or 5 Brigade. In operations often against odds of two or three to one, their success has been a vindication of the high standard of their training and their professionalism.
  The problems of maintaining the fitness of soldiers in cramped, uncomfortable conditions on board ship during a long voyage in rough seas were substantial. Yet this was done successfully and when finally disembarked the ground forces were no less effective fighting soldiers capable of long and arduous marches over some of the most inhospitable terrain in the world. Their performance was in the highest tradition of the Armed Forces.
  A vital contribution to the success of our operations was made by the Special Forces. Patrols of the Special Air Service and the Special Boat Squadron were landed into East and West Falklands from the task force three weeks before the landing. Working in among the enemy, living in the field in conditions of extreme discomfort and danger, they were able to provide intelligence that was vital to the successful conduct of the landing and to carry out the most daring and successful raid against Pebble Island, destroying aircraft that would have been a threat to the subsequent landing.
  My right hon. Friend told the House something earlier about the contribution of the Royal Air Force. Let me say a little more today. Of the many essential tasks carried out by the RAF, perhaps the most important but least noted was that of supply. From the start of the operation, RAF Hercules and VC1Os were ferrying vast amounts of equipment and large numbers of Service men to Ascension Island, 5,000 miles from the United Kingdom. Every day for the past three months these aircraft and their crews have endured a punishing schedule which still continues despite the ending of active hostilities.
  One of the most remarkable features of the operation for the RAF was the way in which air-to-air refuelling dramatically lengthened their reach. The Hercules, for

  157
  example, have been making a regular shuttle of immensely long round trips to the Falklands and to the task group. The longest to date took 28 hours non-stop. That is a tribute to the crews.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: In referring to the skill of the Service men involved, can the Minister tell us whether any cost tag has been put on the operation?
  Mr. Blaker: Yes, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's written answer to a question yesterday by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) shows the latest figures that we have been able to publish. We hope to publish more in the near future.
  After modification for deck operation and ski jump training, 14 RAF Harriers deployed to the South Atlantic. They carried out some 150 operational sorties with only three aircraft lost.
  An indispensable role was played, too, by the members of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service and the crews of commercial ships. Some of them were at times in great danger, and sadly they too suffered casualties. To be a member of the crew of any of these ships must have required courage, not least those of the oil tankers and ammunition ships in the task force and of the commercial ships which entered San Carlos water.
  We have said that we do not propose to draw premature lessons from the campaign. I am sure that that is right. On many subjects it will require some months of careful analysis, with those who fought, of individual events and actions and the performance of individual weapons. The lessons, I believe, will be valuable, to us and to our allies.
  There have been reports, both in this country and abroad, that the victory of our forces owed much to superior equipment. We shall learn more about this in the coming weeks, but I can say now that on the whole there is little evidence that Argentine equipment was bad or inadequate.
  There is one lesson which I confidently draw now, however. Even in the age of the missile, one of the most important factors in this campaign has been the skill, training, courage, morale, fitness and team spirit of our troops, the leadership and example given by officers and NCOs, and, not least, the efficiency of logistic planning and command and control. All these depend principally on human beings, not on equipment.
  Some of the Argentine troops were well trained regulars whose professionalism was shown by the well-prepared defensive positions that our troops captured. There were many examples of Argentine skill and courage, not least from the Argentine pilots.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: Can my hon. Friend yet give us any idea of the usage and quantities of Argentine equipment taken since the conflict ended, in view of reports in magazines such as Aviation Week about the extent of equipment captured? I am thinking particularly of use by CCFs and territorial regiments back home as well as the garrison that may end up in the Falldands.
  Mr. Blaker: I have given written answers to one or two questions on this, which my hon. Friend may care to
  158
  study. The short answer is that there is a good deal of equipment, which we are still sorting. There is also a great deal of ammunition which will take some months to sort.
  Mr. Keith Best: My hon. Friend has suffered many interventions and I apologise for interrupting him again. Has he yet been able to carry out a full analysis of stocks of napalm and dumdum bullets left by the Argentine forces and the purposes to which they were likely to be put?
  Mr. Blaker: We have no evidence of the use of dumdum bullets. We discovered a substance bearing some resemblance to napalm, but it is still being evaluated.
  The leadership displayed by the Argentine officers was unable to compensate for the low morale of their conscripts, who made up 60 per cent. of their garrison. The relationship between officers, NCOs and men was poor. While they had good night vision aids they were not skilled in their use and not well trained in fighting at night. Their logistic planning was inadequate.
  In all the human elements I have listed there was, then, no doubt of our superiority. No praise can be too high for the way in which our forces, backed by their civilian support—and backed, I should add, by the nation—conducted themselves during the campaign. The quality of their weapons apart, the ultimate test of any nation's armed forces is whether they have the skill, the training, the courage, and the will to win. The answer for the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom is emphatically "Yes".
  I turn now, in striking contrast, to the Opposition Front Bench. The official defence policy of the Labour Party as approved last year is to reduce defence spending to the average proportion of the GDP spent by the West European countries. This would reduce our total planned defence budget by about one-third.
  Dr. Oonagh McDonald: That was last year.
  Mr. Blaker: I am talking about last year.
  As was pointed out in last year's debates on defence, this would mean some alarming cuts in our forces—the equivalent of eliminating one of the three Services in its entirety—and between 350,000 and ½ million extra unemployed.
  However, this year, the situation has changed. The resolution recently approved by the Labour Party national executive committee includes what the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) referred to last week as "the proviso". The proviso adds to the commitment to reduce spending the words
  "bearing in mind the need to avoid widespread and precipitate redundancies for which no alternative work has been provided and Britain's need to provide adequate conventional defence forces".
  I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, who one imagines had some hand in the wording of that proviso, because whatever may be the pretence, the reality is that these words make nonsense of the commitment to a one-third reducton in spending. That is what they do and the right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated upon it.
  "But," the right hon. Gentleman will say, "we shall have more money for conventional forces because we will abandon Trident." No so. This year's Labour Party motion destroys that case. It proposes that, while we should still remain good members of NATO, we should cancel the 3

  159
  per cent. annual increase in defence expenditure agreed by NATO. Even if the 3 per cent. increase were cancelled for only one year, and then resumed, this alone would eliminate from the defence budget all the money saved by Labour's proposed abandonment of the Trident programme. This is because the Trident programme will take only 3 per cent. of the defence budget over the 18 years of its introduction. That 3 per cent. is cancelled out by the Labour proposals.
  Mr. John Silkin: Will the hon. Gentleman now tell us what the perecentage of Trident on the budget would be during the peak year?
  Mr. Blaker: On the equipment budget, I believe it is 10½ percent.
  Dr. McDonald: It is 15 to 20 per cent.
  Mr. Blaker: The average over 18 years, which is the relevant point, is 3 per cent. That is why the abandonment of the 3 per cent. growth target by the Labour Party for even one year, because it would be carried forward to all successive years, would have the effect of withdrawing from the defence budget all that the Labour Party has undertaken to save by abandoning Trident.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Blaker: I shall not give way again. I have much to say.
  I suppose I should out of courtesy refer to the amendment in the names of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and of hon. Members of the Liberal Party. It generally supports the Government policy except that it opposes the Trident programme. It was moved on Thursday by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw)—who has kindly sent a note to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explaining why he cannot be here today—in a speech in which he generally supported the Government's policies but failed to mention the Trident programme. We shall wait to hear with interest what the other spokesmen for the SDP and the Liberal Party have to say, however numerous their opinions may be.
  I turn now to the subject of deterrence. I note with satisfaction that the national executive committee of the Labour Party accepts the policy of deterrence. Its latest document says:
  "Britain should have sufficient military strength to discourage external aggression and to defend ourselves should we be attacked".
  Those words were quoted with approval, by the right hon. Member for Deptford on Thursday. They express the doctrine of deterrence. The same document proposes that Labour should maintain its support for NATO, and I understand that also is the position of the Opposition Front Bench.
  It was under a Labour Government, with Ernest Bevin as its Foreign Secretary, that NATO was formed because of the perceived threat from the Soviet Union. The Soviet threat has not changed since 1949 except that it has become greater. The Soviet Union has become more powerful, its record of aggression longer and more alarming. Russia since 1917 has absorbed 17 countries or territories which were not its and has imposed its dominion on half a dozen more in Eastern Europe. Its forces grow steadily stronger and it continues to declare that its destiny
  160
  is to expand the power of Russian Communism. Its interference in the internal affairs of other countries is ever more brazen.
  Since NATO was born it has relied on the doctrine of nuclear deterrence. In that time we have had peace in Europe. I believe that is no coincidence. It has had to rely on that doctrine because the Soviet Union rejected the Baruch plan put forward in 1946 by the United States, which then possessed the world's only atomic weapons, for abolition of nuclear weapons and international control of nuclear weapons and nuclear power. Since 1949 the Soviet Union has had nuclear weapons of its own.
  The knowledge that created nuclear weapons cannot be wiped from men's minds. So long as the Soviet Union has nuclear weapons—even a few—the West must have them, too. For if the West had none its conventional weapons, however powerful, would have only the value of scrap metal. We would not, in the words of the Labour Party document, have sufficient military strength to discourage external aggression from the Soviet Union, nor to defend ourselves should we be attacked.
  Mr. Joan Evans rose—
  Mr. Blaker: I shall not give way again.
  The question is whether Britain should have its own independent nuclear deterrent. We have had our own independent nuclear deterrent since 1955. We have been unanimously supported in doing so by our NATO allies on many occasions. We believe that if the Soviet Union were to imagine, however mistakenly, that the United Stales would not come to the defence of Europe if it were attacked, the British deterrent would be an added safeguard. The Labour Party now proposes to abandon this policy, which has been upheld by eight successive British Governments, in favour of a policy that relies for nuclear protection on NATO and, therefore, on the United States nuclear deterrent. I find the morality of that position confusing, to put it mildly.
  But the unreason of the Labour Party does not stop there. Its latest document goes on to propose the closing down of all nuclear bases, including American, on British soil or in British waters. This is a policy intended to save our own skins while asking the Americans to protect us by risking theirs. But it would, in fact, make Soviet aggression or blackmail more likely.
  The document proceeds to reach the apogee of silliness by calling for a European nuclear weapon free zone, ignoring the fact that the Soviet Union's SS20 missiles can reach almost any point in Western Europe, and the whole of the United Kingdom, from outside Europe. This is a shabby document drawn up in a hopeless attempt to cure the ills of the Labour Party. Would that Ernie Bevin were with us now to give his views on a document such as this!
  If we are to have an independent nuclear deterrent, it must at least be effective. We believe, on all the evidence available to us, that by the 1990s Polaris, even with Chevaline, which is now in service, may not be effective because the Russians will have improved their defences and because the Polaris boats will be at the end of their useful life. We therefore need a more modern system. Of those available, Trident is by far the most cost-effective. Any system based on submarine-launched cruise missiles would either be ineffective or many times more expensive, for three reasons: the likely vulnerability by the 1990s of the cruise missiles unless launched in very large numbers;

  161
  the fact that the cruise missile carries only one warhead; and the limited sea area in which the cruise missile submarine would have to operate because of the range of the missile.
  If the Labour party believes that Britain should have sufficient military strength to discourage external aggression, Trident is the weapon for it. It is indeed accurate, but so are the nuclear weapons of the Soviet Union. In the form in which we intend to acquire it, it will represent only what is necessary to assure deterrence in the 1990s and beyond. The ratio between the British Trident and the Soviet strategic systems will be about the same as that for Polaris when it came into service.
  A number of hon. Members spoke last Thursday about disarmament. The Government believe in disarmament that does not increase the danger of war or of military blackmail. In the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the United Nations special session last month, we believe in
  "the balanced and verifiable reduction of armaments in a way which enhances peace and security".
  This is entirely in line with the final document of the first United Nations special session on disarmament in 1978; whose basic assumption was that disarmament should be sought by multilateral means, by negotiation and not by unilateral gestures.
  Yet we hear calls from the Opposition for one-sided disarmament and for the United Kingdom to throw away its nuclear weapons, apparently in the hope that other nuclear powers would respond. What I have never heard from any Labour spokesman is any suggestion on which of the other four nuclear powers would respond. China? France, whose Socialist Government have just launched their sixth nuclear ballistic missile submarine? The United States? The Soviet Union? There is no answer.
  If the United Kingdom were to be so foolish it would make a futile gesture that would profoundly destabilise NATO and would cause delight in the Kremlin whose leaders, in the words of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)—I hope I quote him correctly as I am relying on newspaper reports—would laugh at our naivety.
  Mr. James Callaghan: I do not know whether I said that, but I hope I did.
  Mr. Blaker: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Successive Governments since the war have worked for arms control and disarmament. Of the nine agreements achieved since the 1950s, five were signed under Conservative Governments and four under Labour. The one real disarmament agreement, the biological weapons convention of 1972, was signed under a Conservative Government, as was the partial nuclear test ban treaty of 1963.
  The main reason why the world has not achieved more is not want of effort by the West. As the Labour Party, of all parties, should understand, it takes two sides to make an agreement. The main obstacle has regularly been the refusal of the Soviet Union to admit verification of the necessary measures on its soil because of the closed nature of its society. Time and time again, that is the block we have come up against.
  162
  In the face of slow progress towards balanced and verifiable disarmament it is very tempting to throw up our hands and call for dramatic gestures. To do that is to forget that wars have more often come from an imbalance between a powerful, acquisitive State and a weaker peaceful State than they have from an excess of armaments on both sides. One has only to look at the 1930s to see the lesson. Hitler was encouraged in his aggression by the weakness, disunity and lack of resolve of the free world. I doubt whether the Afghans would support the view that the present war in their country is the result of their excessive armaments. Nor would the Poles attribute that cause to the coercion they have recently suffered at the hands of the Soviet Union.
  Nevertheless, we are entering a period of negotiation between East and West. The negotiations on intermediate range nuclear weapons are under way in Geneva, resulting from the Western proposal of 1979. The START talks in Geneva have recently begun, on President Reagan's initiative, for the reduction of strategic nuclear weapons. The West is about to put forward new proposals at the Vienna talks on mutual and balanced conventional force reductions in Europe. The West has proposed talks on improving confidence building measures between both sides.
  I do not believe we should expect rapid results from these discussions. That is not the Russian way. The Russian way is to probe for disunity in the Western camp, to test our resolution and our firmness, and only when it fails to divide us, to make any move forward. That is the lesson of how we got the Russians to the INF negotiating table.
  We must expect further Russian calls of unverifiable but high-sounding declarations. They have called for a declaration on no first use of nuclear weapons. We have a better position—no first use of any weapons. That is what the Soviet Union is already bound to by the United Nations charter and the Helsinki agreement. The Soviet Union has called for a freeze on intermediate range nuclear missiles in Europe. The West has a better proposal—the abolition of all intermediate range nuclear missiles in Europe or targeted on Europe. The Russians have called for a freeze on strategic nuclear weapons. The West has a better position—reductions by one-third in the nuclear weapons of both of the super powers. Some time ago the Russians called for a declaration on the avoidance of the use of force in international relations. Three years later they invaded Afghanistan.
  Some of the Western proposals I have mentioned have been put forward by the United States. But they have been fully discussed in advance in NATO and received NATO's support. The United Kingdom Government, for their part, have not been idle. Within the last two years, the Government have put forward, with the Netherlands, the draft which became the basis for the 1981 United Nations agreement to restrict the use of certain inhumane weapons. The Government put forward a proposal in the committee on disarmament for means of verifying a ban on chemical weapons. They put forward last year, with four other countries, not including the United States, the draft of a comprehensive programme on disarmament, much of which has been incorporated in the document now being discussed by the United Nations special session.
  The right hon. Member for Deptford quoted on Thursday the saying
  "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".

  163
  It cannot be eternal vigilance to throw away our own nuclear defences and destabilise the Western alliance at a time when the Russians have given no comparable undertaking and their spending on arms has increased by 40 per cent. in the last 10 years.
  Mr. Robert Banks: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Blaker: I would rather not. I am about to conclude.
  As we enter this crucial period of international negotiations on disarmament, it cannot advance the cause of disarmament by both sides to throw away our own nuclear defences and to pretend that a Labour Government would cut our conventional forces by one-third while we and our allies are at the negotiating table. Nothing could be better calculated to make the Russians play for time in the hope of disunity in the Western camp.
  Our best course is to maintain our defences and insist that, if we are to disarm, the Russians must do the same. That has been the policy of the West for over 30 years, during which peace has been kept in Europe. The best route to continued peace and to agreed disarmament is to convince the Russians that the West remains united, resolute and strong. The brilliant success of our forces in the Falklands campaign will not have been lost on the Russians. It will, I believe, have enhanced in Europe the prospects of peace and freedom.
  4.24 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I pay my tribute to the skill, bravery and dedication of the Armed Forces and members of the Merchant Navy for their achievements in the Falklands. In doing so, I am sure that hon. Members will not forget those who gave their lives and the grief caused to their relatives and families. We must also not forget the pain and suffering of those who were injured and maimed. Some of that pain and suffering may last a considerable time.
  The Minister made a curious speech. The hon. Gentleman sought to attack the Labour Party defence policy. He did not do so very effectively. He did, however, make some strange statements in relation to nuclear weapons. One part of his speech was to a great extent a rehash of the Trident debate. It contained the very strange statement—made more blandly on this occasion than on any other occasion—that it is immoral for a member of NATO not to have nuclear weapons. His point was that it was somehow immoral for Britain not to have Trident and to rely on the American contribution to NATO in terms of strategic weapons.
  Many countries belong to NATO. Presumably those that do not possess nuclear weapons are acting in an immoral way. If this means, for instance, that Germany is being immoral, then long may that immorality continue. The real problem today is the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The Opposition appreciate that neither Russia nor the United States will give up its weapons unilaterally. We want weapons merely to be in their hands and for those weapons to be reduced. The hon. Gentleman's arguments are not worthy of him. He should drop that kind of approach and argue the substance of the case.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: Is it not the case that the only country within the Warsaw Pact to possess nuclear weapons is the Soviet Union? If one follows the logic put
  164
  forward by the Government, not only Canada but all other NATO countries should have an independent nuclear deterrent as, presumably, should all the Warsaw Pact countries. That would mean a massive proliferation of nuclear weapons.
  Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is right. We oppose any proliferation of nuclear weapons wherever that may occur. If we could get back to a situation in which only the two super-powers owned them, that would be a step towards a world that was safer and more free of nuclear weapons.
  In the first part of his speech, the Minister dealt with the Falklands campaign. I should have thought that a substantial part of what he had to say could have been included in the White Paper. The Government have published a White Paper that ignores the Falklands campaign completely.
  Mr. Best rose—
  Mr. Davies: I shall give way in a moment. I should like to conclude this point. The Government have published a two-volume document with a glossy cover, costing £8·50, without a single reference to the war in the Falklands. This shows the kind of insensitivity that the Secretary of State has displayed, I am sorry to say, on occasions during his tenure of office. The only mention of the war made in the document upon which we have to vote tonight is a pathetic half-page foreword that is not even incorporated into the main document.
  I understand the argument that there must be a military analysis of the consequences. I understand that there should be a wish, over the next few months, to examine which weapons worked well and which worked badly, what went wrong with some of the radar and why the Welsh Guards were left immobilised at Bluff Cove without air cover. These factors have to be examined over a longer period of time. But that need not have prevented the Secretary of State from publishing a White Paper that dealt with some of the things we have been told today and that at least acknowledged the fact that over the past few months, for the first time in almost a generation, Britain has been at war with another country.
  Nowhere does it mention that more than 250 men were killed, twice as many were injured, five Royal Navy ships were sunk, and that the "Sir Galahad" was sunk with 30 Welsh Guardsmen still entombed. How on earth can we be asked to approve a document that lists Royal Navy ships as operational when we all know that they are at the bottom of the South Atlantic? That is insensitivity that the Secretary of State should not have shown towards the House.
  It is not an academic subject. We are being asked to vote on a White Paper when the facts contained in that White Paper are incorrect. We should not be asked to vote upon it. The Secretary of State should have published a short White Paper incorporating an account of what is known about the Falklands war and in the autumn he should have published a fuller analysis. He could have had his Estimates before the Summer Recess—he has to—and they could have been voted upon. No doubt in the autumn there will be further Supplementary Estimates to pay for the increased costs. That would have been the most prudent and sensible course for the Government to have pursued.
  Mr. Best: I should like to return to the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about the morality of this

  165
  country not dispossessing itself of nuclear weapons. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that there would never be an occasion on which the United States of America would not whole-heartedly dedicate the use of its nuclear arsenal to the defence of Europe? Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is realistic for Europe not to have an essential element in the concept of a deterrent, to which his party subscribes, against the threat of the Soviet Union?
  Mr. Davies: Europe has an essential element. The countries to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are members of NATO. The hon. Gentleman is saying that he does not trust the Americans. That is a great condemnation of NATO. I did not appreciate that the hon. Gentleman held those views about NATO.
  The White Paper contains another statement that I believe will be proved to be wrong by the end of the year. It states that for the financial year 1982–83 defence spending will be just over £14 billion. I understand that that figure has already been overtaken by events and is wrong. The correct figure will be much higher. The Secretary of State looks puzzled. Can he tell us whether at the end of the year defence spending will be £14 billion, because the Falklands expenditure will have to be added to that sum? Despite the answers given by the Ministry of Defence it is clear that when we take account of the costs of the war, the replacing of equipment in this financial year, the cost of maintaining a garrison in the Falklands for the rest of the year—the Ministry of Defence does not yet know how much that will cost—the cost of the Falklands campaign for this financial year may not be far short of £1,000 million. That pushes defence spending for this financial year to nearly £15,000 million, or from 5·1 per cent. of the country's gross national product to 5·3 per cent.
  Next year the defence budget and the percentage of gross national product will be even higher, because, apart from the cost of the Falklands, the Secretary of State has given a commitment that the defence budget will increase by 3 per cent. in real terms. If we assume defence inflation of 10 per cent.—that is a conservative estimate because what is often laughably described as defence inflation is the causal relationship between the armaments industry and the Ministry of Defence and it exceeds general price inflation—that adds 13 per cent. to the core £14 billion, and if we add about £500 million for the Falklands, defence expenditure next year may be close to £,16½ billion or almost 5·5 per cent. of the gross national product. Gross domestic product is hardly increasing.
  The Secretary of State apparently believes that the Falklands part of the expenditure will come from the contingency fund. Having read the Sunday Express, I am not sure to which contingency fund he is referring, whether it is one that everyone knows about, or one that he keeps in the Ministry of Defence—according to the Sunday Express—out of reach of the Treasury. I assume that it is the main contingency fund. The House knows that that contingency fund is not a bottomless crock of gold; it is a mere accounting device. Eventually, the extra expenditure will have to be found. The Government should tell us how they will find the extra expenditure that increases the percentage of gross national product from 5·1 per cent. to 5·5 per cent. Where will the money come
  166
  from? It will not come from growth in the economy because, from the Bank of England's report a few days ago, we can see that the economy is not growing. The increase could come from extra borrowing, but the Government do not like borrowing and have spent three years of their existence reducing public borrowing. It could come from increased taxes, but again, the Government theory and philosophy is that taxes should be cut, although they have failed to do so during the past three years.
  Under this Administration the increase in defence expenditure will be paid for by other Departments and other public bodies. It will be paid for by the education budget—there will be fewer teachers and larger classes—by less investment in public infrastructure, and by money that should be used to rebuild the country's industrial base. Members of the Conservative Party—especially the defence lobby—no doubt do not mind that. However, I remind hon. Members that the country's ability to defend itself depends not only on the percentage of its wealth spent directly on defence, but on its public infrastructure, the state of its manufacturing industry and, in this sophisticated age of electronics and technology, on the education of its children.
  It is interesting to note from the latest parliamentary brief from the CBI that the CBI calls for urgent investment to improve the nation's infrastructure. It asks for £2 billion this year. I have news for it. That £2 billion will not come this year, because at least £1 billion will have to be cut from the budgets of other Departments.
  Mr. Julian Critchley: Did the right hon. Gentleman deploy those arguments in 1977 when his right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister decided to accept a 3 per cent. increase in real terms in defence spending?
  Mr. Davies: The 3 per cent. is not being met by other NATO countries. It is questionable what is meant by a 3 per cent. increase in real terms. The hon. Gentleman should not be so glib about the 3 per cent. We accepted and agreed with the NATO decision. There are difficulties about the 3 per cent. It is not as easy as the hon. Gentleman makes out. If the Government are true to their philosophy the rest of the public sector will pay the increased arms bill. I am told that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is already moving around the Departments of Whitehall, except perhaps the Ministry of Defence.
  The Secretary of State apparently justifies the publication of the White Paper in its present form on the grounds that the Government's defence strategy has not been affected by the Falklands war. If that is so it is a ridiculous over-simplification of the position, because the Falklands war highlighted the fact that the strategy was never credible in the first place and will hasten its inevitable reappraisal.
  As I understand it, the Government's defence policy is based on four major roles. There is, first, the strategic nuclear deterrent—upon which there will soon be a substantial increase in expenditure as more money is spent on Trident. There is, secondly, the direct defence of the United Kingdom. Thirdly, there is the continental commitment in West Germany, and finally, the maritime commitment within NATO, which is mainly in the eastern Atlantic. Before the war, there was additionally a rather minor role—described as the out-of-area role—of looking after about 14 dependencies scattered all over the world.

  167
  They are the residuary legacy of the British empire. They include not only the Falklands but Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Brunei, Belize and many others. Before the war, little money was spent on that out-of-area defence, but that is becoming a major drain on our resources in addition to the four other roles upon which Government strategy is based.
  We have to meet the cost of fighting the Falklands war and in the foreseeable future we shall need to maintain a not insignificant garrison on the islands. If the White Paper is right and the main threat is from the Soviet Union, there may be a call from within NATO to replace some of the ships and aircraft that will have to be kept in the South Atlantic. In addition, there will be the cost of replacing the ships and aircraft that were lost in the war.
  Moving up the coast of South America we come to Belize. The Government have committed themselves to defending an independent State against the claims of its neighbour. I understand that there are about 1,500 British troops in Belize, some Harriers and probably a frigate. We all heard with trepidation last week the bellicose statements of the president of Guatemala on the treaty between Britain and Belize and of his country's designs upon part of Belize.
  The Government's foreign policy in South America cannot be described as a crowning success. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury used to be the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office with responsibilities for these matters. Before the Falklands conflict the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)— the Financial Secretary—used to carry the Government's policy around South America. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not in his place. Over the past few months he must have been gratified that he was able to bury himself in the bowels of the Finance Bill. The Government have a responsibility for the way in which he tried to negotiate with Right-wing regimes in South America.
  One result of the Falklands conflict is that the Government will be ultra-cautious in respect of the other dependencies. That does not mean spending less money and it may mean spending more money. The out-of-area role has increased. That, in addition to the cost of Trident II and the commitment to 3 per cent. growth within NATO in real terms, means that finally the Government's strategy will not be able to be carried out.
  When the Prime Minister dismissed the last Secretary of State for Defence, the present Foreign Secretary, she did it apparently because the right hon. Gentleman insisted on buying Trident as well as maintaining the level of conventional defence forces. I believe that the Prime Minister's instincts on that occasion were right. They told her that it was not possible to have Trident and that level of conventional forces. I believe that the present Foreign Secretary was wrong. However, the Prime Minister was wrong in maintaining that Trident was sacrosanct and that conventional forces should be sacrificed. We know that the present Secretary of State for Defence was given his job to implement the Prime Minister's policy. He immediately cast around for areas in which conventional defence could be cut.
  When the right hon. Gentleman began that exercise he had to find less money than that which will be needed in future. At that time the commitment was to buy Trident I at a cost of about £5,000 million. Unfortunately, Trident II will cost about twice that sum. The cost will be about £10 billion at today's prices. The right hon. Gentleman
  168
  looked for cuts because that was his brief. There was not much scope for cutting the direct and immediate defence of the United Kingdom.
  A substantial reduction in Rhine Army may have appeared attractive, but apart from the question whether the savings would ultimately be very great there were political difficulties contained in a complete withdrawal of troops from Germany. Different views have been expressed from all parts of the Chamber and it is clearly a difficult subject. My view is that we should not underestimate political difficulties, especially if the proposition is that there should be a complete withdrawal of the British Army. We must consider carefully the political effects on some other countries in Western Europe and the Soviet Union's perception of what is going on in central Europe.
  Mr. Best: What is the Opposition's policy on Rhine Army? By how much should it be reduced?
  Mr. Davies: AE. I have said, it is an extremely difficult issue to determine. It is one that Government of both major parties have considered. There have been speeches from both sides of the House telling us how difficult an issue it is.
  Mr. Best: I know that.
  Mr. Davies: A complete withdrawal of British troops, especially if they were replaced by German troops, would have to be considered extremely carefully because of the effect on some other countries in Western Europe and the perception of the Soviet Union. If the British troops were not replaced, we would be lowering the nuclear threshold in Europe. It would mean that we would have fewer conventional forces. That would make it more likely that nuclear weapons would be used in a war in Central Europe.
  The Secretary of State could not move very far in that direction, so he cast his greedy merchant banker's eye on the surface ships of the Royal Navy. That was the only area in which he could try to cut defence spending. He thought that he could do that because of the many trendy and fashionable theories concerning surface ships and the needs of the Royal Navy. Having spent only a few months as a shadow Defence Minister—I know that that is obvious from my speech—I am of the opinion that there is not a portfolio in which there are more trendy and dotty academic theories.
  Apparently one of the theories is that Britain does not need a navy any more because it does not have an empire. It is argued that we are now firmly and irrevocably anchored to the Continent of Europe and that we do not need much of a navy. Another theory is that if a conventional war breaks out in Central Europe it will be all over in a few days, or a week, and that then NATO will have to go nuclear. That is said to support the argument that there is no need for a large navy. It is based on the view that the Soviet Union enjoys massive superiority in conventional forces, but I do not subscribe to that view. There is some superiority but I do not believe that it is massive. The final argument is that surface ships are too vulnerable in the age of the missile.
  The Secretary of State saw an added bonus in cutting the surface fleet. He recognised that fewer ships meant fewer dockyards. That meant that more money could be saved and used in part to fund a nuclear strategic deterrent.

  169
  In addition, he felt that he would be able to go to the chairman of Marks and Spencer to tell him that he was reducing the number of civil servants in the Department. The closure of Royal Navy dockyards reduces the number of civil servants in the Ministry of Defence.
  The Opposition welcome the very temporary relief for the Portsmouth yard. We deplore the closure of Chatham and the Gibraltar yard. We shall be able to discuss in some detail the proposed closures when we consider the Navy Estimates in a few weeks time.
  The Secretary of State has been rather unlucky. He almost got away with his scheme. It is rumoured—we can only read the newspapers—that he was so pleased with his handiwork that he was contemplating a short and pleasant walk across Whitehall to Great George Street and up to the commanding heights of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman was a Treasury Minister for a few months. He was not in the Treasury team for four years as I was.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: That shows.
  Mr. Davies: Yes, it does. Apparently it was the right hon. Gentleman's ambition to cross Whitehall, but unfortunately he left his flank unprotected. His defence strategy, apart from his personal political strategy was, in effect, torpedoed by General Galtieri. We all know that a task force had to be despatched. We all know, also, that because of the right hon. Gentleman's policies it contained ships that were either on their way to the breaker's yard, under the auctioneer's hammer or in mothballs. The ships were manned by sailors with dismissal notices in their pockets. They were prepared by dockyard workers who were on their way to the dole queues.
  When the Secretary of State comes to analyse the military lessons to be learnt from the Falkland campaign, I hope that he will not use the conclusions to bolster and reinforce his own prejudices and attempt to justify his decision to reduce the number of Royal Navy surface ships. It is true that the nuclear powered submarines were extremely successful in keeping the Argentine navy in port, but it does not follow from that that there should be a greater reliance on submarines at the expense of surface ships. The House knows that they perform different roles and that one role is complementary to the other and that one role cannot be a substitute for the other.
  It has been reported that the naval chiefs—we can get this information only from the newspapers—feared the loss of a carrier in the Falkland campaign and that they considered such a loss militarily acceptable. If that is so, presumably the Prime Minister considered such a loss politically acceptable. If she had not, she would not have sent the task force on the basis of that military assessment.
  What is demonstrated is not necessarily the inherent vulnerability of surface ships but the enormous gamble the Government took in sending the task force to the South Atlantic knowing that many of the ships, in particular the carriers, were not really designed for the role that they were asked to perform. They performed the role very well. Without a land base and with carriers that could be described as truncated, because that is how they were built for anti-submarine work, the Government were lucky that the casualties were not higher in men and equipment.
  The conclusion to be drawn from the Falklands should not be that the Falklands war was an aberration and can therefore be ignored, or that surface ships are inherently
  170
  too vulnerable, but that those suface ships placed in that situation were asked to perform a role that made them vulnerable because not many of them were designed for the role they were asked to perform. That is the lesson to be learnt from the Falklands.
  The lesson to be learnt—I am glad that I take the Secretary of State with me—is that in future our ships and the men sailing in them must be adequately protected for whatever role they are asked to perform in an uncertain and a dangerous world—[HON. MEMBERS: "More money on defence."] I am coming to that. I knew that hon. Members would say that.
  We believe that the Government are trying to spread scarce resources too widely and too thinly and that there will have to be a major reappraisal of priorities in defence strategy. The Secretary of State may feel—he is now looking pleased with himself—that he has managed to steal a march on the Treasury but, inevitably, either under the present Government or under a future Government of whatever party, defence budgets and this budget in particular will come under pressure. Corners will again be cut, ships will again be built using inferior materials and risks will be taken to save money. In the colourful language of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), who is not here today, frigates will again be designed by the Treasury. That will be a fact of life because this budget is not sustainable. Far better for the Government to cut their coat according to their cloth than to try to make a coat which is larger but more threadbare and therefore gives less protection.
  The Government should cancel Trident because it is a major escalation of the arms race. Its enormous cost—£10 billion at today's prices—means that conventional forces will have to be cut, thereby bringing the use of nuclear weapons in any crisis that much closer. In consultation with our allies, we should have another look at the costs of our commitment to keep British forces in Germany, although I do not believe that that is an easy option.
  Our conventional defence policy should in the main be concentrated on two areas—first, on the defence of the United Kingdom itself. I pay tribute to some of the things that the Government have done in that regard, although there is more that must be done. Secondly, within NATO, we should concentrate mainly on doing what is best suited to our geographical position and tradition. That means making an effective maritime contribution in the Eastern Atlantic. We believe that if a war broke out in Central Europe it is more likely to be a war of attrition, not of blitzkrieg, and the strength and efficiency of naval forces in the Atlantic would again become crucial. That means that Britain must have a modern and well-protected surface fleet as well as an efficient submarine fleet, with proper dockyard facilities to support them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where will the money come from?"] I have covered that point.
  The Secretary of State has got himself into a corner from which there is only one means of escape. He, the Prime Minister and the former Foreign Secretary failed to deter the invasion of the Falklands, a failure of judgment which has cost us dearly in lives and resources. The Secretary of State is still committed to a defence policy which could not have been carried out before the Falklands war and which cannot be carried out now. There will have to be another fundamental examination of defence policy,

  171
  but since it appears that the Secretary of State is too blinkered and too much a prisoner of his past errors to carry it out, he should make way for someone who will.
  4.53 pm
  Mr. Julian Amery: The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had taken a gamble. What is clear is that he would not have taken it had he been in her shoes, and General Galtieri would be sitting in the Falkland Islands today. At the beginning of his speech the right hon. Gentleman said that the issue that matters is proliferation. He looked back nostalgically to the days when the two super-powers alone controlled nuclear weapons. If the Labour Party ever aspires to Government again it should look at the real world. Not only Britain, France and China have nuclear weapons, but long before the Labour Party is likely to be in Government again, Israel, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Argentina and Libya may have them, too. If the right hon. Gentleman really believes that Mr. Begin or Mr. Botha will be influenced by the policies of an incoming Labour Government on proliferation, I suggest that he is being a bit of a Bourbon on those matters and that perhaps he should think again.
  The Falkland Islands crisis teaches us several important lessons that we shall no doubt examine more closely in the debate in the autumn or winter. It provides clear justification for the reorganisation of the Ministry of Defence, and proved by the response it was able to make to a virtually unexpected threat. It provides a remarkable justification of the decision to go over from National Service to all-professional forces. It goes a long way to justify our choice of equipment. But it also teaches another lesson which is fundamental to what I am about to say.
  We lost some lives and we spent a great deal of money to win a victory that should never have been necessary had we been prepared. That is the issue that I wish to raise in the debate today. Have we analysed the global threat better than the Foreign Office analysed the threat to the Falkland Islands? Is our response adequate not to secure victory but to prevent the threat from developing?
  The threat is graver than it has ever been at any time since the war.
  There is the nuclear threat. As a Back Bencher I can say openly—it is obviously difficult for a Minister to say it—that now there is nuclear parity between the super-powers no one can expect to shelter under the American umbrella. We are therefore extraordinarily vulnerable, or would be if we did not have our own nuclear deterrent, to the threat of nuclear attack or of nuclear blackmail. That must be clear.
  There is also the threat from the Warsaw Pact whose conventional forces have achieved considerable superiority over those of NATO in both conventional weapons and, with the deployment of the SS20, in tactical nuclear weapons. The deterrent power of the Western Alliance has been fading with the achievement of nuclear parity between the super-powers. Therefore, the validity of our defences in Europe has been declining steadily.
  There is also the area of danger beyond which NATO and the threat that has been developing there to our sources of raw materials in South-East Asia, the Gulf and Southern and Central Africa, and to the trade routes on which we and Japan depend, upon which the whole industrialised West depends, for survival. This danger arises from the deployment of Soviet sea and long-range air power far
  172
  outside the Soviet Union and from the network of bases that the Soviets have developed all over the world. They are manned either by the Soviets of by their allies, in Aden, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Cuba, Vietnam, and Luanda in Angola. That is already a worldwide network with other corresponding facilities.
  In addition, there are local dangers. We had one in the Falklands, unrelated to the Soviet challenge. There is the Iran-Iraq war which threatens the resources of the Gulf. Any of those local conflicts could merge into the greater East-West conflict.
  As I have already said, this is the gravest threat that we have ever faced. The Soviets enjoy what Dr. Kissinger has called "a window of opportunity" in which they have a temporary superiority. It will be some time before the window can be closed. The Americans are trying hard to close it. They are doing so by defence expenditure that has produced the enormous borrowing requirement with high interest rates about which some of us have been complaining, but which in the long run are in our interest. I see no other way in which the Americans could finance what they are doing.
  What is our response, and does it measure up to the threat? Here I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his staunch adherence to the doctrine of maintaining an independent British deterrent. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, we have it with the Polaris brought up to date, and we shall have it with Trident. It is quite clear that there can be no British strategy of any sort unless we have our own nuclear power; otherwise it is only an adjunct of someone else's strategy. If we are threatened with nuclear blackmail from the Soviet Union, or, indeed, anyone else, and have no nuclear power, it will be impossible to continue on our desired course. No responsible Government could have embarked on the Falklands operation had we not had our own independent nuclear power.
  I well remember that during the Suez operation Mr. Khrushchev threatened Britain with a nuclear strike. We had to turn to the Americans, who were against the operation, and ask, "Will you protect us?" We therefore had to turn to one ally, who did not approve of the course we had adopted, and ask, "What are you going to do?" The Americans said, "We will tell the Russians not to do it", but it meant that we were in the hands of our allies.
  This time, we were not. At the beginning, Mr. Haig wanted to support us but he was not quite sure how far. Eventually, he made up his mind, but without the cover of our independent deterrent any threat from the Soviet Union might have been decisive.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that had we had Polaris or Trident we could have gone on with the Suez operation, even in the teeth of American opposition?
  Mr. Amery: Yes, in respect of the Russian threat. I shall not go into the history of the Suez operation. I am content to abide by Churchill's verdict when he said, "I do not know if I would have dared to start; I would never have dared to stop".
  I am still in some doubt about whether, in considering the nuclear deterrent, we are right to settle for four boats rather than five. The case for four has been argued, but I ask my right hon. Friend to look at this again before he presents his second White Paper in the winter.

  173
  What of our contribution to NATO? My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) and The Times have asked whether we have got the balance right and whether we should take a bit out of BAOR and give a little more to the Navy and the maritime air force. They have a point if we are in absolutely rigid financial constraints. I brush aside the argument that we are naturally a maritime country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I shall explain. In the list of our heroes, the achievements of our generals—the Black Prince, Henry V, Marlborough, Wellington and the generals of the First and Second World Wars—are at least equal to the achievements of Nelson, Rodney, Drake, Raleigh and the admirals in the wars of this century. The difference is that before the advent of modern weapons, the Channel provided a moat behind which we could mobilise. Therefore, all that we needed was a standing Navy, not a standing Army. There was also a political advantage because there was no danger of a military coup.
  We defended ourselves perfectly adequately behind that moat until 1940, but in 1940 we cut it damn fine. Had we lost the Battle of Britain—and we nearly did—and had the Germans gained air mastery over the Channel, the Navy would not have been able to prevent a German landing and God knows what would have happened. Just imagine what would happen were the Soviet forces to reach the Channel ports. Only the nuclear deterrent could prevent them from landing. Would it not be wise to man the outer ramparts as successfully as we can rather than simply sitting back behind the moat and waiting for things to develop? I do not see how we could possibly have fewer forces on the Continent than we have today. I join General Hackett in saying that we ought to have quite a few more.
  In saying that, I do not disagree with the Navy lobby. It may well be—as far as I understand the matter, it is probably true—that we need more ships purely to fulfil our NATO commitment. I shall not say what sort or enter the argument about how many surface ships or submarines there should be, but I am sure that we shall need quite a few more to meet the third threat that arises from beyond the NATO area.
  It must now be clear to the meanest intelligence that our withdrawal from south-east Asia, Aden and the Gulf was an unmitigated disaster. It led directly to an increase in oil prices and led on to the fall of the Shah. The bill that we have had to pay is already many times more than what we would have incurred had we retained minimum forces there. Belatedly, our American friends have come up with the rapid deployment force. Paragraphs 237 and 238 of the White Paper say what we could contribute beyond the NATO area. It looks pretty thin to me. It is true that we have just carried out a major and remarkable operation outside the NATO area in the Falklands, but we did it at the expense of our NATO commitments, by withdrawing forces from NATO, and with ships that were destined either for the scrap-heap or the market.
  It may be said that another Falklands is unlikely. That is what people said after Suez; yet in 1961 we sent an armada to Kuwait. Like everything in war, these things happen unexpectedly. I do not know whether there will be another lone British operation, but I am pretty sure that, given the way that the world is developing—three wars were in progress only a fortnight ago—there will be a need for a British contribution somewhere outside NATO.
  174
  We already make a small contribution in Sinai. We now have another in the South Atlantic, and if we are to form a South Atlantic community, which I hope, we may enlarge it. It is also likely that we shall have to make a contribution to the United States rapid deployment force for the Middle East.
  Nor can we be sure that emergencies beyond the NATO area will be isolated. They may well be harmonised with an increasing Soviet threat in Europe which may call for a greater state of readiness in NATO. We need to build again what we had until very recently—a force of perhaps two brigades, with the necessary air and sea support, capable by its training and equipment of operating outside the NATO area. Of course, in normal times it could be available to NATO, but it would be surplus to the NATO requirement.
  We were very lucky in the South Atlantic, as the Minister explained, that the Marines had had Arctic training. Do we have people who are desert or jungle trained? We do not know where the next emergency will break out, but I should think that we need to have something as least as strong as the task force that we have just despatched to the South Atlantic, but outside the NATO assignment. To have this would be to have the best reason to believe that our American friends will have the guts when the crisis comes, and it may be very near, to put in their overwhelming potential strength in the defence of all our vital interests.
  I may be exaggerating the gravity of the threat. If I am, I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell me so, and if so, much of my argument falls away. I hope that it may, but I am also afraid that he may be the victim, as were his predecessors in 1914 and 1939, of financial constraints. It is easy for Cabinets to face the immediate problems of domestic affairs and to give money to them, but to say that they do not know about the foreign danger and take a risk on that. It was very costly in 1914 and in 1939, and it was rather costly in the Falkland Islands.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend will read the signs aright with the help of his professional advisers, and will fight for what he thinks is right by of Government expenditure for our defences. However, hon. Members have a part to play as well. We are the people who vote Supply, and we must play our part and make our views plain to the Government. The issue is the gravest that any of us are likely ever to face.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. James Callaghan: I disagree with so much of what the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said that I hope that he will forgive me if I do not spend the whole of my speech answering his. There were some plums that I pulled out from time to time on which I agreed, including the issue on which he finished—the capacity for a force operating outside NATO.
  The right hon. Member for Pavilion allows that romantic self of his to run away with him if he believes that if the Royal Navy had still been in the Gulf, the Shah of Persia would be on his throne today. Further, it was not Polaris or the absence of Polaris at the time of Suez that ended that fiasco. It was the fact that Mr. Harold Macmillan, having discovered the impact it was having on our finances, decided that the Suez adventure should no longer be supported. That was what turned the tide.
  Mr. Amery: I was not trying to argue that that issue of Khrushchev's nuclear deterrent turned the tide. I was merely saying that it was an embarrassing position when, threatened by the Russians, we had to turn to the Americans because we had no nuclear weapons of our own. It was not decisive—many other things were decisive, including Mr. Gaitskell's attitude. However, this argument has a clear military application.
  Mr. Callaghan: We had atomic weapons at that time, but we were dependent on the Americans. My conclusion is different from that of the right hon. Member for Pavilion. We cannot fight a war unless the Americans agree that we should do so, or unless we have at least their acquiescence in what we are doing. That is as true today as it was at the time of Suez. It is not something that I necessarily welcome, but it happens to be the case.
  For example, the crisis in Cyprus occurred at a time when America's attention was engaged in President Nixon's final resignation and Mr. Henry Kissinger had all his attention taken up by that. It was because we could not get the support of the Americans that we did not stop the Turks. The American fleet could have interposed itself. However, I do not wish to spend my whole speech on these issues, because I have other things that I wish to say.
  I shall not vote for the Defence Estimates tonight. The Secretary of State can have the money that he wants—that is not the issue. The policy is wrong. I do not deny the Secretary of State the money, although I disagree with important parts of the policy. My particular point is that I disagree with the Secretary of State's assertion last week that we have a balanced mix of forces—Navy, Army and Air Force—which must not be abandoned, and which is appropriate to our needs. That is the central issue for me. I shall not discuss nuclear issues, because my views on them are well known and do not need repeating.
  I agreed with the right hon. Member for Pavilion when he asked whether we had analysed the threat. It is to this that the House is turning its attention more and more. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) on the parts of his speech in which he discussed this matter. He came to the nub of it in a way that we have not done for some time in the past.
  The truth is not, I regret to say, that we have a balanced mix of forces but that the structure of our forces has been unbalanced for some years, including the period when I was Prime Minister, that it is unbalanced at present and that the Government's new policy is making the problem worse and not better. That is my starting point.
  The Government propose to reduce our aircraft carrier strength, cut down the number of frigates and destroyers, close dockyards and run down the strength of officers and naval ratings by 10,000 men, leaving us with the smallest Navy of the century. This policy has serious potential dangers for our country's safety. It is a misapplication of the proper division of resources between the Services. We do not have the right mix, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli said. I support him and I refuse to support the Defence Estimates as they have been published because they have that issue wrong.
  I question the prevailing wisdom on two main subjects, both of which were touched on by my right hon. Friend for Llanelli and one which was touched on by the right hon. Member for Pavilion. I question that, in the vernacular, the Falklands was a "one-off' event and can
  176
  be ignored, and I question the theory of the short, sharp war that will last for only days. That was something that was said before, in 1914 and in 1939.
  I am reinforced in this because our maritime strategy policy has not been the result of a careful re-examination of the problems. It has been caused, as my right hon. Friend for Llanelli pointed out, by the fact that the Secretary of State, having been plucked from the obscurity of the Department of Trade, presumably because he was more biddable than the present Foreign Secretary, found himself with some issues that he was unable to touch. He could not touch Trident for particular reasons, he could not touch the troops in Germany for other reasons and so the whole of the expenditure savings that he was required to make fell on our maritime strategy.
  There was no balanced judgment about our defence role, and it is this issue that the House as a whole ought to challenge and not merely accept. Just because these fixed constants were there, we do not have to accept what has happened to our surface fleet. We have cut ships large and small. I felt some shame when I heard that we were selling off ships—something that we have never done before in this way—out of the active Fleet to other countries.
  We invited Chile to purchase HMS "Norfolk". We attempted to sell HMS "Invincible" to Australia. We asked the Americans whether they would like the Royal Fleet Auxiliary "Stromness", and they said "Yes" and grabbed it with both hands. We have never run our defence system in this way before. I felt rather humiliated when I heard that that was the way in which we intended to try to rake up the money to get within the limits. Nothing was spared.
  Perhaps the greatest irresponsibility of all involved HMS "Endurance". I shall not discuss the matter this afternoon, except to say that she was sacrificed, despite repeated warnings from both sides of the House about the impact that it would have. We now know that Mr. Costa Mendez took it as a signal that we would not fight. I shall now leave the issue, but in my opinion, it was a classic example of penny wise, pound foolish.
  It is clear from what has been said that there is serious and growing disagreement about our present defence strategy. Indeed, when I listen to my own Front Bench, I begin to feel that we are becoming a Navy party.
  Mr. John Silkin: We are.
  Mr. Callaghan: In that case, all I can say is that the speeches that I have been making for years on the subject are having more success now that I have given up any Front Bench responsibility than they ever had when I sat there.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: Give him the job.
  Mr. Callaghan: I am hoping to become a PPS again one day.
  I want to deal with the particular issues, and I shall take a little longer than I usually do on them. I hope that I do not normally intrude in this way.
  The present Fleet is designed for its main task of acting as an anti-submarine Fleet, and in the light of Soviet deployment I entirely agree with that. Its major purpose is to provide backing for the central front in Europe by protecting the eastern Atlantic and the approaches to Europe. Indeed, I should like its role to be strengthened in that area, and I shall come back to that matter. Up to

  177
  the moment, it has been flexible enough to undertake other duties. It has been flexible because it has been capable of swift adaptation, and it has been capable of swift adaptation because it has had shore facilities and dockyard support. To cut that support will now undercut our ability to have a flexible surface Fleet which, although basically and rightly designed to meet our NATO responsibilities, has nevertheless been capable of operating in other directions, as we saw in the recent Falklands crisis.
  Now some of the dockyards are to be axed, and the combination of a smaller, seagoing surface Fleet, and the withdrawal of shore support means that our Fleet will be less able to fulfil general tasks. It has been able to do that up to the moment. I am certain that the Secretary of State himself has sent task forces on tours around the globe, and that was done during my day. We should strengthen and continue that ability. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), had responsibility in that regard. I am not sure, but I believe that it was the intention to do the same this year, although the damage caused by the air attacks on the Fleet probably now make that impossible. However, with the cuts that are being made in the Navy today, we shall not be able to do that in future. So an element that has existed up to the moment is being destroyed as a result of this policy.
  Sir Frederick Burden: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that after the NATO exercise "Ocean Safari", Admiral Cox emphasised that defeating enemy submarines could not be done by aircraft or nuclear submarines alone—and I quote—
  "contrary to some suggestions made in London."—[Official Report, 15 February 1982; Vol. 18, c. 23.]
  Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden) adds to my point. I do not believe that his Front Bench—which he supports, at least on some occasions—understands the role of maritime power, or how it is to be deployed. I do not say that we always understood it either. I sometimes felt that my Front Bench, even when I was on it, did not understand it. However, it has much improved since my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) has taken over.
  Most serious professional naval opinion believes that we could not carry out an operation like the Falklands as swiftly or as successfully—some say, even at all—in two years' time. Even a layman like myself could see that it was a close-run thing. If that opinion is held, it is something on which the Secretary of State should reflect very carefully before he proceeds with these plans.
  The Government argue, as do some others, that the Falklands was a one-off affair, unlikely to be repeated, and that we should not change our strategy because of that. I do not ask the Government to change their strategy of supporting the central front. Indeed, I shall argue that we might reinforce that strategy. However, I also argue strongly, as did the right hon. Member for Pavilion, for retaining the flexibility to deal with one of the so-called one-off incidents.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford said the other day that we have already had a series of one-offs that will never be repeated. He mentioned the Beira patrol. That was one-off. He referred to the cod war. That was one-off. There was the protection of our shipping in the Gulf of Oman during the recent war between Iraq and Iran.
  178
  That was one-off. Each was different from the one that went before. No one knows what the next one will be. We should have a capacity to deal with that situation, and we shall not have it if these plans go through.
  There are other possible scenarios that all of us can imagine. I shall not go into them today. However, I want to repeat what the right hon. Member for Pavilion said. I want to emphasise the point on which I agree with him, and not the 99 points on which I disagree with him. Today our ships sail every ocean.
  There seems to be general agreement that NATO should not act as a body outside its own self-imposed boundaries. Therefore, it takes no notice of the threats to its members' interests outside its area. Someone must—for such threats are growing, and they could become serious. Something which appeared as trivial as interference with our merchant ships and trade could occur with pirates off the coast of Indonesia, yet when one looks at the conditions off the coast of south-east China today and off the coast of the Malasian peninsula, who would guarantee that British ships will be able to sail freely through those waters? I should not like to guarantee that. Where is the flexibility that we should need to deal with trouble in that area? In my opinion, the Royal Navy is particularly suited by its history to undertake such a role. We are a maritime nation. We have special expertise. With our ability and experience, we can undertake such a role.
  I am still on the subject of the one-off. I believe that we should discuss these matters with other ship-owning nations. The threats that are growing are of such a character that merchant ships may need to arm themselves more than they have done in the past and be more adaptable in protecting themselves.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I agree.
  Mr. Callaghan: I am glad to have the support of the SDP on this matter.
  Mr. James Wellbeloved: Not from me.
  Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) should not be provocative about that. If he had stayed, he might have reinforced me in what I say about the Royal Navy.
  I turn to the other role of the Navy, which is to support the central front in Europe and control the eastern Atlantic. It seems that every generation has to learn the lesson afresh that Britain and Europe depend wholly on overseas seaborne supplies of food, energy, minerals and raw materials for our industries if we are to survive as a continent and a nation. In the past, Britain has always been more deeply aware of that fact than has continental Europe, but in recent years—here I do not exclude my own years—we seem to have overlooked this basic truth. If we have to fight a war against the Soviet Union, those supplies will need to be safely transported, for without them we should be utterly defeated.
  If we are to carry on a war against the Soviet Union, 30 ships, day in, day out, week in, week out, month after month, will need to leave the eastern ports of the United States and arrive here safely with their goods. I regret that we do not have the strength at the moment to do that satisfactorily.
  There is a prevailing wisdom that such measures will not be required because war, if it comes, will be short,

  179
  sharp and brutish, with the total destruction and horror that will accompany the use of nuclear weapons. Those who hold that view may be right. That is why all must press as hard as possible for mutual agreements to reduce nuclear weapons and to outlaw nuclear war.
  However, another scenario is at least possible and the Government should provide against it. At present, there is a nuclear stalemate because the Soviet Union knows the dreadful destruction that can he visited on it, just as CND makes us aware of the terrible horrors that could afflict the civilian population in these islands. Surely, the real use of Europe to the Soviet Union is not as a nuclear devastated land mass, the cities and industries of which have been destroyed, but as a potential base for the extension of Soviet influence and the Soviet system, and as a source of technology and skill. That would require a Europe that had become subservient to the Soviet Union, not devastated by it. It would be completely opposed to Europe's destruction.
  The strangling of Europe by blockade at sea, destroying our supplies and reserves so that we cannot be reinforced, coupled with a conventional attack in Europe, is at least a possible scenario for the Soiet Union. It is one that we should prepare against. Therefore, we must be able to withstand a long war, as well as envisaging a short, horrible nuclear exchange that would end with mutual devastation.
  Mr. Peter Hordern: The right hon. Gentleman has plainly spelt out to the House his support for a stronger Navy and he is now treating us to his views about the nuclear deterrent. In the present circumstances, knowing how he substituted Chevaline for Polaris, does he support Trident?
  Mr. Callaghan: I will, if I may, continue my theme and return to that point towards the end of my speech. We are not ready to withstand a long war. Under the influence of our allies we have succumbed to the view that continental land and air forces are more important than sea protection and re-supply.
  Despite what the Secretary of State says, we have never been, and are not today, a significant land force. The whole of the British Army is smaller than the reserves that the Americans hope to pour into Europe in the event of a war. As the right hon. Gentleman said a year ago in his defence White Paper, we are following the least natural course in our history. In recent expenditure-cutting exercises that fallacy has led to low priorities and the scrapping and selling of ships that should have been kept. I agree with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clarke) on that point.
  We are the one nation that should take a strong lead in discussions with our NATO allies on this matter. They should review their priorities and we should convince them that the ability to ensure supply, reinforcement and protection is as important to the safety of continental Europe as is the presence of 50,000 British troops there. It is our job to argue that with them. If we have to withdraw a division, it is my clear conviction that we would be adding to their security and safety if we were to reduce the number of British troops serving in Germany today as a means of strengthening the Navy in the way that I have suggested.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should reduce the British
  180
  Army of the Rhine and have fewer soldiers altogether, or reduce the British Army of the Rhine and bring them home? The latter case would result in a very small saving indeed. The right hon. Gentleman has already said that we have a small Army. I hope that he is not suggesting that it should become even smaller.
  Mr. Callaghan: I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. All I can say is that I would certainly bring many of them home because there would be a considerable saving in foreign exchange, which could be spent in better and different ways. However, as to the exact numbers, I do not know. It might cost us more initially to provide barracks, but I am talking about the long-term consequences of British policy in that area.
  I want a return to our natural role. If we, with our history, experience and leadership in maritime matters do not give such a lead and argue the case, no one else will. My criticism of the Secretary of State, and, indeed, of some of his predecessors, is that they have not given such a lead. They do not believe in it, and the result is that Britain has the wrong defence priorities. The Secretary of State is not alone he is only the latest to embrace such a short-sighted view. However, he has done more damage than his predecessors. I regret that the Chiefs of Staff did not act as a body last year. Instead, it is well known that there was an unseemly scramble, each defending his own service and fighting for what he could get, and the Navy came off worst.
  I am not speaking about these matters simply because there is a Navy lobby—as though there is something indecent or obscene about a Navy lobby. I am concerned about Europe as a whole and about Britain's interests. I am concerned that we should get the balance of resupply and reinforcement right, as opposed to what we have in the front line. If we were to withdraw, say, for the sake of argument, half our troops from Germany—I do not know what the figure might be—it is absurd to say that they would not be made up. Of course they would be made up. Once our continental allies were convinced of the need for Britain to fulfil its natural role of being their security and defence—as we have been in the past—it is absurd to say that they would not then make the necessary arrangements.
  What should we do? First, we should not take unilateral action but should urge upon NATO a fresh examination of the balance between front line forces in Germany and our contribution to their protection through resupply facilities by sea. We should argue that Britain's contribution can best take the form of a stronger naval presence. I understand that that would have consequences on our land commitment and I would try to convince our European allies that we are looking through their eyes as well as our own.
  Britain's maritime contribution should take the form of more surface ships, with adequate air cover and air defence to protect merchant shipping. I should reverse the mistaken policy of abandoning the modernisation of ships half-way through their life. If the Falklands has shown anything—I am ready to wait for the conclusion of the examination—surely it has shown the necessity of up-to-date air defence systems, which change, perhaps, every 10 years or so. Therefore, if the Secretary of State can be persuaded to change his mind about anything, will he please change his mind at least about modernising those ships' air defence systems, even if he does not want to go for a full-scale refit?
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Nott): I greatly respect the right hon. Gentleman's experience in all these matters and his intellectual and emotional attachment to the Royal Navy, but before he concludes his excellent speech—much of which I agree with—will he discuss resources? He talks all the time about the need for a stronger Navy. I also happen to want a stronger Navy. However, the right hon. Gentleman has not explained how he intends to free resources from the British Army of the Rhine. The share of the defence budget taken up by the Royal Navy today is greater than the share taken up when he was Prime Minister. If the nuclear element is excluded altogether, the share of the Royal Navy's conventional budget will be about the same in 1990—under my plans—as it is today.
  How does the right hon. Gentleman square the problem of resources? That is the central issue. The right hon. Gentleman led his party into an election on the proposition that as a percentage of our gross national product, the defence budget should be smaller. That was in his manifesto. Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman address his mind to resources?
  Mr. Callaghan: I shall try to address my remarks to that, but I have already spoken for a long time. However, I shall try to answer the questions that have been asked. I believe that the figure is now 29 per cent. of the budget and that the figure was 28 per cent. when we had some responsibility for the matter. That is the margin of difference and there is really nothing in it. I understand that in a year or two the percentage will be lower. However, anyone can prove anything with statistics and there is not much in the right hon. Gentleman's first point.
  Some of his other points are extremely important. On resources I have come to the conclusion that we should not proceed with Trident. A year ago I made much the same speech in the defence debate and said that I would keep an open mind about the matter. I hoped that we would be able to find resources elsewhere. However, if we cannot—and it seems that we cannot—I am ready to give up Trident and to continue to run Polaris, updated by Chevaline, as long as possible. For the reasons that I have given, we shall, after that, have to rely on the United States of America. I simply do not accept the view put by my Front Bench that we should deny the Americans bases for nuclear weapons in this country. I cannot understand that view, although I do not want to get into an argument with my right hon. and hon. Friends now.
  Just as other countries have found that they have to give up certain of their defence requirements, so must we. They do not all have nuclear weapons. I must say that I thought it was a little odd for the Minister to argue that every country should have its own nuclear weapons. Perhaps I misunderstood him, but that is what it sounded like to some of us. My answer will not satisfy those who want to continue with Trident. However, like the Secretary of State, they must face the choices. In addition, I would find more resources by saving on the foreign exchange of BAOR and, if necessary, by reducing the size of the land forces and increasing the number of reserves.
  We cannot dodge such issues. There is one area in which we might have done more and in which the Secretary of State is doing even worse, despite what the White Paper says. I refer to naval reserves. We should be building up our reserves far more than we have done so far. In that way, we could save money and could provide
  182
  for the overriding necessity. I do not have a romantic affection for the Navy. I regard my view as a cold analysis of where the interests of Britain and Europe lie.
  I apologise if I have not answered one of the Secretary of State's questions. However, I have said that we should increase the number of naval and other reserves. We should keep the facilities at Portsmouth dockyard to modernise our ships. I had hoped that the Secretary of State would deal with the modernisation of air defence systems when he intervened. I hope that he will consider my proposition seriously. Modernisation is important because protection from air attack is vital and can be achieved only if our weapons systems are kept up to date. The Merchant Navy is absolutely indispensable. I am glad to see that the views that I have expressed for some time—I and a few others expressed them last year—are beginning to win. The debate on what we should do is beginning. I am glad that that should be so and I hope that we shall continue to stimulate the debate so that we can get matters right. None of us want to attack the Secretary of State because he is a Conservative. Unfortunately, that is his weakness. He is a witty and intelligent man, but he happens to be wrong.
  I shall not rest until the Secretary of State has been removed from office and until we have a Secretary of State with a more basic understanding of where Britain's national interests and its strategic role lie.
  5.46 pm
  Sir Frederick Burden: The speech by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was most interesting and I agreed with much of it. The success of the Falkland Islands action was due to a wonderful combined operation. The use of all three Forces together is a legacy of the late Lord Louis Mountbatten's ingenuity. I was fortunate enough to serve on his staff in South-East Asia.
  During the debate last Thursday, the Secretary of State confirmed the closure of Chatham dockyard, with the loss of 7,000 jobs, by the middle of next year. He also stated that, while there would be a reprieve for Portsmouth, the manpower reduction there would go ahead early in the new year. At the conclusion of the debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces gave thanks to the Royal Navy dockyards generally, and singled out Devonport and Portsmouth for special praise. I was surprised that particular dockyards should be treated in that way. I should have thought that all were entitled to equal commendation. As I knew how much it would mean to the workers in the dockyard at Chatham and to the people of north Kent, because of the threat hanging over them, I intervened and said:
  "I am greatly surprised that the Minister singles out Portsmouth and Devonport. He should be generous and pay tribute to four major dockyards. Chatham did its best and served well."
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jerry Wiggin)rose—
  Sir Frederick Burden: I shall give way, with pleasure in a moment. When I made that intervention the Under-Secretary smiled and smiles were exchanged between him and the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend replied:
  "I was hoping to be as generous as I could, but I believe that little, if any, task force work was carried out at Chatham."
  At that, I felt impelled to leave the Chamber. A few minutes later, my hon. Friend said:

  183
  "My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham chooses to leave before I make my comments about his dockyard. That is somewhat discourteous."—[Official Report, 1 July 1982; Vol. 26, c. 1127.]
  There was nothing more that the Minister could say about the closure of Chatham dockyard. The hopes for its future role had all been raised before. It would have been an ineffectual cosmetic. The next day, I received a letter from the hon. Gentleman that merely demonstrated that all that he would have said, had I remained, would have been cosmetic. I take the greatest exception to his remark. Nothing that the Minister could possibly say would go beyond conciliatory mutterings that would do little, if anything, to provide real hope for the vast majority of workers in Chatham dockyard and to the people in north Kent as a whole.
  By a touch of good fortune, the next morning I received a copy of the local newspaper. In it, a headline stated,
  "Well done dockyards, says boss".
  That praise for the dockyard workers came from Captain Philip Stearns, the production manager in the yard, who had sent a shipyard brief to the workers. He said that 38 miles of rope had been produced during the Falklands crisis by workers, all of whom have been told they will be made redundant in September. He said that another startling success was the double refit of HMS "Phoebe", a frigate that has now been converted for anti-submarine work. The workers also made the inflatable rubber lifeboats for the Falkland Islands operation, according to Captain Stearns, and they put in 800 man-hours on HMS "Phoebe" in 11 weeks. At the very least, they did all that they were asked to do. The workers resented most bitterly the suggestion that they had done little or nothing.
  I hope that the words of the captain of the dockyard gave them some comfort. I had hoped today that my hon. Friend would apologise for saying that the Chatham workers had done little or nothing. I also resent the Minister's remark that I was discourteous in leaving the Chamber after that statement was made. There was no way in which I could have remained in my seat.
  The Under-Secretary told me yesterday that he had spoken on radio Medway. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and I pressed the Minister about this interview. I telephoned radio Medway this morning. I do not know whether he asked to go on radio or whether they asked him.
  Mr. Wiggin: The latter.
  Sir Frederic Burden: I was told on the telephone that the Minister had said that he stood by everything that had been said last Thursday about Chatham dockyard. The Minister said that he had no reason to apologise, and that he stood by everything that he had said last Thursday. Can one but wonder that the people in that part of Kent are disillusioned with and disgusted by the lack of generosity for all the work that has been done by the Royal Navy and the Forces in that area for hundreds of years?
  Mr. Wiggin: I seek no quarrel with my hon. Friend. I opened my remarks on the subject by congratulating all the dockyards and ports for the work that was done. My hon. Friend accused me, perhaps justifiably, of a sin of omission. I readily acknowledge the part that Chatham played in some of the task force work. I said so in a letter to him and in the lengthy interview that he mentioned. If I gave the impression, in the heat of the moment, that Chatham did nothing, I apologise and wish to withdraw
  184
  any such imputation. I am sure that the work carried out at Chatham was done with the usual skill and enthusiasm that we have come to expect from that dockyard.
  Sir Frederick Burden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generosity and I accept his remarks. They will give confort to many people in Kent, especially in my constituency.
  Unfortunately, that was not the first gaffe made about Chatham. On 27 April, the local newspaper stated that the dockyard workers had been informed that there would be no further redundancies. The next day, they were informed that there would be further redundancies, starting on 20 May. The following day, another statement was issued saying that the redundancies would be held up. In disbelief, I telephoned the office of my hon. Friend—who was not there—and was told by a senior civil servant that it was true and that minds had been changed. I hope and pray that no such mistakes will be made in the future, in view of the terrible trouble that they can cause to many men and their families.
  The first intimation of the cuts in the defence forces was in the House in late May of last year. To everyone's surprise, The Daily Telegraph forecast almost everything in my right hon. Friend's White Paper. When it was published, it confirmed the forecast almost word for word. It announced, among other things, the withdrawal of HMS "Endurance" from the South Atlantic. "Endurance" is a Chatham-based ship and I have a great interest in her. But the fact that she was to be scrapped and not replaced was an invitation to the Argentines, after they had invaded South Georgia, to accept that we had no intention of resisting any attempted annexation of the islands by force.
  However, that was certainly not the view of my self and 80 other Conservative Members. On 22 March five senior members of the House and I tabled a motion stating:
  "That this House, being greatly disturbed at the implications evident as a result of the recent landing on the Falkland Islands Dependency of South Georgia, of a party of Argentinians conveyed there by an Argentine naval transport ship, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to give an assurance that a Royal Naval force, of sufficient strength to repel any attempt by the Argentine Government to annex this British colony by force., will be kept on station in the area; and further asks Her Majesty's Government to declare in unequivocal terms that the Falkland Islands sovereignty will not be transferred to any foreign power, unless the islanders have asked for such a transfer in a referendum".
  I wonder whether at that stage a warning was sent through our ambassador to the Government in Argentina. I am told that the captain of "Endurance" on two occasions warned the Ministry of Defence, I assume, because he would have to get in touch with it and not the Foreign Office, that the Argentines were building up an invasion force. Did he do that? When was it? What action was taken after the warnings? That is very important.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has emphasised the enormous value of the hunter-killer submarines. My right hon. Friend intends, apparently, to increase the number to 17 from 12. In his White Paper last year he described it as our most important naval defence weapon. However, Devonport is to be given the sole task of looking after those vessels in future—the task of refuelling, refitting and repairing. HMS "Swiftsure" is the only one on which it has started. That is a first-time refit, which is the most simple. It has been in that dockyard for three and a half years and will not be operational again until March or April, which means that it will have been

  185
  out of operation for four years. However, Chatham has been looking after such vessels and been turning them out every two years. It should be reprieved.
  It has been stated that the hunter-killer submarines bottled up the Argentine Navy. That is true. One of them sank the Argentine cruiser. However, I wonder whether there might be a question hanging over the invulnerability of the nuclear hunter-killer submarine. After the NATO operation "Ocean Safari" last year, Admiral Cox stated that the Russian diesel electric submarine was "deadly" because of its silence and because it could pick up a nuclear propelled submarine long before that submarine could pick it up. We know that the Russians have a considerable number of submarines. Can it be assumed beyond doubt that our SSN submarines would not be vulnerable in the confined areas of seas in which NATO would probably operate against the Russians, in view of the enormous Russian fleet of "deadly" diesel electric submarines? It is easy to assume invulnerability of vessels in war, but that is not so, as has been shown in the Falkland Islands.
  The Foreign Secretary was completely and utterly wrong to announce that he was introducing his White Paper for 1982. It has appeared with the Defence Estimates. It is admitted that it goes up to only March of this year, before the Falkland Islands operation began. Would it not have been wise to wait and discover the lessons that must be learnt from it?
  The Minister stated that some of the ships that were intended to be scrapped or sold—four destroyers—would be retained. Surely they and the other ships that were damaged in the Falkland Islands will require, in many instances, a considerable amount of refit and repair work. It is impossible to estimate the real scale of that until after the ships have been docked and after investigation has been carried out in full.
  It is wrong to close down or to suggest further closures at Portsmouth from January this year. Nothing has been said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about HMS "Invincible". I objected in the House on 15 February to the sale of "Invincible" to Australia at a knock-down price of £175 million, against the price of replacement of £330 million at the time. She has performed yeoman service in the Falkland Islands. Will we let her go to Australia? We want the answer. It has not been given. Not one word has been said about it. The "Illustrious" will soon be operational. If we are to be assured of having two aircraft carriers always operational, this country must have three in case of damage to or the refit of one.
  I apologise for speaking for a long time. I should like to say much more. I beg the House to bear with me for speaking for a long time. I feel deeply about these matters. They are of great national interest. If the Falkland Islands problem had arisen in two years' time it would have been impossible to send the task force with any real chance of success. I believe that it was at my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's insistence that that operation was undertaken. I thank God for her insistence and the success.
  Each of the Services should have a political Under-Secretary who is operating for them. Each Under-Secretary should fight the corner of his Service. That position should be restored. It was a tragedy that it was ever removed. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) shakes his head. I say to him with
  186
  respect that I have been a Member of the House for a long time. I have been engaged in war. I have studied this problem. I believe that each of the Forces needs an Under-Secretary to fight its corner, work within it and get to know all that goes on in that Service. The time is ripe for that to happen again.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that everyone feels deeply on this subject. Two hon. Members have been called in one hour. I know that all hon. Members who have been rising in their places wish to speak. They must bear that in mind.
  6.9 pm
  Dr. David Owen: The debate started appropriately with heartfelt tributes to our Service men in all three Armed Forces. We have done that in previous defence debates but it has a special poignancy now when one remembers the loss of life, the injuries that have been sustained and the immense courage that has been demonstrated by all our Services in the Falkland Islands.
  It has sometimes not been easy to hold the commitment of the House to the Services and to the necessity to spend money to ensure that our Service men do not risk their lives as a result of outdated equipment or because they are inadequately supported. I hope that the events of the past few months will refresh the commitment of those who have always felt that it is essential for the country to commit reasonable expenditure to the Services.
  The debate so far has not grappled with the real, hard choices that face any Government. For those who wish to register their dissatisfaction with the Government's defence policies—there are many on both sides of the House—our amendment represents a realistic alternative. We accept that the NATO commitment, which was first entered into in late 1977, of a 3 per cent. real terms increase in the defence budget must be fulfilled. It is also realistic to remind ourselves of the debate of almost a year ago when the Secretary of State presented his cuts. In fairness to him, he had to make those cuts because the defence budget was running out of control. It was necessary to rein back and to make some difficult choices.
  The hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden) rightly upheld his constituents' interests. In spite of the harshness of this closure, no one can doubt his sincerity. Some hard decisions lie behind keeping defence expenditure even at its present 3 per cent. per annum in real terms increase.
  What are the lessons of the Falklands? They will emerge in the investigation, but some are immediately obvious. The first is that the submarine, whether nuclear or diesel-electric, has showed itself to be an extremely powerful weapons system in modern naval warfare. The nuclear-powered submarines that we deployed in the South Atlantic completely bottled up the Argentine navy. That was one of the most successful aspects of the campaign.
  Those of us who argue for increased expenditure on the conventional Navy are right to insist that it be spent on submarines. Submarines are the real battleships of the future. One of my main and serious criticisms of the Secretary of State, which I also made a year ago, is that he has not sufficiently protected the build rate of nuclear-powered submarines. There is much anxiety that in the

  187
  early 1990s the number of our submarines will have dropped to a point when they are sufficient to meet neither our world-wide role nor our North Atlantic seaborne role. That remains a serious criticism of the Secretary of State's strategy.
  No one knows whether we shall ever need another amphibious assault. I tend to agree with those who say that the Falkland Islands conflict cannot be dismissed as one off. There are many parts of the world where we may need to use force again. We are concentrated in Europe, but our foreign policy is not yet completely constrained within the European context. As long as we have the capacity to do so, we should maintain the capability to reinforce our foreign policy world-wide.
  The maritime role is extremely important. The Secretary of State has effectively recognised that already—he has saved "Intrepid" and "Fearless". No one who has commented on the Falklands issue has doubted that those ships were essential for putting some of the heavy equipment ashore. I have always been sceptical about an opposed assault on the northern flank. That is not a realistic role for the amphibious forces in the future. It may be realistic on the southern flank and world-wide. Having got the ships, however, it is worth retaining them. Nevertheless, spending the same quantities of money again cannot be justified.
  The through-deck cruisers, as they used to be called, have shown themselves to be effective in war. I took them through the Admiralty Board in 1969. I have always had some doubts about whether they would fulfil their role and justify their expense. There can be no doubt that the maritime aircraft—the VSTOL, and the Ski Jump—have provided effective attack weapons. So too has the helicopter base.
  The Secretary of State faces a difficult decision about "Invincible". The Australians were immensely generous to offer to cancel the arrangement. The offer was a bargain. Nevertheless, we must recognise that some Commonwealth countries have been our firmest allies throughout the emergency in the Falklands. If "Invincible" were to go to Australia, that would not be of no account to us. Indeed, she would be deployed in an area where we are unable constantly to deploy. That would have some value and should be taken into account.
  Perhaps the Secretary of State will decide to keep "Hermes". He will then face the difficult decision whether to lay down a new ship. That would be an expensive commitment. If he makes it, he may be forced to tell the Navy that some of the expense must be met both from the sale and from the reduction of surface ships. On that issue, I part company with some of what has been said. I strongly favour a re-balance, and I criticised the Secretary of State last year for making cuts that were too deep into the conventional naval force. That decision does not necessarily mean the perpetuation of a large number of hulls.
  Another lesson to be learnt from the Falklands is that a hull must have a modern weapons system. There has been inadequate spending on weapons systems by, I fear, successive Governments. The admirals have concentrated too much on the number of hulls. The Secretary of State must be honest with himself and his supporters. Why does the Honiton Division Conservative Association, Newspoint say:
  188
  "Talk of running down the Navy is nonsense … There will be more major ships and submarines operational in 1985 than there are today. A massive modernisation programme of the fleet is in hand"?
  That is not true. The total number of major warships—frigates and above and submarines other than Polaris—in the conventional fleet when the Government took office was 98. By April 1982 there were 86 and current plans are for a further decline by the end of the decade. Therefore, the Secretary of State's statement on 7 April—
  "we cannot be criticised for cutting back the conventional Navy, when it is far larger today than it was when we took office, and so it will be in the late 1980s" —[Official Report, 7 April 1982; Vol. 21, c. 1050.]—
  is not true. He should say so. He is shifting spending withing the Navy. That is fair enough, it has some validity, but he should not try to pretend that the Navy is larger or that it will be able to answer every demand in the future.
  I am worried whether we have enough frigate hulls to meet all the demands. As I said in the previous debate, when I was Foreign Secretary I kept asking for frigates and the Ministry of Defence constantly found difficulty in having them available to deploy. I am glad that the type 23 is now a general purpose frigate. It will be better for that.
  I come to some of the wider questions. How is this to be paid for? Some of it will involve increased expenditure. The House must face this. The fundamental thrust of our amendment is that we cannot afford Trident, but I am not so unrealistic as to claim that that means a great saving in the defence budget now and in the next few years. It is high time that the Labour Pary started to face that reality. The reality is to live within our budget over the next few years. Trident will pose immense problems for the defence budget in the next 10 to 15 years. Frankly, we cannot afford it under present budgetary constraints. The country must face that fact.
  In this context, again, the argument advanced in the White Paper is basically dishonest. The Secretary of State always asks us to compare any alternative to Trident with his own system. We have never made any attempt to do that. Those of us who have argued that we should extend the life of Polaris and consider alternative options in the 1990s have always accepted that it will be a less effective and a lesser deterrent. It could not have as many warheads. The Secretary of State says in the White Paper:
  "We should therefore have to deploy many more cruise than ballistic missiles for the same striking power."
  That is clear, but we are not arguing that it has to have the same striking power. We have argued consistently that we are extremely reluctant to give up the nuclear deterrent. Having spent the money on Polaris, we wish it to continue its life. We will consider replacement of Polaris when the time comes—in my view, not before eight years' time. If it needs to be done a little earlier, we will consider it a little earlier. I am simply saying that the country cannot afford the super-sophisticated 'Trident system. There are differences of opinion on this, of course, and there will be differences of opinion on other things, but at least our proposal offers the possibility of extra resources to go into the conventional forces in the next 15 years.
  Mr. Nott: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting argument, but I am sure that he will agree that for a nuclear deterrent to deter it must be credible in the eyes of the potential aggressor. I do not think that he has really given attention to this. Given what we know of the

  189
  likely developments in the ABM defences in the Soviet Union in the 1990s and beyond, expenditure on a second-rate deterrent that is not credible in the eyes of the potential aggressor is money ill spent. In my judgment, we must have something that deters or it is not worth spending a penny on it.
  Dr. Owen: Credibility is a matter of judgment. The right hon. Gentleman refers to ABM defences. As yet, the only system of this kind is the Galosh system around Moscow. There are signs that that is being uprated, but I believe that Polaris could continue to penetrate it. In any case, I have never taken the view that it is essential for a British deterrent to be able to hit Moscow. I have always argued the strategy of a minimum deterrent still being credible for the potential and only task for which we need it—the situation in which NATO has been completely destroyed and the United States is no longer an effective, reliable ally in Europe. However, those are issues to which we can return. The basic fact is that if the House wishes to commit itself to a higher standard of conventional defence in Europe and world wide, we must ask ourselves whether we can afford this massive tranche of expenditure in the next 15 years.
  With regard to BAOR, I have always regarded this commitment, and particularly its foreign exchange costs, as excessive for this country. Having said that, however, it is extremely difficult to reduce the numbers of BAOR at present.
  Two areas must be seriously examined. First, we must get some momentum into the MBFR negotiations. With the new Western proposal due to be tabled fairly soon, it ought now to be possible to sidestep the issue of data and, in the four-stage approach with a seven-year reduction period, to achieve verifiable lower figures. It should be possible to avoid getting locked on the present data problem in which, for a breakthrough to be achieved, the Soviet Union would have to admit that what it has been saying for the past eight or nine years is incorrect. It will not do that, so we shall have to circumnavigate that issue.
  In my judgment, it is essential to achieve a better balance of conventional forces in Europe because we could then start to remove the battlefield nuclear weapons, which I believe are by far the most dangerous part of the nuclear equation in Europe. We should move away from talks about the very ambitious object of "no first use" of nuclear weapons to the more limited but none the less important objective of "no early use" of nuclear weapons. I have always believed that it is dangerous and incredible to have battlefield nuclear weapons within 20 kilometres of the border. I believe that a battlefield nuclear weapon free zone is negotiable, provided that it is accompanied by a conventional balance.
  The White Paper's claim that the Trident issue could continue to be kept out of the START talks is nonsense. Indeed, another argument for not going ahead with Trident is that of disarmament and arms control. If President Reagan succeeds in achieving deep cuts in the number of nuclear warheads and reducing the United States arsenal to 5,000 warheads, the British deterrent will represent 10 per cent. of United States warheads and the French deterrent, with its land-based systems and extra submarine, would represent 15 per cent. In other words, Britain and France would have 25 per cent. of the then
  190
  lower level of warheads. It is nonsense to think that they could be kept out of the START or the INF talks. It is essential that we begin to consider how this issue is to be dealt with in the strategic arms reduction talks. If we go for deep cuts, in which I very much believe, there will have to be a contribution from Britain and also, one hopes, from France.
  Mr. Churchill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Owen: Time is pressing, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way.
  It is extremely difficult to take seriously almost anything said by the Labour Party in this debate. There have been some robust and splendid contributions from the Labour Back Benches, arguing almost without exception for increased defence expenditure. The Labour Party itself and its Front Bench spokesmen, however, argue an incredible policy. This has never happened before. If there is anything on which there has been agreement and broad consensus in the House, it has been over defence policy. The positions of the various Opposition Front Bench spokesmen in defence have had a great deal of continuity and inner coherence. That is no longer so. It is time that some Labour Back Benchers refused to go through the Lobbies with their Front Bench colleagues and the Tribunite lobby. It is no longer credible for Labour Members to come together, as they will tonight, to vote against the Defence Estimates. They dare not vote for the only proposal for which they should vote—our amendment. They are to vote against the Government on the Defence Estimates. That is the minimum programme on which they can agree, because it says nothing. It is simply a negative vote.
  Labour Members are incredible. They tour the country promising that every dockyard and every establishment being cut back would be maintained, paying their Danegeld to the Transport and General Workers Union, forgetting that at every TUC conference that same union moves resolutions calling for a severe reduction in defence expenditure. Moreover, such a reduction is also usually part of a composite at the Labour Party conference. The whole procedure is dishonest and it is no longer possible for it to continue,
  Labour Front Bench spokesmen are effectively putting the argument contained in those resolutions. In the old days, the Labour Front Bench completely disowned the lunatic Left, but they now say that they want a non-nuclear defence policy, the removal of all United States nuclear bases from this country and a substantial reduction in the defence budget—one may argue about whether it would be one-third or one-quarter—while at the same time they want every job saved, no redundancies and no closures. The whole thing is rubbish. Indeed, it is not just rubbish—it is serious rubbish.
  The fact that the Labour Party is no longer credible was demonstrated throughout the Falklands crisis—half its heart was in the right place but the rest was unable to say what needed to be said. This cannot go on. The Labour Party is in an incredible position. One cannot have a party claiming to be the official Opposition with no policy on defence and what is more, allowing its shadow Cabinet to go along with it. I hope that there are some hon. Gentlemen in the Labour Party who know in their hearts

  191
  that the Labour Party's defence policy is rotten and that they will at least not vote against the Defence Estimates, even if they feel unable to vote for our amendment.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Robert Atkins: The whole House is no doubt grateful for the speech made by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). I hope that he will forgive me if I do not develop his detailed analysis of the problems of the Labour Party policy.
  I understand the reasons for the publication of the Defence Estimates and I look forward to the next White Paper, such as it will be, on the Falklands. I imagine that that will be towards the end of the year. It would be unwise of me to speak at length on the Falklands until all the results are known, except perhaps to make three brief comments. I pay tribute, as all hon. Members have rightly done, to the contribution made by our Armed Forces. That almost goes without saying, but ought to be said, and said continually.
  I intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) to ask about the equipment captured during the Falklands conflict. My question followed an article this week in Aviation Week. The article specified in detail some of the equipment that was taken over. What will happen to that captured equipment? Will it stay in the Falklands, or will it be utilised for training and other purposes in this country, particularly among those forces which so often suffer—the cadet forces, the Territorial Army, and the home service units?
  Before directing my remarks to the substance of my speech which, hon. Members will not be surprised to learn, deals with the P110, I refer to the requisition of merchant ships, aircraft and other property where that property, particularly aeroplanes, is subject to leasing or other financial arrangements that involve foreign banks and foreign companies. Are our requisition powers capable of taking them over? I am led to believe by some informants within British Airways that they are not entirely certain that some of their equipment could be taken over by the Ministry of Defence, even though it was not needed in this instance.
  I also refer to the Trident offset agreement—or the lack of it—and the lack of dual sourcing. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) is to answer the debate and I therefore want to deal with some industrial problems. I quote from a leading article in The Engineer of 3 June. This states:
  "Etched in tablets of stone at the time Britain agreed to buy Trident was this statement: 'United Kingdom manfacturers are to compete on the same terms as United States firms for subcontracts for Trident 2 weapon system components for the programme as a whole.' … The Engineer's evidence is that the invitation from America has been treated as cynical. The timetable of the programme is such that one-quarter of the subcontractors will have been selected by the year end. And British companies new to the technology appear daunted by the suffocating documentation and approval procedure."
  If that is the case and 50 per cent. of subcontractors will have already been selected by next year, clearly British industry will have to work extremely fast and realise that the administrative, bureaucratic security and contract period constraints will have to be overcome. Is the Ministry of Defence doing enough?
  There is a requirement under air staff target 1228 for an urgent and early decision on what are loosely known
  192
  as either Alarm or Harm anti-radar missiles, essential for Tornado. On 2 April I asked my hon. Friend for information, but he said that no news was forthcoming. I want to know when that news will be available.
  I now turn my attention to the P110 which, in a number of ways, is essential to this country. It is also important to the Fylde area of northern Lancashire. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) will also be aware of this problem because his constituency is directly affected. There is no mention of the P110 in the White Paper. We all know that AST403, as it used to be called—the European combat aircraft or, loosely, the Jaguar replacement—was effectively cancelled by statements in the last White Paper.
  The Prime Minister's exhortation to the aerospace industry at the SBAC dinner in 1980, when she expressed the view that the Government were entitled to look to the aerospace industry to point out export opportunities and reminded us that the prospect of overseas orders would be a factor that would play an increasing part in defining our own operational requirements is most appropriate to the P110 project. A market survey carried out by British Aerospace shows that in a collaborative programme it could expect to produce 850 aircraft—500 for the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy, and 350 for export. These conclusions have been validated by an independent consultant and the Ministry of Defence, Sales, is in broad agreement.
  For those who are not familiar with it, the P110 is a single-seat, air superiority aircraft powered by two Rolls-Royce RB 199 engines. I inquired on Thursday whether the 67R derivative of that engine, which is related to Tornado and which will be essential to the P110, will be ready. Again, I am not entirely happy with the answer that I received. Much of the P110's structure is of a carbon fibre composite. Its systems and equipment are either based on existing developments or on already funded research programmes. The high power of the engines, combined with light weight, the sophisticated aerodynamics, and the fly-by-wire control system result in a highly energetic and agile aircraft outstanding in the air superiority role and equally effective in ground attack roles.
  An aircraft like the P110 is essential to the defence needs of the United Kingdom. There is an operational case for the Royal Air Force to purchase P1lOs to fill a gap in its commitments in the central region in the 1990s and to satisfy the AST 403 and replace air defence Phantoms. There is a further operational case for additional P1lOs to complement the Tornado interceptor in defence of the United Kingdom air defence region.
  The aircraft is designed to make cost-effective use of a combination of Tornado-related developments and new technology available from demonstration programmes. This approach has the advantages of reduced development costs, reduced time scale, reduced risks, and confidence in performance predictions, in service dates, and so on. Moreover, the project is in accord with paragraph 20 of Cmnd. 8288 of June 1981.
  The development of a new fighter aircraft would represent a logical technology step towards the development of an advanced short take-off and vertical landing aircraft—the so-called STOVL—to meet air staff target 410 planned for entry into RAF service towards the end of this century. Furthermore, the aircraft would be operationally complementary to the STOVL aircraft.

  193
  The threat is not just in strategic terms. There is also a threat to industry. The industrial case for launching a new high performance military aircraft revolves around the need to maintain a national capability. The main thrust of this argument is that without such a project the military side of the aerospace industry could run down to a level from which it might not be possible to recover. Furthermore, the equipment manufacturers depend on new aircraft projects to launch their products on the export market. The recent Falklands crisis also produced a strong argument for the retention of a national defence industrial base with the capability of effective, flexible and rapid reaction.
  In this project the industry, recognising the trend in rising costs for the development and production of defence equipment, proposes a partnership between Government and industry aimed at easing financial and management problems. International co-operation with Germany and Italy has arrived at the stage where the aircraft configuration and the development programme have been finalised. Discussions are proceeding rapidly towards contractual agreements. It has the added bonus of keeping the French aircraft industry at bay.
  The proposal to the United Kingdom Government represents a radical change in procurement procedures, but it is hoped that a step-by-step plan will be agreed by British Aerospace and by the consortium involved that will minimise the joint commitments and risks at each stage.
  Until now the project has been supported by private venture funding, by a consortium of British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce, Dowty, Ferranti, Lucas, Marconi and Smiths Industries—that in itself represents a unique
  situation and a roll-call of our successful industries—amounting, by the end of this year, to £25 million and to £35 million by the middle of 1983. Understandably, without some limited customer commitment, industry cannot continue indefinitely to write off this level of expenditure against profits. Some urgent commitment by the Government is needed.
  The cost of the P110 as presently constituted has the United Kingdom providing 40 per cent., the West German Government 40 per cent. and Italy 20 per cent. Over 10 years, that represents about £500 million to the United Kingdom Government, not the £1,000 million figure that is sometimes bandied around. From that £500 million, it is anticipated that the industry will provide between £150 million and £175 million, reducing the Government's commitment to between £300 million and £350 million.
  The aircraft industry runs down this year. This certainly applies to the aircraft division based at Warton, near my constituency. Jobs, especially among the design team, are at risk. The P110 is vital in this regard. Once a design team is broken up, it is extraordinarily difficult to reconstitute it.
  In regard to exports, the possibility of £6,000 million in foreign income is at stake. It may appeal to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), with his Treasury experience, to know that about £2,000 million in tax revenue, together with support services income, is also possible. Operationally, the aircraft meets the demands of what was the AST403 and is a step technologically towards the AST410, the STOVL aircraft.
  Most important perhaps in terms of the emotion that surrounds defence is that any alternative to the P110, a
  194
  necessary aircraft, will entail buying foreign. That prospect is unacceptable to me, and I suspect to many hon. Members. It is, I hope, recognised that defence spending must be raised at least to the 4 per cent. level suggested by SACEUR. This argument was eloquently expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) last Thursday. By following this course, many of the problems to which hon. Members have referred will be resolved. Above all, we shall be able to fund the P110, which is vital not only to the Preston factories of British Aerospace but to the subcontractors and other members of the consortium who are actively involved.
  Mr. Bill Walker: What is the cost of this aircraft relative to the cost of the air defence version of the Tornado?
  Mr. Atkins: I shall tread cautiously in this regard. I am not privy to all the detailed figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton no doubt has at his fingertips. I shall not therefore be drawn into the argument unless my hon. Friend has some information.
  Mr. Walker: The figure, I understand, is about £7·5 million, as against £14·5 million for the air defence version of the Tornado.
  Mr. Atkins: It is pleasant to have informed friends ready to leap to one's aid. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides recognise the vital importance of the project in a wide variety of areas. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton will be able to give me confidence that the Government intend to move towards funding this aircraft in the near future.
  6.43 pm
  Mr. Dick Douglas: I shall not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins), who has spoken about a constituency interest in the P110. I hope to learn more of the significance of that aircraft in coming days. However, I wish to speak directly of my own constituency where the naval base and dockyard of Rosyth is located. Other hon. Members representing dockyard constituencies have referred to the work undertaken to meet the Falklands crisis. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the wonderful work done at Rosyth.
  We are thankful that some of the ships sent out originally from Rosyth such as the "Plymouth" and the "Yarmouth" will be returning. I understand that the frigate "Plymouth" is due to return in the next week or so. We are grateful for a change of policy by the Government which means that the "Fife" county class destroyer has been reprieved. There is nothing that better indicates the patched-up and patchwork nature of the White Paper than the omission of a massive annex that appeared in the previous year's White Paper dealing with merchant fleets.
  There is nothing in the current White Paper to show the importance of the Merchant Navy in the Falklands crisis, nor that the Government have grasped the importance of having a suitable and viable Merchant Navy to support other naval operations. When I raised the question last Thursday of a replacement for the "Atlantic Conveyor", the response was clearly a bromide. No other nation with a maritime background and depending on a naval strategy would be so mealy-mouthed as to say that it would be left to the vagaries of the market to decide a replacement for a ship like the "Atlantic Conveyor". As my right hon.

  195
  Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has remarked, it will be necessary to pay more attention to merchant ships if massive use of naval forces is contemplated in future. It is therefore absurd to rely on foreign yards to build ships for the Merchant Navy.
  We are seeing the rundown of our maritime capability. The Select Committee on Industry examined British shipbuilding. There is need for a maritime strategy. Part of that strategy should be devoted to ensuring an increase of merchant vessels built in British yards. There has also been a rundown in refits in the dockyards. In 1976–77 there were 58 major and normal refits. In 1980–81, the figure had fallen to 38. I concede that refits are becoming much more complicated and more costly. I appeal to the Minister to give further information about the dockyard study to which reference is made in paragraph 521 of the White Paper. All the paragraph says is:
  "the Dockyard Study referred to in last year's Statement is now being re-examined in the light of the defence programme review to see to what extent its recommendations remain valid."
  I imagine that few of its recommendations remain valid in the light of the Falklands dispute. I want to know what the Government intend to do about the overall position of the dockyards. What are the implications, if Trident is set in train, for the refit programme of a dockyard such as Rosyth? I understand that an "Ohio" type class submarine is to be built in the United Kingdom. Is it intended that the refit will take place at Rosyth or at Devonport? Or is some other programme of study to be embarked upon? Those in Rosyth who recognise that the programme had to be set aside because of the commitment to the needs of the Falklands crisis want to know about the long-term programme. I take the view that it is questionable whether we should build Trident. I am not unilateralist. I have made my view clear. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) is not here. He flits in and makes his inflammatory speech, and before anyone can reply he walks out. Privy Councillors have that privilege.
  One of the major arguments against Trident, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have pointed out, is that payments for it will swallow 15 to 20 per cent. of the Ministry of Defence's capital expenditure from the end of this decade until the middle of the next. There was some argument as to what would be included in capital expenditure. That is the view of David Greenwood, the director of the centre for defence studies at Aberdeen. I presume that he knows what is meant by capital expenditure, and that is an enormous chunk of the expenditure that would go on equipment.
  If the view is taken that we should remove ourselves from the strategic nuclear deterrent area—I accept that is what it means and that Polaris will not last much beyond 1990—then certain other things are set in train. The buildup of what are loosely called conventional weapons has to be considered. Currently we rely on a threat to destroy the whole of the northern hemisphere to keep West Germany free. To anyone who looks at the matter sensibly that is an absurd proposition.
  I am not sure that it is correct to take the view that the major threat is that posed by the Soviet Union. I believe that there is a great deal to be said for the views expressed by Gerald Smith, who led the United States of America in the SALT 1 discussions. It was felt that there was great advantage in new technology by which one man could knock out a number of tanks with new weapons. There was
  196
  evidence of the vulnerability of tanks to new weapons during the Yom Kippur war. If the great advantage of the Soviet Union is in their tanks, what are the Government's views about the new technology? We have heard little about that.
  I pay regard to the changing nature of Soviet power and believe that it has moved away from looking at Europe. I do not pretend to be an expert, but if one looks at Jane's "Fighting Ships" one must be impressed by the might of the Soviet navy. It is not a navy that is content with looking at Europe; it is looking at the Soviet world role. If we are to combat that, our Navy must have a world role. I accept what is said about SSNs, but it is absolutely absurd that a gestation period of almost 10 years is needed to get a replacement for the "Oberon" class diesel-powered submarine. There are arguments for SSNs and diesel-powered submarines, but equally there is an argument for a powerful surface fleet. My criticism of the Government is the same as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East—that they have not considered that.
  For a long time we have been designing and redesigning ships when we should have been moving ahead because that would provide jobs for our shipyards. It should have been done for a long time and not just as a result of the Falklands crisis.
  There has been a great deal of criticism about materials used on the ships. I take those criticisms on board, but I recognise that ships in any war will be sunk and the most inflammable and dangerous material used on a ship is fuel and ammunition. The other materials of course have to be looked at. The Admiralty marine research technology establishment is a unique centre in my constituency that was being run down. What role will it be given in assessing the consequences of the Falklands campaign on ship design?
  We have had no discussion of new technology. One of the most fearful aspects of the White Paper appears in para 312 headed "Space". It states:
  "The Soviet Union devotes enormous resources to the development and operation of spacecraft. This effort is steadily increasing. The number of satellites launched gives an indication of the scale of the Soviet programme: in 1981 the total was 124. By contrast the West launched 28. A comparison of the number of rocket launchers used to put single or multiple payloads into orbit shows an all-time total by the end of 1981 of 1,437 for the Soviet Union, 7861or the United States and 45 for the rest of the world."
  I remember going to an election meeting where Lord Bertrand Russell received guffaws of laughter from the audience when he said that humanity would be capable of producing satellites that went round the world and fired whenever attacking forces desired. That was fancy, but I have been told that the Soviet Union has a satellite in space with a life of 4,000 years. We argue about deterrence, but how does the West react to that fearful prospect? How do we make the Soviet Union recognise that space should be peaceful? I am annoyed at the Government and my party for not saying what is in train because those of us who are not experts cannot comprehend what is happening.
  If people had seen at the time what was happening in Goose Green, San Carlos and elsewhere in the Falklands, they would have been horrified. One of the most terrible things I have seen was some of our people returning to this country who were not our nationals, and what hurt me most was to be told—I hope the Minister will deny it—that these people, who were mainly catering staff, had to go through immigration. That is a disgrace, and one I hope

  197
  that can be expunged. Our Forces deserve great credit. I pay my tribute to them all. I hope that the House will pay regard to those effects of the Falklands campaign.
  6.58 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: This debate and the one that took place last Thursday established four good points. First, there is the recognition of the invaluable role of the Royal Navy. There has been complete agreement about that. Secondly, although this is not a united view, there is a recognition of the need to maintain the British Army of the Rhine. Thirdly—there is far from united recognition here—should Trident be sacrificed to make room for expenditure on conventional weapons? Fourthly, most of those who have contributed to the debate have tried to take up the challenge that has been thrown down by the Government, especially by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, about the need to face painful choices.
  I shall make some brief observations on those four issues as a Back Bencher, as a member of the NATO Assembly and especially as a member of the military and political committees and chairman of the manpower sub-committee of the NATO Assembly.
  In his foreword to the White Paper, my right hon. Friend states:
  "Only when the Falklands crisis has been fully studied will we be in a position to take reasoned and considered decisions on what adjustments need to be made to the defence programme". How right he is. With respect to the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), the Prime Minister of the former Labour Government, who spoke with considerable authority, it seemed that he was already making some considerable and rather sweeping sudden adjustments. The effect of his proposal would be to destroy the efficacy of the British Army of the Rhine. It seems that he would withdraw it and that is would cease to be the British Army of the Rhine. He argued that the best way out of our expenditure difficulties is no longer to remain a nuclear power and no longer to be a contributor to the land forces of Western Europe. He suggested that we should concentrate exclusively on the Royal Air Force and on our maritime tradition.
  That is too sweeping a judgment to make. It is one that runs away from the main problems that we face. The Royal Navy has a vital role to play. Those of us who consider these matters from a NATO point of view are increasingly concerned about the vulnerability of NATO in the northern and southern flanks, in which a maritime capability can play an important part. In NATO there is a growing perception of an increasing risk that hostilities can develop in areas outside NATO, which are of vital concern to NATO. The perception of the risk has grown with the growth of the Soviet fleet, which now can operate worldwide. The need to have the ability to operate outside the NATO area, which means a maritime capability, is one that the United States has taken up with its rapid deployment force.
  There is little doubt that our American friends in NATO accept prime responsibility. They recognise that there are interests that are European and that are outside NATO. If we are to carry American public opinion with us, it will be necessary for us to recognise that the Royal Navy can play a part, should it be necessary, rather than leave the
  198
  United States to go it alone. For example, we, too, have vital interests in the Gulf. If there is an outbreak of hostilities, which could break out into something more important, in the Indian Ocean or elsewhere, we should be there to help out. This suggests that the strength of our Navy will need to be enhanced, in view of the possibility of undertaking duties outside the NATO area, including the East Atlantic.
  I do not want to draw too rash a conclusion because in doing so I would fall into the trap into which others have fallen. However, the preliminary studies that we make of the Falkland Islands campaign leads us to ask "Is the role of the Royal Navy, or of any navy, one which has a real future and which is credible in the face of modern missile tactics, strategy and capabilities, or is a navy really a sitting duck?" This question is posed because of the losses that we suffered. There is no time to go into the details, much as I should like to do so. In any event, we can expect a full study from the Government.
  The way in which the Navy behaved in the South Atlantic tells me that there is a role for it and that it can protect itself in future. The costs of strengthening its defences and its ability to protect itself may not be as great as some might imagine. If they think that that will be a heavy burden, they must come to the conclusion, as others have, that something must give elsewhere. In doing so, they will have to argue that the role must be taken up by the Air Force or the Army. They probably adopt this argument because they fear that the lessons to be learnt from the Falkland Islands campaign will be expensive.
  I speak with an open mind. I feel that those who argue against the strengthening of the Navy probably believe that we were outsmarted by the Argentines to the detriment of the Navy. I do not think that we were.
  The British Army of the Rhine is professional but it is small. It would have a catastrophic effect on our allies if we were seriously to entertain withdrawing this small but effective army. I see no other group that is likely to come from the Dutch or the Germans that could match what the British force does in playing a supportive role on the central front in Western Europe. I do not know how it could be argued in Washington that it is vital for the defence of the United States to station about 300,000 of its men in Europe while we feel that it is not vital to station 55,000 of our men in Europe. In political terms, let alone defence terms, that does not add up. Neither would it add up for those countries on the continent of Europe which have conscription and believe that we should.
  I have discussed this issue with many politicians and military staff in the course of my duties as a member of the manpower sub-committee. We can get away with the argument that we do not need conscription because we fulfil certain roles with the Royal Navy and the Air Force and because we have highly professional forces. However, if we reduce our forces in Europe or withdraw them, that argument will prove impossible to sustain. The pressure will then be on us to fulfil our role in NATO by introducing conscription.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), whose knowledge in these matters is widely respected on both sides of the House, suggested that the important thing about a military presence in central Europe is not the reserves but the forces in being. He argued that if the forces in being are ready and available to defend, they deter. The decision to move soldiers in a crisis will always be a difficult one. How right my hon. Friend is.

  199
  He is supported by a former commander of the British Army of the Rhine, General Sir Harry Tuzo, who thinks that the warning of any attack on NATO, certainly on the central front, could come in the form of fragmentary, confused and ambiguous signs. In The Times today, he writes that a decision to move large blocks of troops across the Channel
  "will be stigmatised by some as provocation but will in any case, make a strong political and emotional impact in the countries concerned".
  Those of us who live in the shadow of the Falkland Islands war know that the decision to send a task force while negotiations were still proceeding was regarded by some hon. Members as provocative. By stationing our Air Force and ground forces on the Continent of Europe we avoid falling into that trap. The problem becomes simpler and our forces, as my hon. Friend rightly said, will be seen to be acting as a true deterrent.
  I do not want to rehash the Trident argument, but I believe that it would be folly now for a British Government to give the signal to the Soviet Union that we no longer believe that Trident or a British nuclear missile system has any strategic role to play. From the figures that I have heard today the cost arguments do not prove that on these grounds alone it should no longer be in our budget.
  The costs in terms of proportion of defence effort and equipment do not at any time, as I understand the figures from the Government White Paper, exceed those that we have comfortably afforded or, if we have not comfortably afforded, agreed should be part of the cost of the development of a conventional aeroplane such as the Tornado.
  There is also the wider political argument. As someone who respects the United States enormously, I say that it is prone to making political miscalculations and misjudgments along with the rest of us. If the Russians thought that they could take the risk of attacking the Alliance in the mistaken belief that the United States would not be prepared to use its nuclear weapons, they would have to take into account a nuclear weapon force which is British and European based. If we were to deny ourselves that, the risks and uncertainties of starting a war would be that much greater.
  Mr. Allen McKay: If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that we should fulfil our commitments to the British Army of the Rhine by keeping the forces there, why does he not argue that, instead of an independent nuclear deterrent, we should have a NATO deterrent?
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson-Smith: It would be nice to try to work out a NATO deterrent—our deterrent is NATO targeted and to that extent it is a NATO deterrent—but if one is thinking of having a command system that embraces all the nations, one is restricted by the problem that Germany does not want any part of it. If Germany did want a part of that system old enmities would be aroused. There would be one dickens of a political football if that sort of argument were started again. We have a deterrent in British hands and our friends in NATO are happy that it should be. It is targeted within NATO but they recognise that in certain circumstances we have the right to use it. They know the sort of circumstances that we have in mind.
  I turn to my fourth point, which has been very much established during the two-day debate—the choice thrown to us by the Secretary of State. In one sense there is no choice. No one who takes these matters seriously could
  200
  argue that we have the choice of reduction in expenditure. There are some who think that that argument does not stand up, certainly not in the light of previous events and certainly not when one looks at the figures of the growing threat of Soviet arms expenditure.
  Investment in defence is investment in peace because strong defence is the best way of preventing a potential enemy from making miscalculations, as has happened so often in the past, about our resolve and our ability to defend ourselves. I know that some hon. Members believe that we spend too large a proportion of our GNP on defence expenditure but that is not the only way to measure these matters, although perhaps it is the most accurate way. We spend more of our GNP because we are poorer. Our GNP is smaller than that of France or Germany. We do not spend more per head than the Germans or the French. If we want to argue on those terms, so be it. If we want to do that, we will lose our influence. But there is much more than that. We would begin to lose the battle. We would begin rot to provide effective forces. We would no longer act in any sense as a reliable military ally in NATO and by our playing around with figures, by deciding, as the Opposition have, that we should reduce the proportion of GNP to spend on defence, we would be getting out of the defence business altogether. For the reasons I have already mentioned, that would be fatal. Defence expenditure helps industry and sustains employment at a time when it is vitally necessary to sustain both. It keeps alive important technical skills in Britain.
  I conclude as I began. There is no option but to consider the possibility of some increase in expenditure. I believe also that the Government's strategy is right. It is a balanced strategy between Navy, Army and Air Force. It may be that, as a result of the Falklands, more will have to go to the Navy, but if more has to go to the Navy at the cost of sacrificing the efficiency of the Air Force and the Army, in the face of the evidence of the Soviet threat, future generations will think us shortsighted and that we walked a perilous path.
  7.17 pm
  Mr. Stanley Newens: The hon. Member for East Grinstead (Sir G. Johnson Smith) deployed his arguments on the basis of the defence statement prepared by the Government. I differ from him in a number of respects on the four issues that formed the theme of his speech. Unlike him, and in common with many of ray right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches, I consider that the defence statement was out of date before it was officially published.
  The statement fails to take account of the Falklands crisis and many other world facts. On that basis it should be rejected in the Lobbies tonight. The basic assumption on which the statement rests is that the main threat to the United Kingdom is posed by the USSR and its allies. On that basis the argument for rearmament and for participation in the arms race is justified. I believe that the main threat to the United Kingdom and to many other countries is world war or our becoming involved in a major conflict that will destroy our way of life, and perhaps life itself. Our policy must therefore have as its main objective the safeguarding and protection of our people against such an eventuality.
  The history of recent decades and a survey of the world scene underlines the fact that the biggest threat to world peace today arises not in Europe or in the developed

  201
  countries but in the Third world where there are innumerable instabilities that could lead to a war at any time. Events only this year illustrate that. There was the conflict in the South Atlantic, the conflict in the Middle East and the continuing Iraqi-Iranian war. Neither the USSR nor its allies have been directly involved in those wars. Today, Africa, Asia and Latin America are seething with problems that could easily lead to war that could escalate and spread far beyond ordinary expectations into a major conflict.
  This is not new. The First World War arose out of an escalating arms race between the great powers at that time, with instability on the fringes that produced a succession of crises. There was Morocco in 1905, Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908, Morocco in 1911, the Balkan War in 1912 and the shooting of the Archduke of Austria at Sarajevo in 1914. The last-mentioned event plunged the world into armed conflict far beyond anything that most leading statesmen at the time imagined possible. There are parallels today, but despite that the great powers vie with each other to sell arms to the Third world where the greatest danger arises of the type of conflicts to which I have referred breaking out. The competition to sell arms is a form of Russian roulette in which the Russians may not be involved. No one knows whose Blowpipe or Exocet missiles will eventually be used against whose Service men. Regardless of our experience in the conflict with Argentina, the defence statement in paragraph 409 states:
  "We shall also be paying greater attention to the sales potential of projects and programmes authorised for the Armed Forces."
  It is estimated that defence sales transactions in 1982–83 will be £1,800 million. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) referred earlier to the sale of warships. Even as the task force was setting sail for the South Atlantic, we were transferring a former destroyer, HMS "London", to the Pakistan navy. In what way would such a transfer help to promote world peace?
  We have supplied arms and trained forces and seconded our own personnel to train foreign forces in a long list of countries that are wholly devoid of any democratic practices and which not infrequently have appalling records on human rights, which they have denied and trampled underfoot.
  Last year, the Secretary of State for Defence, when challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) on arms sales to dictatorships such as Chile, El Salvador and Argentina, stated in defence of his policy:
  "I regret that there are many dictatorships in the world, and if we sold defence equipment only to countries with our constitutional arrangements, our sales would be very small".—[Official Report, 21 July 1981; Vol. 9, c. 156.]
  Frankly, that is the morality of the pimp or the drug pusher. The merchants of death are sowing dragon's teeth in flagrant defiance of what experience shows, and our experience in the South Atlantic ought to convince us of the need to turn our backs on this particularly pernicious policy.
  The military cliques, juntas and dictators that we arm are the largest threat to the peoples whom they claim to defend. The military coup is now becoming the standard way of changing a government in many parts of the world. To defend the suicidal rush to supply the means of destruction to the world's dictatorships is like laying a trail
  202
  of gunpowder to our own back door, because sooner or later one of the crises that will explode, which will be fought with weapons supplied by the great powers, will embroil us all in a major world conflict.
  Side by side with that madness, we are indulging in an unparallelled race to develop, manufacture and deploy ever more destructive nuclear weapons systems on the ground that the only real threat comes from the Soviet Union. The Falklands crisis showed that nuclear weapons cannot be used to our advantage in many—I would say all—circumstances. Even the advocates of nuclear weapons usually accept that if they were ever used, the deterrent theory on which their possession is based would have failed.
  The price of deploying nuclear weapons on our territory and in our submarines against the Soviet Union is to have Soviet nuclear weapons targeted on our country. That means that any nuclear attack on the Soviet Union from any source—even a reckless or accidental attack—could result in those missiles targeted against us being launched on their way. Those attacked could not afford to delay to ascertain the origin of the attack even if it were not clear. In those circumstances, the weapons deployed on our soil do not defend us but put our people at a tremendous risk.
  The vast expenditure involved in deploying such weapons is not merely a waste but increases our vulnerability to destruction. Furthermore, if we allow another power to deploy its weapons on our soil, we run an additional risk that they could be used without our being properly consulted, despite the claims that that could never occur.
  I have never argued in favour of a vast escalation of defence expenditure, and in that respect I oppose the commitment of the Government, the SDP and the Liberal Party. I believe that Britain would be much safer and more secure if it used the money at present devoted to nuclear weapons to provide adequate conventional forces to defend our country. That is the basic case advanced by the Labour Party.
  When the ships arrived in the South Atlantic, they had no effective defence against sea-skimming missiles. When the Secretary of State was challenged on this point—relatives of Service men on those ships told me that they had no proper form of defence—he said that we did not have that defence because the Russians did not possess sea-skimming missiles. However, we had nuclear weapons that we could not use. It would be very much better if our defence expenditure was made on equipment and weapons that we shall need in the real world.
  If Britain renounced nuclear weapons and promoted schemes for nuclear-free zones and non-proliferation, our country would be less likely to be the victim of nuclear attack than it is at present. Furthermore, it would help to convince other countries that they do not need nuclear weapons to defend themselves. Although the Minister renounced the contrary point of view when challenged, the logic of his position is that if we need nuclear weapons to defend ourselves, every other country has a case for possessing them as well. We must all be aware of the tremendous increase in the danger of world and nuclear war that that would mean.
  Britain should take a lead against arms sales and seek to persuade other countries to do likewise. The world would become less, not more, likely to be beset with

  203
  armed conflicts in developing countries if we greatly reduced the continued sale of armaments to Third world countries.
  The sort of policy that I have defended, and which the Labour Party is advancing, would not mean discarding our conventional defence forces. Conservative Members should not argue that case. On the contrary, we believe that our defence forces should be well trained and equipped to deal with any circumstances that they may reasonably be expected to face. We can never justify the sacrifice of conventional defence to build up nuclear capability. If we still cannot afford conventional defences on the scale that is necessary, I and a number of my hon. Friends believe that we should begin withdrawing our forces from Germany. The resources that became available could then be deployed in the interests of Britain.
  Government policy as set out in the White Paper does not recognise or attempt to fulfil the requirements that I have indicated for Britain's defence policy. The statement should be rejected on these grounds. It fails to meet the real defence needs of Britain and it provides for an escalation of defence expenditure. In that respect, the Government are now supported by the Liberals and the SDP, and I hope that the supporters of the alliance outside the House will take careful note of what it is saying in here, as many of those supporters are not saying the same thing.
  If we continue escalating defence expenditure, we shall cripple our economy and destroy any hope of a real recovery, as President Reagan is already finding with the policy of escalating arms expenditure in the United States. I believe, as I have always believed, that it is up to hon. Members to take a stand against the madness of the nuclear arms race. Accordingly, I hope that we shall register in the Division Lobbies a good vote against the statement. It is against the real interests of the defence of the people of this country.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. Churchill: I begin by paying tribute to our Armed Forces in the South Atlantic, the dockyard workers who volunteered to accompany them and the men and, all too often forgotten, the women of the Merchant Marine. In their skill and courage they have no equal among the armed forces of any nation. I know that that is a view shared on both sides of the House. We mourn those who did not return and who by their gallantry and sacrifice made the victory possible. Nor should we forget in our deliberations today the dangers faced by those who serve us so well in Northern Ireland.
  The lessons of the Falklands are many and will be pondered for many years. We all have our pet lessons that we feel ought to be learnt. Broadly speaking, the lessons fall into two categories—tactical and strategic. At a tactical level, the most obvious one is the vulnerability of surface ships to attack by submarine and by air. The power of nuclear hunter-killer submarines was vividly demon-strated not merely by the sinking of the "Belgrano" but by the fact that thereafter the entire Argentine navy was effectively bottled up by a handful of British submarines so that General Galtieri had little more than his bathtub in which to play battleships.
  The necessity for air cover was once again vividly demonstrated, if it was not already clear. The Harriers and, above all, their pilots performed superbly, losing not one aircraft in air-to-air combat. None the less, it was a
  204
  close run thing, and had the Falkland Islands been 100 miles closer to the Argentine mainland it would have made the entire operation one of great risk.
  Why, one must ask, are there no tracked Rapiers deployed with British forces today? This equipment has been available for several years. It was designed originally for the Shah of Iran, but successive Governments have failed to press ahead and order it. The tragedy of Bluff Cove could have been avoided had tracked Rapiers been available. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that three batteries of mobile Rapiers—by which I presume he meant the tracked version—are to be ordered now.
  The need for the Royal Air Force to have a long-range strike capability was also vividly demonstrated. The Vulcan strikes were probably the longest strategic bombing raids ever mounted by any air force in the world. They involved nine in-flight refuellings for each aircraft striking Port Stanley.
  Why, one must ask, were they equipped only with 1,000-lb iron bombs of Second World War vintage 15 years after the Six-Day War—which I had the opportunity to report and write a book about—made clear the effectiveness of the Israeli so-called runway dibber bombs? Why does it take, with our system of committees in the MoD, 15 years to develop an effective airfield denial weapon? It is something that must cause us grave concern. We have one in the pipeline, but it was not available this spring. It will not be available until next year. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can say something about that, and about what is to be the future of the Vulcan force.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been criticised for publishing the White Paper, but let us not forget that, however glorious our victory in the South Atlantic, it was a limited war against a third-rate power. The threat to the people of these islands will come not from what the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) called a "tinpot Fascist dictatorship" in Latin America but from the conventional nuclear forces of the Soviet Union. It is those forces that pose a constant threat of world war and nuclear war.
  More important even than the tactical lessons learnt from the Falklands are the strategic ones. These have a direct application to the Soviet threat that confronts us. It has been said that we were attacked with little warning. The Prime Minister, in a radio interview recorded in New York during her recent visit, remarked on this to the interviewer. She said that there had been no warning time. This is something that is deeply entrenched in the Foreign Office ethos of how war should be conducted. There should be no war without a proper warning time and we have been told, with reference to the Soviet threat, that we can rely on a warning time. Smoke signals will appear from the Kremlin when it plans to move.
  If there is one thing that one can deduce from the volumes of Soviet military writings and doctrine it is that it is at the heart of its doctrine to exercise to the maximum the advantage of surprise. In 1968 I was in Prague reporting in the weeks before the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. It was no surprise that it was at the moment when the Soviets were engaged with their Czech allies at Czarna and Bratislava that the military attack on Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Union came.
  I pray that there will not be, but if there is to be a third world war initiated by the Soviets, one can be sure that it will be when we are sitting round a disarmament table in

  205
  Geneva. It will come at the moment when one least expects it. I hope that we shall learn this vital lesson about warning time. It is not something that should be relied on.
  A further lesson that is clear from the Falklands operation is that more often than not, certainly in the present century, wars arise from miscalculation. British Governments, sad to say, with the Foreign Office in the forefront inevitably, have an unfortunate track record of misleading dictators. We did it effectively with Signor Mussolini and Herr Hitler, and now we have done it again with General Galtieri, falling victim to this peculiar and particular form of diplomacy in which we convince our prospective opponents that we shall not resist them if they attack. It is vital that those who hold sway in the Kremlin should never be placed in the position of miscalculating what might be the reaction of the British Government and our allies in NATO.
  The recent demonstration of resolve by the British Prime Minister and Government and, above all, by the British nation as a whole, will not have been lost on the Soviet leadership. That is almost certainly the most important aspect of our victory in the Falklands, because it is on Soviet perceptions of the resolve of Britain and her allies that the peace of the world today depends.
  The Falklands operation has provided a vivid demonstration of the fact that deterrence is invariably cheaper than war. We did not do enough to deter war in the South Atlantic, and it is appropriate that there should be an inquiry, but—far more serious—we are not doing enough as a nation or as an alliance to ensure the maintenance of peace by a policy of deterring war. That is the foundation of the NATO strategy. Our vast outlays, collectively as an alliance, on defence, are not so as the better to fight a war or the better to win a war, but so that that war which is unthinkable in the nuclear age will never come upon us.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) has emphasised on more than one occasion in our debates that the strategic deterrent is an essential component of our defences. It is idle for Opposition Members to talk about scrapping Trident and devoting the resources to a larger Navy, so that we may more effectively take on more tinpot dictatorships in Latin America. That would completely undermine any basis for any independent military action in the future, should that prove necessary, by this country. We have already heard in this debate how, at the time of Suez in 1956, the Soviets used the threat of nuclear blackmail to try to forestall Britain's intervention in the Middle East. Now that we have the nuclear deterrent, it is significant that no such threat—so far as we know—was ever made by the present incumbents of the Kremlin. I do not believe that even those sitting below the Gangway on the Opposition Benches would suggest that that is out of an excess of good nature on the part of the men in the Kremlin. It is, above all, because we have a nuclear deterrent, and it is absolutely vital to maintain that strategic capability.
  I find it regrettable that the internecine warfare between the Services outside this House should have been reflected in our debates in this Chamber. I fear that it is inevitable that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) appears to favour a larger Army at the expense of Trident, while my hon. Friend the Member for
  206
  Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), having a naval con-stituency, not surprisingly favours a larger Navy at the expense of the Rhine Army. The right hon. Member for Deptford, speaking on behalf of the Opposition, pretends to favour the same line—a larger Navy at the expense of Trident—but his claim and that of his party are utterly disingenuous, not to say dishonest, because the Labour Party is committed to slashing our defence budget by onethird—a sum equivalent to 10 times the entire Trident programme. The Labour Party's policy is one of unilateral disarmament—not only nuclear, but conventional. How can one provide for our conventional defences if at the same time one slashes by one-third the resources allocated to defence?
  I do not share the enthusiasm of some right hon. and hon. Members for robbing Peter to pay Paul in this context. The fact is that we need more resources for defence all round. It is essential that we maintain a well-balanced capability to respond effectively to a wide variety of threats—limited, major, conventional or nuclear.
  It has been suggested that we should reduce, or even withdraw, the British Army of the Rhine and RAF Germany, but it is Britain's participation on the central front that represents a vital contribution to NATO's capability to deter war. Of 55,000 Soviet tanks, 30,000 face us in Western Europe, and the Rhine is Britain's front line of defence. Even in the present situation, Britain is no more than 22½ minutes' flying time from the Soviet air bases in East Germany. We could not contemplate the fall of West Germany and other parts of Western Europe without gravely undermining the whole basis of our security here. I welcome the fact that the present Administration have increased by 25 per cent. the number of tanks that we have manned in the Rhine Army at present. To reduce or withdraw the British Army of the Rhine and British RAF Germany would lower the nuclear threshold, increase the risk of war, and pull the rug politically from under our allies in Europe. Our Army is already far too small, and to withdraw it would be to demobilise it. Certainly I see no scope for savings in the British armed forces in Germany.
  The air defence of the United Kingdom and our surrounding waters remain a critical area of weakness. I am delighted that the Government are to arm 70 Hawk trainers, but when will that programme be completed? Perhaps my hon. Friend, in winding up, will tell us. The fact is as I had occasion to say in a defence debate when I sat on the Opposition Benches five years ago—and nothing has changed to this day—we have no more than 70 air defence aircraft available for defending our shores, the North Sea, the Channel, and the Western approaches. Seventy aircraft are far too few.
  The vital importance of airborne early-warning radar has been demonstrated in recent weeks in the south Atlantic. When will Nimrod AEW be in service? Will it now have in-flight refuelling installed from the word go, as I suggested earlier this year? I was told that that was not being contemplated at that time.
  We need a larger and more capable Air Force. Certainly I see no room for cuts there.
  Then there is the defence of the United Kingdom base. In the face of eight Soviet airborne divisions, the United Kingdom home defences are grossly inadequate. While the addition of 20,000 reservists proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a worthwhile beginning, it in no way matches the gravity of the threat. We as a

  207
  nation should aim at being able to mobilise no fewer than ½ million men and women under arms for the defence of our homeland. Territorials are the most cost-effective form of manpower, and I see no room for budget cutting on that front either.
  I have already mentioned the strategic deterrent, and in my view it is right to go ahead with the purchase of Trident. Certainly it is the most cost-effective system that is available to us, and it is one-third less than the cost of the RAF's Tornado programme.
  That brings me, finally, to the Royal Navy, which is so much in our thoughts at present and so much a bone of contention in our debate. The Secretary of State was right last year to see the nuclear hunter-killers as the capital ships of today and to shift the emphasis increasingly towards a sub-surface navy, including the announcement of a new class of diesel-electric submarine. We must also maintain a substantial force of surface ships to safeguard our supply and energy lines around the Cape and, above all, the NATO reinforcement capability across the North Atlantic, on which the entire strategy of NATO depends.
  I am delighted that the Government have rethought their plan to reduce the Royal Navy to a two-carrier fleet by its decision to retain "Invincible". I know that I am not alone in expressing my gratitude to the Premier and Government of Australia for their generous offer in that regard. However, that cannot be done within the existing budget.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: The hon. Gentleman is obviously privy to information which other hon. Members, and perhaps his own Front Bench, have not received. When did Mr. Sinclair give that great concession and have the Government agreed on "Invincible" remaining?
  Mr. Churchill: It was not Mr. Sinclair who made such a concession; it was Mr. Fraser. He said that he would be more than happy to renegotiate the agreement and if Britain wished to retain "Invincible" he would be agreeable to that, although reluctant. My right hon. Friend has made clear his wish to retain "Invincible". I know that he will have the support of almost all Conservative Members.
  It is urgent that a significant proportion of the resources that have recently been lost to the defence budget be restored. Last year, supported by 10 of my hon. and right hon. Friends, I tabled an amendment to the Prime Minister's motion on the Defence Estimates for 1981–82. It backed the Secretary of State's defence priorities but expressed the view that greater resources should be provided to safeguard peace and freedom. Nothing that has happened in recent months causes me or my hon. Friends to modify that view. Indeed, it reinforces it. We must have more resources for defence.
  Britain is currently devoting no more than 10·5 per cent. of its public expenditure budget to defence. To raise it to the levels pertaining in the mid-1960s would require a 50 per cent. increase in the existing defence budget. It is urgent that a significant proportion of the resources that have been lost to defence over recent years should be restored. In that context, one area that might be looked at is the £1,926 million currently being devoted to the work of the Manpower Services Commission and other make-work projects. With so many jobs to be filled in defence, and with the external threat so grave, it defies belief that
  208
  such resources could not be better allocated in the provision of real jobs and real security. For that reason, I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends to insist that the Government do what is necessary to strengthen our defences and to safeguard peace.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Stephen Ross: To take up one of the points made by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), page 34 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" shows that the United Kingdom comes third after the United States and France in defence spending on a per capita basis. The hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting that we can go way ahead of that even though vast sums are already being spent on defence.
  As this is the first speech from the Liberal Bench on the Defence Estimates, I should like to follow the example of other hon. Members and express my admiration, and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, for the bravery, fortitude and leadership shown in the Falklands campaign by all the Forces involved—in which I include the Merchant Navy.
  My constituency has had a long tradition of service in Her Majesty's Forces. As I found when I met some of the wives and mothers of my constituents recently, many of them were present in the South Atlantic. One at least, regrettably, lost his life, on HMS "Sheffield", and others were wounded.
  It was an honour for me to attend the Camp Hill prison officers' club, last Saturday—we have three prisons on the Isle of Wight—where I received a cheque well in excess of £3,000 towards the South Atlantic fund. That shows some of the feeling on the island. It is a notable achievement for the prison officers to raise so much money.
  It has long been the Liberal Party's policy to oppose the whole concept of the independent nuclear deterrent. The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) does not need to remind me of the last war, but that certainly has been the Liberal Party's policy for the past 20 years. We have initiated several debates in the House on that subject—certainly two in the past two years.
  We predicted at the time of those debates that Trident's cost would surely escalate from the then stated figure of a maximum of £5 billion. In paragraph 121 of the Defence Estimates statement, we see that the price has indeed soared to £7,500 million. That was the figure at last September, and no doubt it will go higher still.
  I have listened to all the protestations to the contrary from various defence spokesmen, but there is no doubt that that burden will have a seriously constricting effect on the provision of adequate conventional equipment. That is the main area of our disagreement with existing Government policies. We are strong supporters of NATO and should like to see—as our joint amendment clearly implies—more money spent on the development and purchase of the best available conventional weapons.
  The Warsaw Pact countries certainly possess a marked superiority in the number of battle tanks. The figures show a ratio of about 2·5 to 1. My understanding is—I do not claim any expertise in the field—that tank technology is now relatively static, while at the same time there have been substantial advances in the development of anti-tank devices.
  As so many hon. Members have already pointed out, some of our ships in the Falklands did not have the benefit

  209
  of the latest missiles, such as Sea Wolf. That was because cuts had to be made, although it has proved to be a costly mistake. As an ex-matelot myself, I thought that our ships did extremely well. I thought that we might lose more. We did not lose a carrier, the QE2 or the Canberra. Those ships were protected remarkably well. I should like to know how many planes were shot down by our ships. I believe that it was quite substantial.
  Effective investment in conventional forces, which must include renewed efforts at standardisation within NATO, using the most modern equipment, raises the nuclear threshold and therefore positively reduces the threat of nuclear war. It also puts in doubt the concept of the so-called "flexible response", which I am glad to see is now under attack from many reputable sources. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends share the views of Lord Zuckerman, Lord Carver, Mr. McNamara, the former United States Defence Secretary and others on that subject. We welcome the recommendations of the Palme report, with its call for the establishment of a battlefield nuclear weapon-free zone in Europe, starting with Central Europe and ultimately extending from the northern to the southern flanks of the two Alliances.
  May I turn to the Secretary of State's speech last Thursday, and welcome the partial reprieve that was announced for Portsmouth, although I wish he had gone further. Many of my constituents work in the dockyard. I should like to congratulate the Portsmouth Evening News, which has run an effective campaign to stop the cuts in the harbour. It delivered a large petition to 10 Downing Street only the other day.
  Like the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), whose speech I listened to last Thursday, I believe that there is a role for Chatham if we are to keep our nuclear submarines adequately maintained. I am delighted to see that we are to build more, but if so, is it really to be said that Devonport and Rosyth can manage them all?
  Where are the SSNs to be built? Do we only have one yard—I think it is Vickers—that can now build nuclear submarines? Will we reactivate Cammell Laird or somewhere else? That is the question I asked a year ago. Chatham has already proved itself in the role of maintaining nuclear submarines.
  With Spain joining NATO, does it make sense to close Gibraltar? One senior American admiral, whom I shall not name, serving in the Mediterranean, would like to make use of some of Gibraltar's facilities. The dockyard workers in Gibraltar are also to be praised for their role in the Falklands dispute.
  Although it may now be our intention to keep HMS "Invincible"—and I was interested to note that the hon. Member for Stretford seemed to have some inner knowledge—so far we have only been told that the decision has yet to be taken. I suspect that we may yet sell either HMS "Illustrious" or HMS "Ark Royal". That would be a great mistake. We need all three ships. Long before the Falkland Islands crisis, that same American admiral went on exercises with HMS "Invincible" and said that it was an exceptionally good ship and the American navy would like to have one like it.
  I shall conclude on the subject of hovercraft. That will be no great surprise to the Minister. I do, of course have a major constituency interest. The first hovercraft invented by Sir Christopher Cockerell was built and launched at
  210
  Cowes as long ago as 1959. Yet despite its obvious attractions, the Royal Navy still, regrettably, cannot make up its mind about whether it wants any hovercraft operating in the fleet on a permanent basis. it is about to close facilities at Lee-on-the-Solent and I understand that it has sent its remaining hovercraft back to Cowes. The one purchased from Vosper Thornycroft is on the sales list. It was, of course, a mistake to purchase it from Vosper Thornycroft.
  In the meantime, the Russian and American forces are making, or intend to make, very good use of this British-invented technology. Some hon. Members may have seen pictures of large hovercraft landing troops on the beaches during Warsaw pact exercises last autumn. I am now told that the United States Marines intend to build no fewer than 103 hovercraft during the next 10 years, each of which can carry one main battle tank for the Marines. It is known as the LCAC programme. Fortunately, there is a spin off, because the skirts will be built at Cowes under a £3 million contract.
  It would surely have been a godsend if the force commanders in the Falkland Islands had been able to take advantage of large modern hovercraft to land troops and equipment on the beaches. I watched the film of tanks and heavy lorries coming off landing craft into what appeared to be fairly deep sea. At any moment, I expected one of them to stall. Perhaps we did not see those pictures. However, it would have been much easier to land straight on to the beaches.
  I may be wrong, but I wonder whether the troops on HMS "Sir Galahad" would have had to wait there for three hours if we had had the ability to put them straight ashore. Some years ago a hovercraft was tested on the Falkland Islands, but I do not know the results of that exercise. However, there is another, more vital role for the hovercraft. I refer to its mine hunting capability. At present, there is a requirement for a single role mine hunter. It is referred to in paragraph 212 of the Estimates.
  I understand that British Shipbuilders, a French-Dutch consortium and my local company, the British Hovercraft Corporation, have been asked to submit proposals, which will then be assessed in October. Given the prejudice that exists against air-cushioned vehicles in some naval circles—although not among the technicians—at this stage I ask only that the hovercraft should be given a fair crack of the whip. In the long run, it will be cheaper and more effective, as the trials at Lee-on-the-Solent must have proved. They tried hard enough to blow one up, but they singularly failed to do so. I ask the Minister to give me an assurance that the competition—that is what it should be—between the three different vessels is still open and that the outcome has not been prejudiced as some of us, regrettably, suspect.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Anthony Nelson: It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), whose constituency is just across the water from mine. He has made a valiant case for some of the industries in his area which will benefit from defence procurement. I agreed with some of his points, but he will not be surprised to hear that I did not agree with his comments on Trident. I am a firm adherent of that programme.
  I add my tribute to those paid by others who have spoken in the debate and commend the valiant efforts of our Service men in the South Atlantic and elsewhere. I pay

  211
  special tribute to the Secretary of State for Defence, who has come in for some fairly tough criticism and press comment. In recent months he has had to shoulder an enormous burden of responsibility. It is remarkable that the whole campaign did not suffer greater losses. It is very much to my right hon. Friend's credit that so many of his decisions—a lot must have been finely balanced—were right. He deserves a fulsome tribute from Conservative Members and I am sure that those sentiments will be echoed by Opposition Members.
  I also have drawn some pet lessons—as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) referred to them—from the battle of the Falkland Islands. If anything, the conflict vindicates the defence strategy set out not only in this White Paper, but in previous Conservative Government White Papers. The broad strategy of moving away from numbers of vessels as floating targets and towards greater firepower, not only for our maritime forces, but for our airborne and land-based forces, is broadly sensible. The division of responsibilities between nuclear and conventional forces should be maintained, along with our presence in Central Europe. Our presence in Central Europe has been a matter of some contention in the debate but I broadly agree with the strategy that has been followed for the past few years.
  The second lesson to be drawn is that we should not pay too much attention to the more extreme elements of the Naval lobby. Many people in my constituency press me hard on the matter, but next time round the conflict could be in an entirely different theatre. In such circumstances, an airborne capability could be the essential requirement instead of a maritime capability. If we had had a longer airfield on the Falkland Islands and if we had accepted the Shackleton committee's recommendation in this respect, we might—if we had had the fixed-wing aircraft—have been able to use airlifts of troops and we might even have been able to pre-empt the conflict. Major lessons can also be drawn from this by members of the previous Administration, who substantially reduced the RAF's Transport Command.
  Lessons can also be drawn about the extent to which naval vessels should be better armed. There is a tremendous amount of work for the Admiralty surface weapons establishment. I am sure that it will carefully consider any assessement or report made by the Minister on necessary improvements.
  The first part of the White Paper covers Trident. Many right hon. and hon. Members have commented on it. I was very sorry to hear the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), say that he had now decided that he is not in favour of Trident and that he thought our decision to order it was wrong. It is a matter of great regret that a former Prime Minister, whose sincerity and experience in such matters is unquestioned, should make such a decision after heading an Administration that substantially improved our existing nuclear deterrent through the Chevaline programme. I would point out to him that we are making a decision for the next generation. That weapons system will not only be the best guarantee of Britain's security and independence for the next 10 years, but perhaps for the next four decades. It will come on stream in the 1990s.
  Some of us here today may be in the House in 2020 and we shall want to look back and see that the right long-term decision was made for our security interests that looked to the generation which would benefit rather than short-term
  212
  defence needs. It is impossible, given the development lead time of some of these weapons and technologies to finance, over a decade or less, weapons that are supposed to have a life of 30 years and a development period of 10 years. It is nonsense to look at it in that way. We should spread and discount the financing over a much longer time.
  So much for the capital cost, which, on the latest estimate of £7·5 billion, is admittedly substantial. But one of the great advantages of this weapons system is not only that it provides the ultimate deterrent—so it has proved over the past 30 years—but that its current running costs, year on year, are relatively small. The annual cost of Polaris, our existing British nuclear deterrent, is £327 million this year, which is about the equivalent of building 15 miles of motorway. That expenditure amounts to 2·3 per cent. of our whole defence budget for that ultimate and very important guarantee of our national security.
  As for personnel manning the nuclear deterrent, that accounts for only 2,400 men, which is only 0·7 per cent. of our defence manpower. Therefore, I would argue that the deterrent is highly cost-effective, that the running costs, year on year, are extremely low and that it is an excellent investment for our long-term security.
  One reason why I very much agree with the White Paper is because it adheres to the re-equipment programme that was begun under the Labour Administration, but which has broadly been followed since then, despite the pressures on the budget in recent years. I especially welcome the continuing commitment to improving our air defences and the delivery, albeit on a slightly longer phased programme, of Tornado.
  I share very much the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) in pressing for the P110 tactical combat aircraft to come on stream at the end of this decade in succession to the Jaguar. It is essential that we have this aircraft, and that it is British technology and British-bought technology, rather than presenting another generation of politicians with the only alternative of having to buy American because of a failure by this generation of politicians to decide now for the future. Political time scales in defence are far too short. They rarely exceed the time of the next general election and we should look to a much longer time scale.
  There has been a great deal of comment about defence savings and the Secretary of State challenged many of us who have asked for improvements in our defence capability to say where we would make savings. It is surely right that, without any substantial further commitment to defence spending above the 3 per cent. real increase, any improvements in our capability can only be at the expense of other items in the defence budget.
  Substantial moneys can be saved, not only within the defence budget, to make room for some of the priorities such as the P110, which I would like to see. Also, the Secretary of State should be better armed by many of his hon. Friends in his arguments in Cabinet for a greater shale of public expenditure for defence.
  I shall consider first the savings that can be made. One of the substantial items of the so-called defence budget pensions for Service men, which I believe this year will cost £657 million. Another £240 million will go on assistance for Service men and their families with such things as education. Few other Departments of State have to bear on their own budget the pensions year by year of former employees or civil servants. They all come under

  213
  the Paymaster-General and are paid for separately. Yet with the Armed Forces, the entire pension cost comes from within the defence budget. It is a substantial sum that has risen by more than the rate of inflation in recent years and that makes a sizeable hole in what could otherwise be afforded in terms of defence equipment. I wish to see a redefinition of that expenditure.
  Secondly, substantial savings could be made in local administration and communication, which will cost about £903 million this year. That is an enormously large sum for a rather amorphous description of activities. I hope that those responsible for those activities will examine much more incisively what is involved to see whether costs can be cut.
  Thirdly, procurement should not be exempt from greater scrutiny. I know that the Select Committee examined it. The procurement executive, which is a large spender, should be subject to much more rigorous control and substantial change. Project definition, which has been the subject of improvement and where efficiencies have been made, needs even more economies and efficiencies. An inordinate amount of time is spent in the development process. To take a tactical combat aircraft as an example, we have been talking about that for more than five years. The time between taking the decision that we need such a weapons system and the time when it comes into service is often 10 or 15 years. Time costs an enormous amount of money in defence. We must try to reduce the entire development period and thereby save much money.
  Many schemes would stand a much better chance of going ahead if we made decisions earlier. The previous Government spent a long time on bilateral discussions with the French, the Germans and the Italians about whether we should have a single or double-vectored thrust on tactical combat aircraft. The discussions proceeded slowly and eventually the scheme was dropped because we could not sustain the cost. As a result there is great uncertainty about the future of an essential front-line piece of air defence equipment.
  Mr. Kenneth Warren: Can my hon. Friend comment on the fact that the British aircraft industry has not sold the RAF on the idea that it needs the P110? Is that not a waste of time?
  Mr. Nelson: That is not the information that I have. As my hon. Friend will know, the background to the project was an assessment of an air staff target. The RAF brought forward a blueprint of its requirements. There was an attempt by British Aerospace—rightly if it had to develop the scheme independently—to produce a tactical combat aircraft that would be attractive to other countries, as it was to Germany and Saudi Arabia. There must be more give and take by the RAF. The RAF changed its mind about what it required with the Harrier, so there is nothing sacrosanct about Air Staff targets.
  We have not maintained our commitment to increase defence expenditure by 3 per cent. a year in real terms since 1977. I make a serious allegation which, if it is true, could be used by Defence Ministers to much better advantage in the Cabinet when they say "We must have what we told the House and the public that we would have."
  The reality is that, because of Treasury voodoo and the way the figures are assessed in volume terms, the increase
  214
  since 1977 has been rather less than 3 per cent. a year. If the increase had been the full 3 per cent., as at 1975–76 prices, the estimated expenditure for this year would not be £14·09 billion but £14·7 billion. If we had maintained that commitment, I estimate that we would have over £600 million more to play around with. That is a substantial sum. The deficiency has spread over both Labour and Conservative Administrations.
  The Secretary of State may say that this year we are increasing the defence budget by 3·8 per cent. compared with the previous year, but that follows an increase in the previous year of only 1·8 per cent. Between 1980 and 1981 defence expenditure in 1975–76 terms, according to the latest estimates, increased by only 1·3 per cent. This year the increase is to be 3·8 per cent. Therefore, over the last two years the increase has averaged out at only 2·5 per cent.
  Even if we say that we are not responsible as a Government for what happened under the previous Administration, when, in one year, the budget fell in real terms, and if we look at what we have done since we came to power in 1979, we see that we have underperformed. We have short-changed ourselves on the defence budget. Instead of an increase of 3 per cent., there has been an increase of approximately 2·9 per cent. It may be said that that is a small difference, but it works out to about £50 million or £60 million.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will bear in mind that there is strong support from the Back Benches for Ministers who will argue the case more forcibly in the Cabinet that we must get not only the 3 per cent. increase that we were promised but a greater commitment towards our defence needs, which inevitably will require a greater political commitment, which I trust my speech has demonstrated.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I pay tribute to Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse, Commander-in-Chief of the Fleet, and his forces, on a brilliant feat of arms in the Falkland Islands campaign. I am thinking especially of the task force commander, Rear Admiral John Woodward, the ships' companies of the task force, General Moore and the soldiers and marines in his land forces, the men of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, the mercantile marine and the men and women who, stretching back to the United Kingdom from deep in the South Atlantic, made possible a most impressively improvised logistical tail.
  However, I reserve my special congratulations and my sympathy as well as admiration for the task force commander, Rear Admiral John Woodward. This was the first war that has been conducted almost on television. Unfortunately, he had to cart around in his flagship what appeared to be half of Fleet Street. As a result he now has to contend in the writing of his dispatches with judgments that have been made up and down the country by tens of thousands of armchair strategists. Some have already been arrogant enough to commit themselves on paper. Not surprisingly, they have been members of the press.
  Rear Admiral Woodward deployed his task force at an almost unprecedented distance from home base in the harshest possible environment and in the face of threats about which we can relax now, but he could not then. He was shipborne for weeks on end, planning as he went along. He was in regular contact, perhaps not always for

  215
  his peace of mind, with Northwood and Whitehall. Despite all those factors he achieved his objectives and preserved the core of the fleet.
  As has been said by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), a former sailor, the wonder is that there were not more losses. What losses there were were on the fringe. They were mainly of radar pickets. We grieve for those who were lost on the ships and those who were injured. But the wonder is that there were not more. As has been said today and last Thursday, it was a close run thing. Our eventual judgment will be that we are all enormously indebted to the man who carried the greatest responsibility on his shoulders, Rear Admiral John Woodward. He fulfilled the highest traditions of the Royal Navy.
  Those of us who have been fortunate enough to he in the Chamber for the whole of the debate will have been immensely stimulated by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I have taken the liberty of telling him that he gets better. His speech today was a tour de force. Although he was most provocative there cannot be any hon. Member who was not interested and, perhaps, charmed by what he had to say. Not even the Secretary of State, to whom he dealt some heavy blows, could have resented what he said. He backed up his charges with argument. The points that appealed most to me related to the continuing argument about a long or a short war. I agree that it is likely to be a long rather than a short war. If we allow ourselves to fall into the frame of mind that accepts that it will be a short war, we have lost before it begins. I include the Secretary of State and even some of my hon. Friends in that category.
  I also liked what my right hon. Friend said about there not being the right mix in our forces. He pointed out that the present structure was wrong, that there was a need for more balanced priorities and, therefore, more balance in our contribution to NATO. As he said, the matter can be reduced to a question of choice. I especially like his suggestion that the Labour Party has become the Navy party. Above all else, we must think hard about the charge that the structure of our forces is now unbalanced. Several hon. Members, notably the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Sir G. Johnson-Smith), insisted that the balance was right. I shall deal with that first.
  It is clear, upon examination of last Thursday's debate, that many hon. Members are prone to forget that we are members of an alliance. All of us are liable to fall into that trap, but we must assess defence needs against the background of that alliance's strategy and objectives. Both we and NATO must get our priorities right. The greatest problem of alliance planning, given the explosion in defence costs, is, as the Secretary of State said, resource allocation. I am sure that my right hon. Friend recognises that the budgetary constraints that bear heavily on the Secretary of State now are likely to intensify rather than to be relieved.
  That explains the growing call for burden sharing in the Alliance. It must point to a division of tasks between the members of the alliance. It points clearly to one of the major points of my right hon. Friend's argument. The United Kingdom should make its prime contribution, on a comparative task basis, on that which we do best, the historic maritime role.
  At the moment, Britain is trying to make an all-round contribution to the Alliance. We are trying to do too much
  216
  rather than doing that which we are best equipped to perform, historically, geographically and from the point of view of performance. As a result, there is too much penny-pinching between and within the Services rather than concentration of scarce resources in an efficient and comprehensive Service. That is best illustrated by the Secretary of State's cuts of the surface fleet.
  It is extraordinary how complacent some hon. Members have been today, despite what was said last Thursday. They have still not fully understood the seriousness of the Secretary of State's attacks on the Navy. It is no good the Secretary of State arguing—the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) accepted it—that we will go sub-surface in compensation. The Government have ordered only two SSNs in the past three years. They will do well to get one more out of existing capacity before it is commandeered for Trident which, as my right hon. Friend said, is substantially responsible for the present lack of balance. The House wants a balanced and interdependent force of not only SSNs and maritime patrol aircraft but also escort vessels and other surface units.
  Overall, greater precision in alliance priorities is required if we are to provide for the most efficient use of increasingly scarce resources, because the problem will continue and become more pressing. We are unlikely to achieve such precision, however, so long as we insist on maintaining the appearance of making an all-round contribution to the Alliance, rather like the United States. Furthermore, those same budgetary constraints, which are now also bearing more and more on the United States, could increasingly push us into a high risk strategy in the Atlantic in relation to reinforcement and resupply. Again, my right hon. Friend issued the sternest warnings about that. That commitment is largely ours in the East Atlantic and Channel. We can take no chances on that, because to do so might lower the nuclear threshold.
  Why does the Secretary of State persist with his 1981 defence review in the form and content of his 1982 Defence Estimates? Why is he intent on cutting our naval strength in the face of the ever-growing Soviet maritime threat that has been described by hon. Members on both sides of the House today? The effect on the Navy of his 1981 defence review has been dramatic. In addition to being saddled with virtually the whole bill for Trident, the naval programme has had to suffer cuts of £5 billion to £6 billion for the next nine years. Let me put that in perspective. Those cuts amounted to more than twice the funds lost by the Army, and more than seven times those lost by the RAF—on top of unbalanced and substantial reductions the previous year. Consequently, our overall military balance will be impaired and our flexibility to meet the unforeseen will be eroded.
  As my right hon. Friend reminded the House, we need only recall the cod war, the Beira patrol and the Gulf of Oman requirement, as well as the Falklands crisis, to appreciate examples of operations arising at short notice. They demonstrate typically the flexibility of maritime power through its presence and the wide range of options that it offers to diplomacy.
  In our lifetime, there can have been few more convincing demonstrations of the flexibility and effectiveness of sea power than that shown in the Falklands crisis. Nothing else would have done the job. Precisely the same forces appropriate to peace-time presence world wide through our annual global deployments and the

  217
  exercise of deterrence within the NATO area were suddenly called upon to submit to the test of war, seemingly on the other side of the world.
  Fortuitously, the Falklands crisis occurred before the cuts in the Navy's front line capability had gone too far down the road. As the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) mentioned, at the height of the crisis a party political handout was printed and circulated to local Conservative parties. I have a copy with me, but I need not discuss its points in detail. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned one or two of them. By dint of selective quotation, it sought to show that the doubts increasingly being voiced were groundless and that last year's defence review had—believe it or not—given the Navy more money, better capability, and so on. Like the defence review itself, that public relations exercise was a con trick. It was a catalogue of half truths or, as The Times put it on 21 June 1981,
  "some sleight of hand in ministerial explanations."
  Even some members of the Government have been saying that if Argentina had waited until 1985–86 it would have found more Royal Navy ships afloat. As I shall show, the Secretary of State said that in the House a few weeks ago, although not in relation to Argentina.
  Let us briefly examine one or two of those claims. The number of ships, for example, is vital not merely to our assessment of the defence review but because if offers useful comparisons between the performance of the Government, the Ministry of Defence and No. 10 and that of the previous Administration of the kind that have already been made in the debate.
  The word "operational" is open to several definitions. Leaving that on one side, we are facing a steady decline in the number of warships in the conventional fleet. When the Government took office there were 98 major warships—frigates and above—as well as submarines other than Polaris. By April 1982 the number was down to 86. Current plans, despite the Secretary of State's shipbuilding announcements last Thursday, show a further decline by the end of the decade. It follows that the statement by the Secretary of State in the House on 17 April that
  "we cannot be criticised for cutting back the conventional Navy, when it is far larger today than it was when we took office, and so it will be in the late 1980s."—[Official Report, 7 April 1982; Vol. 21, c. 1050.]
  is simply not true. Certainly new ships are entering service, but, as the Secretary of State said to me at Question Time yesterday week, this is almost overwhelmingly the result of orders placed by the Administration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East.
  The planned numbers of carriers, destroyers, frigates, nuclear submarines, Sea Harriers, Royal Marine Commando groups, assault helicopters, and Royal Fleet Auxiliaries are all fewer than those inherited from the Labour Government. Recent orders show that the shipbuilding figures in the handout are, again, highly selective. Of the 27 major warships that have entered service since 1979, or will enter service over the next five years—there is some interesting information to be found in answers to written questions in Hansard—only four type 22 frigates and two SSNs have been ordered by the Government. That is only four out of 27 major warships.
  Furthermore, the Government have so far placed orders, before last week's announcement—and that was
  218
  for only one ship—which average only half the value per year achieved by the Labour Government. That is an average expenditure of £300 million per year—the handout claims £400 million for last year—compared to £600 million per year under the Labour Government.
  However, the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces was brazen and misleading enough when replying to the debate last Thursday—I am sorry he is not here tonight—to refer to the
  "Government's inheritance of a defence machine which was starved of funds and equipment".—[Official Report, 1 July 1982; Vol. 26, c. 1129.]
  Mr. Blaker: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Duffy: Will the Minister therefore say what equipment the Government have been starved of since they came to office?
  Mr. Blaker: We inherited a situation in which the defence finances were running into an impossible position.
  Mr. Duffy: When I challenge the Minister, as I was prepared to challenge the Under-Secretary, to name one weapons system or one item of equipment of which the Government were starved by the previous Administration, he cannot do so. This is from a Government who dithered over the lightweight version of the Sea Wolf system that sailors were praying for a few weeks ago, dithered over Sea Eagle and have only confirmed the system in recent weeks, and who cancelled the improvement programme for the Sea Dart that was needed in the type 42s. Only now have the Government, after three years in office, made up their mind about the Sea King replacement and put in hand the type 23 frigate and type 2400 submarine.
  Mr. James Callaghan: The Government had better surrender.
  Mr. Duffy: There are many other consequences of the 1981 defence review that time does not allow me to mention. I shall content myself with referring to only two.
  Mid-life modernisation of destroyers and frigates is to be abandoned. That will result in increasing obsolescence in the surface flotilla weapons systems. I can understand the Under-Secretary of State's dilemma, but he should reconsider this again, not merely on account of the dockyards and support depots that are to be run down or closed but because it could prove to be a false economy. The second consequence of the review is that between 8,000 and 10,000 officers and men are to be made redundant by 1986, with a similar number in the last half of the costing period.
  Like many hon. Members, I wish to examine some of the lessons of the Falklands for the Royal Navy. The main lesson is the need to be able to cope with unexpected situations. We must retain flexibility and versatility as well as an adequate capability in our future Fleet. We were able to deploy quickly and effectively for the Falklands operation because we were living on the fat of the pre-1981 defence review. This did not amount merely to the ships and weapons systems that I have mentioned. There was also the setting up of the merchant shipping register in 1978. Did that not work brilliantly? Is the situation not contrary to the claims made last Thursday by the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces?
  Inherited from the previous Labour Government and available for the Falklands crisis were 55 running destroyers and frigates. Even so, others had to be brought forward from the disposal list. Moreover, there were still

  219
  three carriers if one includes "Illustrious" and five dockyards with no rundown in manpower. By the middle of the decade, we shall have only about 50 destroyers and frigates, of which as few as 42 might be operational, perhaps only two carriers in service, two dockyards and about 10,000 fewer naval officers and ratings. Afloat support will also have been seriously reduced.
  Greater risks will be taken with manpower and support. The fleet will possess markedly less flexibility. Two absurdities stand out against the background of the Falklands crisis. The first is the projected sale of "Invincible". The second is the cancellation of planned improvements in the Sea Dart weapon system. Its performance in action in the Falklands crisis was entirely as expected. It did not disappoint. It could not do any better. We are not now in a position to put in hand an improvement to the system. That is the responsibility of the Government.
  We must retain three carriers, including "Hermes", until "Ark Royal" is available in mid-1985. The Aussies have given us the opportunity but, contrary to the optimistic view of the hon. Member for Stretford, they clearly wish to return to the status quo ante. The Aussies will not let us off this hook if they can help it. We shall have to watch the sales pitch. We must improve the capability of surface forces, especially against aircraft and missile attack. We must have 50 destroyers and frigates in operation with none in the standby squadron. The dockyard capacity at Portsmouth must be expanded beyond the level announced last week. There must be consequential support ashore.
  Perhaps most important, given the Government's handling of the defence review or, as The Times put it, the Government's "sleight of hand", we need to look closely at battle casualty replacement. We cannot replace the two type 21s. We can replace the type 42 but cannot improve its missile system following the Government's decision last year. Realistically, we can only look to the type 22s. But the Government did not make a good start last week with its announcement of a single type 22 order. There is a time factor as with the "Fife", "Glamorgan" and "Bristol", which are to be retained. They can have a life expectancy of only six years before their missile systems become inadequate. Will the type 23 be ready by then, and in what numbers?
  On the Government's record to date, we can entertain little hope. We run the risk of being dangerously deficient at sea by the end of the decade. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East has suggested that the Opposition are now perhaps the Navy party. We know the dangers to which it may be exposed late in this decade if the Government's cuts in the surface fleet are allowed to pass.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: This has been an interesting and distinguished debate. I have enjoyed listening to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) whose speech I followed in a previous debate in the Chamber, as I did his contribution in the North Atlantic Assembly. The hon. Gentleman's comments were most useful. I respect the compliment that the hon. Gentleman paid to his right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) whose speech was also interesting and distinguished. There has been reference to the "Navy party". I hope that the right hon.
  220
  Member for Cardiff, South-East feels that the Navy party spans the whole of Portsmouth harbour, from his original home at Portsmouth to my constituency at Gosport.
  I should like to add my tribute to the men of the task force on behalf of the people of Gosport, with which the force is strongly connected. I pay tribute to the eight men from Gosport who lost their lives in the South Atlantic, the 22 men now in Haslar hospital, Gosport, and others who are badly injured and coming home by sea. We think of them and their families, those who waited and those who still wait. There have been a number of problems in fighting a war effectively in the blaze of the television cameras and the press. The number of difficulties with mail, personal and communications problems, has been comparatively small when one thinks that 26,500 families were separated. I pay tribute to the families, who behaved excellently.
  It is an extraordinary story of courage and professional skill. The civilians should be praised for preparing the task force. The Gosport-Portsmouth area was the main embarkation centre for the departure of the D-Day forces in 1944 and it was the main departure centre for the task force on this occasion. It is an excellent logistics centre with victualling and repair facilities, armaments, fuel, and personnel living close by. It makes the Portsmouth harbour area an excellent one-stop shop for the Fleet.
  I give strong support to the Government's overall strategy outlined in the White Paper although it has been under attack in some areas. We need to be involved in four areas—the nuclear deterrent, the home base, a presence in Europe and in the eastern Mantic, as well as our out-of-area capacity. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe and other hon. Members have made the point that we must grasp the essential truth that we are spending more and getting less. The pressure on resources has been enormous. The number of ships that the Navy had in 1950 is four and a half times the number it has now; it had twice as many submarines. The RAF had three times as many aircraft and the Army 300 more tanks. That is when we have spent more in real terms on defence and when the equipment budget has increased from 30 per cent. of defence expenditure to 46 per cent. of the budget. Those who talk about defence cuts talk about the diminished number of ships and aircraft and do not face the fact that we are suffering from disarmament by inflation. There is a real resources problem that must be grasped.
  The Government's response to the pressure on resources has been justified by the Falkland Islands crisis. Many commentators asked where the country would have been if it had had to face the Falkland Islands crisis and mount a task force in three years' time. How many people have asked where the country would have been had it been necessary to mount a task force in April 1979, when Service pay was well below the level accepted as being fair and when the previous Government had been building a number of ships? Cynics might say that the previous Government used defence as a job creation scheme. Ships were being built, but did they have the missiles, the torpedoes, the war stocks, the POL and the necessary facilities—the logistics of war? There are many ways in which the task force was better equipped and more capable than it would have been in 1979.
  I support the Government's strategy but there are some caveats that I have raised previously and that remain a matter of interest to me. The first is the need for the surface Fleet. We talk about the need for reinforcements from the

  221
  United States of America. Can we really expect the United States of America to pour men and equipment in American ships, protected by American warships, across the Atlantic and to provide the necessary war stocks unless we are prepared to play our part in providing the surface ships and submarine sea capacity needed in the eastern Atlantic? We have been devoting considerable resources there but they have been under pressure in recent years.
  The balance in the North Atlantic between NATO forces and Warsaw Pact forces shows that NATO has 43 submarines, excluding SSBNs, whereas the Warsaw Pact has 85. NATO has 73 surface ships to the Warsaw Pact's 52. These raw facts conceal the reality which is that the Warsaw Pact does not need its surface ships or submarines except to attack ours whereas we have a crucial and overriding need for sea support in times of emergency. Russia and its allies have available about 400 submarines, which is eight times the number with which Hitler faced us in 1939. This is a threat that we cannot ignore.
  The dockyard's future is linked with the future of the surface and the submarine fleets. I accept that we plan to have more ships operational in 1984 than in 1981 and that the previous style of mid-term refit may not be appropriate in future. However, I must put to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement that there may be a longer-term requirement for Portsmouth dockyard.
  In the shorter term I put it to my hon. Friend that the fleet returning from the South Atlantic will undoubtedly have repairs and refitting requirements that will last well beyond the end of the year. I am no expert in these matters but I anticipate that there must be a work load that will keep our dockyards going for a year or more and probably considerably longer than that. Is it possible for my hon. Friend to make a firmer commitment and to give a clearer indication of the shorter-term future of Portsmouth dockyard, which is the future spanning the repairs and refits of the South Atlantic fleet?
  When my hon. Friend has dealt with the so-called shorter-term needs of the ships and the requirements of the dockyard, I ask him to give an early indication of the dockyard's work load and the need for an updating of the missile packs and radar equipment, which everyone in the House accepts to be a necessity. There may not be a need for mid-term refits in the accepted sense, but I believe that there will be a need for updating the missile packs and missile kits that the ships carry. If we move to ships with modular construction, which will make it easier for missile packs to be replaced and updated, I expect that this will provide a work load for the dockyards.
  To these thoughts we must add the lessons learnt from the Falkland Islands, which should be specific rather than general. I do not think that we should completely change our defence posture or strategy because of the Falkland Islands conflict. The Fleet's capacity to mount such an effective exercise has proved that it was in good shape and appropriate for what are known as out-of-area operations. However, we must remember the vulnerability of surface ships to attack by, at best, a second-rate air force that used iron bombs.
  The Argentine fleet was not used. How would our surface fleet match the Russian fleet with its 400 submarines, of which about 85 are deployed in the Atlantic? The first and obvious lesson must be that, as far
  222
  as we can, we must go submarine. Secondly, in so far as we can, we must avoid the need for sea supplies by trying to build up essential stocks and considering ways of providing food supplies in emergencies in the United Kingdom rather than using the North Atlantic for food supplies and other essential reinforcements.
  Having done that, having updated our Merchant Marine and used that, having employed various ingenious ways of operating Harriers from container ships and having manned our merchant ships with guns and one or two other ingenious fitments, we shall still be left with a heavy demand for a surface Royal Navy to protect surface convoys. This means that we return to the resource argument. There are those who say that the resource argument is not a problem because resources can be found by scrapping Trident. That is an argument with which I do not agree but it is respectable arithmetically.
  Another answer is given by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who say that we should increase the resources that are made available to the Royal Navy, especially to the surface fleet. But we already spend a considerable percentage of our GDP on defence. It is a higher percentage than that spent by all of our allies, excluding Greece and the United States, which are special cases. If we ask for an increase from 3 per cent. to 4 per cent., we are entitled to ask "3 per cent. or 4 per cent. of what?" We are entitled to look sideways at our allies and to see if we can persuade them by negotiation and discussion to accept a higher percentage of the burden of defence within the NATO area. We cannot continue indefinitely to fulfil three roles well—our home-based role, our European role and our Atlantic role. One of the roles needs to be diminished.
  Have we analysed the threat? Where, for instance, do we want our Army to be if there should be a pre-emptive strike in Europe? Do we really want our Army to be on the Continent should it be subject to a pre-emptive strike? Our NATO allies should shoulder more of the burden in Europe for land forces. We are entitled to look to Germany, Norway and Denmark to commit more forces on the Continent. We are entitled to ask Canada why its percentage of gross domestic product for defence is only one-third of that which we provide for defence. I can understand the arguments that have been used against the point of view that I am expressing. I can understand that to the Army a roulement between Aldershot and Northern Ireland may not sound attractive but I am sure there are also ways of dealing with that.
  I say to the Secretary of State and to my hon. Friends, "If you want more money for defence, do not take on the Treasury and claim an even larger percentage of scarce resources. Take on the Foreign Office and persuade it to persuade our allies to take a greater share of the common burden."
  Whatever resources we devote to defence they will be of little value unless we have the resolution to use those forces. We have shown as a nation that we have that resolution and we can be proud of it because it is our greatest strength.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Ioan Evans: I join others in paying tribute to those courageous men who were involved in the Falklands conflict. The tragedy of the debate is that there seems to be an atmosphere in the House that we are on the eve of the third world war when we should be examining realistically the situation that we face.

  223
  The Prime Minister announced today that the long-awaited inquiry into the Falklands conflict is to take place. We should remind ourselves of the debate on Trident when the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) asked the Secretary of State why the Government were prepared to spend £10 billion on Trident when they were not prepared to spend £3 million on defending the Falklands. The Secretary of State replied:
  "I do not intend to get involved in a debate about the Falkland Islands now. These issues are too important to be diverted into a discussion on HMS 'Endurance'.".—[Official Report, 29 March 1982; Vol. 21, c. 27.]
  It is significant that the Secretary of State has restored HMS "Endurance" to defending the Falkland Islands. That shows the Government's complacency on defence matters. The position was compounded by the letter that was sent by the Prime Minister to Mrs. Nichols of Gerrards Cross on 3 February in which she said:
  "Our commitment to the territorial integrity of the Falkland Islands is not in doubt. Our judgment is that the presence of the Royal Marines garrison, which unlike HMS "Endurance" is permanently stationed in the Falklands, is sufficient deterrent against any possible aggression."
  That letter reveals the Government's complacent approach.
  The Opposition Front Bench has already put the case that the Labour Party is not a party of unilateral disarmers. That must be put clearly. There must be a defence force to defend our island, but choices must be made, and we believe that the Government are making the wrong choices in embarking on a massive expenditure on nuclear weapons.
  For some time now, prominent world leaders have warned us of the dangers of a nuclear conflict. I quote from a speech made by Lord Louis Mountbatten in Strasbourg on 11 May 1979. He spoke of a nuclear attack on Britain in the following terms:
  "In the event of nuclear war there will be no chances and there will be no survivors. All will be obliterated. I am not asserting this without having deeply thought about the matter. When I was Chief of Defence Staff I made my views known. I have heard arguments against this view but I have never found them convincing."
  There have been no convincing arguments in this debate for a further escalation of nuclear weapons. The words of Lord Mountbatten are just as true today. It was a tragedy that that man of peace was assassinated.
  Lord Zuckerman, the chief scientific adviser to the Government, said in a speech in America in November 1979:
  "As our own White Paper on Defence put it as long ago as 1957, there was then no means of protecting the nation against the consequences of a nuclear war. There is none today when the scale of attack may be 100 times greater than it was in the 1950s".
  We must recognise that we are living in a world that possesses 50,000 nuclear weapons with a destructive power of a million Hiroshimas. Why are the Government prepared to add to defence expenditure totalling £15 billion a further £10 billion on acquiring a nuclear weapon which, if used, will constitute failure? We are living in an Alice in Wonderland world when we talk about nuclear weapons. That is why it is important to talk about disarmament. We should not be escalating the arms race, which the Government are doing. We should seriously be talking with the Russians and others in an attempt to achieve multilateral disarmament. If we are prepared to take unilateral action to increase expenditure, we should consider taking unilateral action to reduce world tension.
  224
  Frank Blackaby, the chairman of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, said in his annual report:
  "During the past four years, world military spending has been following an upward trend at the rate of about 3 per cent. per annum (in volume). This is rather faster that in the previous four years in spite of the deteriorating performance of the world economy. So the burden measured as a share of the world total output has probably been rising. It is difficult to get a meaningful measure of the world total, for what it is worth the current dollar figure in 1981 was 600–650 billion dollars".
  That is the extent of the arms race. About £380 billion is now being spent. We must try to get ourselves out of this massive arms race, because if we are not careful we shall talk ourselves into a third world war.
  I do not believe that the United States or the Soviet Union will start a nuclear war. Those who have studied the consequences of such a war know that it must be avoided. That is why the Labour Party is putting forward a realistic policy by saying that if the Soviet Union and the United States possess nuclear weapons that can destroy the world 17 times over, we should stop other countries escalating that race.
  The danger is not that the super-powers will press a button and start a world war. The danger we face is that there may be a computer mistake. We could well have a war by accident.
  When the Prime Minister addressed the United Nations she said:
  "Let us face the reality. The springs of war lie in the readiness to resort to force against other nations and not in 'arms races' whether real or imaginary".
  "Imaginary"? They are real.
  Armaments are not simply the consequence of international tension. They are also a cause. That is why we must use our diplomatic efforts to reduce world tension because of the arms race, and why the Labour Party is right to reject the White Paper. It is already out of date in view of what has happened in the Falklands, but more than that it is on the wrong path in putting more of our eggs in the nuclear basket and cutting back on conventional forces. We should maintain our conventional forces to a greater extent than we can because of this massive nuclear expenditure. At the same time, we should reject the massive build-up of the arms race and the nation should play its part in the United Nations to get out of the arms race.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: Like other hon. Members, I wish to congratulate the task force on having done its job well. In particular, with my colleagues, the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), and Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson), the latter whom I am sure all hon. Members will be delighted to see in his place today. I wish to pay a particular tribute to the peculiarly civilian input to the task force from the people of Hull and Humberside. The North Sea ferry "Norland", the "Tor Caledonia", and the maids of all work, the ocean-going tugs "Yorkshireman", "Irishman"—that is a good combination—and "Salvageman", are less glamorous than the QE2 and the "Canberra", but equally important. Unfortunately, they are known in Hull as the forgotten ships, and their families are the forgotten families. Here I take up a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) about the families of the men on HMS "Endurance".

  225
  I quote from a local newspaper about the wife of somebody on the "Tor Caledonia". She says:
  "We have had no mail for six weeks and the company has had no information apart from a telegram saying they are alive and well.
  We don't know where they are or how long it will be before we get any news."
  The reporter says:
  "While one fully understands the necessity for security in order to safeguard the lives of men and the safety of ships, it is particularly galling to have specific queries dealt with in a negative, off-hand manner, and then hear the very news one has been asking about broadcast on television the same evening.
  Several times promises to ring back—even with negative answers—were unfulfilled—showing a deplorable lack of courtesy."
  In the case of the "Norland", relatives were told by the Department officials in Portsmouth that she was likely to be back in a fortnight, only to have this denied later and to be told that she would be back in mid-August. The relatives know that a job has to be done and are prepared to carry it through to its conclusion, but they are entitled to accurate knowledge. They should be the first to know, and I urge the Government that this should be so.
  I use Hull as an example. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East referred to his ship, but there must be many other wives and families in other ports who are baffled and confused by the conflicting stories that they hear. Hon. Members representing ports will know how a rumour can spread from central Hull to east Hull in 5 or 10 minutes, as it goes from family to family. Anguish and confusion grows and people wish to know about it.
  Two other matters worth mentioning here are of some importance. We hope that we shall have the same bands and the same official welcome home for the sailors from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels and for the civilian ships as were available for the more glamourous vessels. Secondly, it is incumbent on the Government to bring to an end this sudden cheeseparing and shoddy attitude demonstrated by the Admiralty over the payment of crews of RFA vessels, where the Government are now in dispute with the National Union of Seamen. There should be no distinction between civilians in either the RFA or the Merchant Navy who were in the task force. This important matter must be looked into.
  Today's business could have appeared on the Order Paper as the "Keith Speed justification debate". Rarely so quickly and so sadly has a Minister who has resigned been shown to be correct. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) has probably exercised more power and influence over naval matters from the Back Benches than he was ever allowed to at the Ministry.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) dealt with naval matters in great detail. We have yet to hear about the Royal Air Force and the problems of the P110, apart from what the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) said, and I agreed with much of what he said. So I want to discuss some of the thinking behind this increasingly irrelevant White Paper and to explain why Labour Members completely reject it.
  We shall vote "No" because we do not believe that the policies in the White Paper are relevant to the defence needs and the security of these islands. We have no confidence whatever in those who conduct our affairs in
  226
  this most sensitive national issue. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) said that the White Paper was "out of date" and contained few positive proposals.
  We believe that the Secretary of State should have used the occasion of the Falklands campaign to have a fundamental rethink of his policies and attitude towards NATO. Whether or not the Falklands is a one-off out-of-area exercise, its influence on future defence thinking is bound to be profound. It has not only been a laboratory for weapons and systems—as well as human bravery—but for political and diplomatic responses to crises, for consideration of allied support, and for strategic and tactical thinking.
  If the White Paper promised for the autumn is nothing but a tactical or professional examination of weapons and weapons systems, the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends—or perhaps his successor—will have lost a great opportunity for rethinking the whole position. He may come up with conclusions which are identical to those he has already reached, although I suspect not, but even if he does, the exercise will have proved worth while if he shows that he has not shut his mind to any of the lessons that one can learn from the Falklands dispute.
  There is an opportunity, as a result of some of these experiences in the out-of-area activity, to examine our whole attitude to NATO. Ever since the inception of the Alliance, we have concentrated our efforts on the European central front. Certainly it is the most politically sensitive area, but over the years it has proved to be the most stable area.
  The northern flank is very vulnerable, but it is particularly on the southern flank that stability in central Europe is most lacking. On that flank, NATO faces not only the Warsaw Pact, but an unstable region, where States with frustrated nationalism, fundamentalist religions, bursting populations, and great gaps between the rich and poor are threats to the world's peace and stability. Moreover, they sit astride sources of energy—if not ours, certainly those of our allies and the United States. Their social priorities and moral goals are alien to those of the materialistic philosophies of the East and West. We do not always understand them. They must give concern, because their actions sometimes appear to us irrational and unpredictable. We must therefore pay careful attention to the southern flank. For historical and political reasons, the main thrust of our largely static defence force is in Central Europe.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) and I suspect, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-east, and I, are not suggesting that RAF Germany or BAOR should be shipped home tomorrow. We are saying that in the decade after the Brussels treaty, NATO priorities should be re-examined, both in terms of what we are committed to in the Treaty and in terms of the task now facing NATO.
  In terms of our responsibilities, we must ask ourselves, "Do we really need such a large Rhine Army? Does it need to be stationed there permanently as a garrison on the Rhine? Could not units be rotated to Germany, as they are now from Germany to Northern Ireland, and that enormous tail of administration and families deployed in the United Kingdom?" Clearly, the Department has thought about the matter very carefully. It has shown much sensitivity in this regard. Otherwise, the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary would not have made so many assertions in the debate and produced so few arguments.

  227
  We should like to see the evidence because we believe that the additional expenditure in the United Kingdom would be more than offset by the foreign exchange earnings and by the increased job opportunities in the United Kingdom.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe spoke about the Fleet's capability and the reinforcement and supply that is needed across the Atlantic. I intend not to deploy those arguments but merely to assert that there was a great deal of wisdom in their attitudes. Firm consideration should be given to the points that have been made.
  We understand the sensitivities of our allies about such matters. However, we are the greatest European contributor to NATO and we are entitled not only to ask for an examination but to have it.
  The hon. Member for East Grinstead (Sir G. Johnson-Smith) should have had his facts right. Britain's total defence expenditure is the highest in Europe and, per capita, is second only to that of France. We may be a poor nation but we are contributing far more than many of the richer nations in Europe. It is quite right that they should be asked to make their contribution.
  I turn now to the item in the White Paper that governs the whole of the Government's defence policy and which takes an increasing share of defence expenditure, making us vulnerable as an island and less able to contribute in the most effective manner to NATO. That is the Trident programme.
  The Government argue for the Trident replacement as though it were just an up-market version of Polaris. It is not. Trident creates an immediate and significant escalation in the nuclear arms race. It is quantitively and qualitatively different from Polaris. Its range, precision and boasted ability to take out silos make it a strategic first-strike weapon. The number of its targetable warheads is 10 times greater than that of Polaris.
  Mr. Churchill: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that there is no sea-based system with a navigational system accurate enough to have a counter-silo capability. From that point of view it is not a first-strike weapon.
  Mr. McNamara: That may well be so, but it is still a first-strike weapon in terms of its ability—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Hon. Members should not talk about nonsense because there is an awful lot of that in the White Paper.
  Trident is a mere fig leaf to cover a significant escalation in the capacity, capability, accuracy and lethalness of Britain's strategic nuclear force. Labour will have none of it and a Labour Government will not carry it through.
  There are other arguments. The building of the Trident submarine will distort our building programme of hunter-killer submarines. The Secretary of State conceded that last Thursday when he referred to SSN19. Yet those submarines have demonstrated in the South Atlantic their ability to bottle up a hostile fleet without adequate ASW equipment. They are a powerful weapon against both the Russian surface and submarine fleets.
  On one matter I disagree with the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). There is still the need for a surface capability. We do not yet have a submarine from which we can launch either a Sea Harrier or a helicopter.
  228
  Trident also puts pressure upon funds available for defence spending. Already its cost has leapt to £7·5 billion at 1981 prices. Many commentators think that that figure is at least £10 billion now. With inflation and with untried systems, in building the submarines and the weapons system, prices are likely to escalate out of all proportion, distorting the defence budget and harming our conventional capability.
  No matter how much the Government massage the figures, that money could be available for defence and many chiefs of staff would have shopping lists for more effective conventional weapons which would improve our general defence capability.
  We could, for example, have paid money for something that the Secretary of State lamented that he could not pay for. I refer to the reopening of the Nimrod production line as a major defence and sales priority. Indeed, that might appeal to the hon. Member for Preston, North. We could have done with Nimrod and an advanced early warning facility in the Falkland Islands, provided that it had its air refuelling system. We could also have kept Chatham, Portsmouth and Gibraltar dockyards open. Naval dockyards are not only about defence, but about loyalties. Those loyalties are two-way; from the Government to the workers and from the workers to the Government. However, the Trident project has closed Chatham and has left the prospect of 30 per cent. local unemployment in Medway. It has ruined Gibraltar and has, at best, put Portsmouth on a life support machine. There would have been no need for the closures if we did not have Trident.
  Why do we have to have Trident? Talking of the aims of his policy, the Secretary of State said:
  "The first is the maintenance of a credible strategic nuclear capability to deter nuclear blackmail by our enemies."—[Official Report, 1 July 1982; Vol. 26, c. 1056.]
  The first and obvious observation is that our nuclear weapons—whether tactical or strategic—did not deter the Argentines. It is interesting that the Secretary of State did not refer on that occasion to an independent deterrent, although the Minister did this afternoon. To paraphrase the Prime Minister, we need Trident in case we stand alone. However, to justify our forces in Europe the Secretary of State talks of the need not to disturb the dormant isolationist tendencies in the United States.
  Therefore, the argument is that if the United States of America becomes isolationist and cuts itself off from the United Kingdom and Europe, we need our own independent deterrent. What independence? The missile and delivery system are American. The submarine and warhead are British, except of course for the explosive. The enriched uranium needed for the warhead is now to be manufactured in the United States of America.
  If the United States is not isolationist, we do not need Trident. If it becomes isolationist we shall have many big submarines and empty warheads, but nothing with which to deliver them. Apart from those minor difficulties we shall have in the Secretary of State's words an "independent nuclear deterrent". The Russians must be quaking! The greatest contribution that the Government could make to peace and to de-escalating the arms race would be to show, at the outset of the START negotiations, their determination not to go ahead with Trident. The next Labour Government will do just that.
  On Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford spoke about the cruise weapon controversy and quoted the Minister who had said that cruise missiles were

  229
  "intended by the United States, at the request of Europe, to demonstrate its commitment to the defence of Europe".—[Official Report, 1 July 1982; Vol. 26, c. 1075.]
  Therefore, cruise exists not for defence, but for political reasons. I never thought that the 200,000-strong United States forces on the Rhine were just searching for the Lorelei. If Europe wants a commitment from the United States it has it in those 200,000. However, in some ways we in Europe—and, indeed, in the world—must be grateful for American largesse. It has galvanised Europe and to a degree—but, for obvious reasons, only to a degree—Eastern Europe and particularly the young, into becoming aware of the dangers and horrors of the nuclear arms race and of the threat the weapons pose for mankind. Last autumn's massive demonstrations forced a change in presentation and—I hope—in policy in the United States of America and in its attitude towards the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Without those demonstrations there would certainly not have been any Geneva talks.
  We believe that the Government can help the progress of those talks in two ways. First, they can help the talks by not blindly supporting President Reagan's zero option. Secondly, they can help their progress by not unthinkingly attacking President Brezhnev's freeze proposals and the idea of a status quo. Both of those are negotiating positions that neither side can accept. The Russian status quo would lead to immense superiority in SS20s, which NATO could never accept. Equally, President Reagan's zero option, which does not include seaborne weapons, weapons in the United Kingdom, or the Fill flying from East Anglia, would give NATO a considerable edge that the Warsaw Pact would find unacceptable.
  We in the Labour Party believe that the overall European theatre nuclear balance must be considered. All NATO and Soviet nuclear weapons systems based in the geographical continent of Europe or targetted towards it must be included in the Geneva negotiations. That is what we believe, work for and wish to see happen.
  Thus, Labour regards the White Paper as completely unacceptable because of its first priority, Trident. From that first priority flow all the distortions and errors to which all parties have drawn attention. But if the White Paper is faulty, what of the judgments of its writers? Can we trust them and their judgment in the defence of these islands? The answer must certainly be "No". The policy was one of deterrence and it failed to deter the moment that the first Argentine marine landed on the Falklands.
  Let us examine the evidence in what might be called the first and only epistle of the blessed Margaret to her disciple Madge and the party assembled at Gerrards Cross. We read in chapter I verse 3:
  "Our commitment to the territorial integrity of the Falkland Islands is not in doubt. Our judgment is that the presence of the Royal Marine garrison, which unlike HMS Endurance"—
  Mr. Robert Atkins: We have heard it before.
  Mr. McNamara: Yes, the House has already had this quote and it will have it many times again—
  "is permanently stationed in the Falklands, is sufficient deterrent against any possible aggression."
  "Any possible aggression". The right hon. Lady's commitment may not have been in doubt but her judgment certainly was and her blunder led to the loss of 250 brave men and many proud ships.
  230
  Despite her posturings on Cheltenham race course, the right hon. Lady appeared not as Britannia triumphant but more as an Ethelreda the Unready. It was her blunder, yet she has the gall to say to her right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath):
  "I am sure my right hon. Friend would not wish to prejudice a judgment made on a very distinguished Foreign Secretary".—[Official Report, 1 July 1982; Vol. 26, c. 1039–40.]
  I suspect that she is concerned not so much to justify Lord Carrington as to protect her own position. It was her blunder.
  After all, as Prime Minister the right hon. Lady transferred the evaluation of intelligence functions from the Foreign Office to the Cabinet Office, her own Department, over which she had precise and direct control. If we cannot trust her judgment to protect the Falklands, what possible reason have we for trusting her judgment, or that of her Secretary of State—the office boy living on borrowed time—to protect the British Islands? They could not protect a whelk stall.
  So the right hon. Lady blundered and the task force sailed to save the Falkland Islands, but it was sent by a Government more intent on saving themselves. The right hon. Lady is still seeking to do that, as she tried to do in her speech at Cheltenham racecourse, when she tried to justify nearly 4 million people unemployed.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: She is a better bet than you are.
  Mr. McNamara: I would not be so sure, brother. One thing is certain, you will not be back in the next Parliament to collect it.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that. [Laughter.]
  Mr. McNamara: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. You may not be here then, but you will be missed by us all. The hon. Member for Preston, North certainly will not be here in the next Parliament. After all, we know he is hurriedly looking round for constituencies despite requests from his office not to do so.
  Let us get back to Cheltenham racecourse. The right hon. Lady tried on that occasion to use nearly 4 million unemployed, a failing economy, social distress and a breakdown in our social cohesion as reasons for her success in the Falklands. Now it appears from her comments last week that she is trying to use the thanksgiving service at St. Paul's cathedral to achieve that same purpose.
  Did the 250 men die for that? Is that why a task force went to the Falkland Islands, or did we go to liberate people and to secure their independence and their right to self-determination? The right hon. Lady's behaviour during the past few weeks over the defence of the Falkland Islands has been beneath contempt. For that reason, we cannot vote for the White Paper. We have no trust in it or in the Government and we wish to see the back of them all.
  9.29 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) may well feel that he has crossed the line in some of his concluding remarks when he reads them tomorrow.
  It is hardly surprising that many participants in the debate have concentrated on the Falklands campaign rather than on the contents of the defence White Paper.

  231
  [Interruption.] I shall do so myself. A fair amount of emphasis has been given to the Falkland Islands by Ministers. That is as inevitable as it is right.
  Before the debates some people criticised the Government for publishing a White Paper at all, thereby posing the intriguing prospect of a defence White Paper debate without a defence White Paper. Such critics ignore the make-up of a defence White Paper, which is part policy, part finance and part an end-of-term report dealing with a variety of military deployments and exercises.
  The publication of a necessarily pre-Falklands White Paper underlines the Government's firm belief that, whatever the so-called lessons and conclusions of that campaign may be, the main threat continues to lie with the Soviet Union. It is all the more important that the Falklands campaign with its special and even unique problems should not necessarily become the arbiter of defence priorities in the NATO area.
  There is, however, one very clear lesson and that is the vital importance to this country of a strong and vigorous defence industrial base. In a moment I wish to pay tribute to the exceptional performance of British industry throughout the Falklands conflict. I have some examples that I wish to share with the House. Many remarkable stories of industrial performance are yet to be told.
  The key element in the performance of industry was speed of response. It is worth bearing it in mind that every time we buy systems from abroad, to the detriment of our industry, we run the risk of undermining that capacity to respond quickly, a capacity that was crucial in the Falklands conflict.
  British companies have been extremely co-operative, inspired greatly by public recognition of the emergency as being both national and genuine. Action has often been launched in response to requests by word of mouth from controllerate staff, with the necessary paperwork following later.
  There are obvious implications in that for the modus operandi of the procurement process. If the paperwork and the procedures can be circumvented in the national interest, why can that not happen all the time? Some people have suggested that it was possible only because financial constraints were removed. That is not the case and I would go so far as to say that, in many instances, the total cost would be cheaper because of the shorter time taken to carry out a project. That aspect will form part of the post-Falklands analysis.
  The response by large and small companies has been excellent. Most hon. Members will have many examples of dedicated and unstinting effort from their constituencies. I emphasise that my examples are only examples and that our thanks and gratitude go to all of those whom I cannot mention for reasons of time.
  As was quoted in the Sunday Telegraph on 4 July:
  "Sabre Safety, a small company in Aldershot make a range of safety equipment such as breathing sets. The Navy had originally planned to purchase 2,000 of its Elsa (Emergency Life Support Apparatus) sets, but a week after the sinking of the Sheffield, this was increased to 11,000. Since the Elsa gives a person trapped in a fire eight minutes of extra air, the Navy's urgent interest was obvious.
  Sabre's problem was how to increase production of the Elsa from 50 to 2,000 a week to accommodate what was a £1 million contract, a big one for a company with a 1981 turnover of around £2 million.
  Yet by augmenting its 76 strong workforce with 11 extra staff, working up to seven days a week and getting the co-operation of
  232
  suppliers, Sabre was able to deliver—ahead of schedule. Remarkably, it has also been able to maintain production of its other products.
  A similar story is told by Peter Lockey, joint managing director of Newcastle-based Berghaus, which specialises in high-quality rucksacks. Before the Falklands crisis, around 700 special rucksacks had been sold to what Lockey terms 'specialist units' of the Army.
  A week before the Queen Elizabeth 2 sailed, Berghaus was asked if it could produce another 3,000 rucksacks. Back came the answer that this was impossible in such a short time The MOD persisted and asked if it could have 600.
  Lockey believed that this was still impossible but a mass meeting of the rucksack section of his 280-strong workforce convinced him it could be done."
  Mr. Denzil Davies: Without a ballot.
  Mr. Pattie: The point that the right hon. Gentleman finds so amusing is that I am trying to make it clear to him and the House that the performance of British industry has been exceptionally good. The management and the work force, in which the right hon. Gentleman is supposed to be interested, by working from dawn to dusk over a weekend, supplied all those goods.
  With regard to shipping, particular mention ought to be made of the civilian shipyards that were involved. A notable example of these was Vosper Shiprepairers at Southampton, which converted at great speed some 11 ships, including the Queen Elizabeth 2 and the Canberra, involving extensive overtime working, including night shift and weekend working. Swan Hunter Shipbuilders on the Tyne achieved a two-and-a-half month advancement in the completion of HMS "Illustrious" by a combination of redeployment, overtime and night shift working and some short-term recruitment, all of which effectively doubled the labour input for the vessel for the period mid-April to mid-June. Yarrow Shipbuilders achieved a three-and-a-half month advance in the completion of HMS "Brazen" by introducing a night shift and extensive overtime. At Cammell Laird HMS "Liverpool" has been delivered 12 months ahead of schedule, an excellent achievement.
  The Royal Ordnance factories have also played a prominent part. Among the items supplied to meet urgent requirements were 4·5 in. naval gun spares and ammunition, Sea Skua anti-ship missile warheads, safety and arming units for Sea Cal anti-aircraft missiles, depth charges and a number of other explosives for Royal Engineers' use. For Rapier, which was, of course, of significant importance in the land element of the campaign, British Aerospace Dynamics provided spares and advanced modifications at very short notice, in parallel with its subcontractors, Marconi Space and Defence Systems, which make the Rapier Blindfire radar. The same two companies were also heavily involved in responding to the urgent need to produce Sea Skua missiles rapidly before the main task force sailed. Night vision equipment and communications were also the subject of hectic activity, with. Thorn/EMI, Marconi Avionics, Rank Taylor Hobson and MEL and their subcontractors working long hours to fulfil additional requirements.
  Hercules transport planes were also converted for in-flight refuelling by Marshalls of Cambridge. The modification was achieved in two-and-a-half weeks by dint of round-the-clock working and dedicated effort, providing an inspiring example. The conversion of the Nimrods, the anti-submarine reconnaissance aircraft, for in-flight refuelling, was an early priority. The task was

  233
  carried out by British Aerospace, Manchester division, in 17 days, the firm having been given a tight deadline of 21 days. To have beaten that deadline and converted the required number of aircraft within 30 days of the go-ahead is an outstanding feat
  Conversion of helicopters has been another essential task, in particular the provision of a rocket-firing capability by Westland Helicopters for Gazelle. Staff of the contractor worked round the clock over the Easter weekend to produce the necessary modification kits and designed, produced and cleared the installation within a few days.
  Electronic firms have also been required to work near-miracles. Smiths Industries produced a major new software programme for the Sea Harriers in a matter of days. Ferranti doubled the production rate of Blue Fox radars for the same aircraft and also planned and organised a modification programme that could be carried out on board the carriers while the task force was in transit, two engineers sailing with the fleet to do the job.
  The examples that I have given illustrate, I hope sufficiently clearly, the ingenuity, adaptability, and sheer hard work displayed in all parts of the industry throughout the crisis. Management and work forces alike gave unstintingly of time and effort. Weekends and holidays were disregarded in the interests of getting the job done and industry can be proud of having matched the efforts of our fighting troops during this testing period. It can rightly share in the credit for success.
  Mr. Allen McKay: The hon. Gentleman has given a list of achievements by British industry of which Members of the House and people outside are well aware, because there is no work force like the British work force in time of emergency. Will he now tell that work force how the Government intend to win the peace and get the 4 million back to work?
  Mr. Pattie: Within the confines of a defence debate, I thought it appropriate to place on record our appreciation of what industry has done. Time does not allow me to do true justice to the magnificent support provided by the civilian staff of the Ministry to the armed forces during the crisis. I merely itemise some of them. Without the men of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and their ships, the task force could not have refuelled, rearmed and revictualled. The Royal Navy Supply and Transport Service issued and transported massive quantities of weapons, ammunition, food, fuel, general stores and spares from its United Kingdom depots, at sea on the RFAs and from the air bridgehead on Ascension Island. The Royal Maritime Auxiliary service was deployed for possible salvage operations. I mention, too, the large numbers of key civilian staff in the Army, Navy and Air Force departments, both in headquarters buildings and at outstations, the procurement executive, the Metereological Office, the research establishments, and last but not least the royal dockyards, which bore the brunt of the task of civil conversions and refits of Royal Navy and RFA ships. It has been said in some newspapers that these men and women are the forgotten heroes of the Falklands campaign. They are not forgotten, and I pay tribute to them all.
  The key question underlying all contributions to the debate has been the allocation of resources. My hon.
  234
  Friends the Members for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), Gosport (Mr. Viggers), Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and East Grinstead (Sir G. Johnson-Smith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) all argued powerfully for more expenditure on defence. I am sure that the Treasury and the Foreign Office will have noted what has been said. I certainly hope so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) raised a series of points. He asked what would happen to the Argentine equipment captured in the Falkland Islands. Some of the aircraft and helicopters will be brought back here. The small arms are still being catalogued, which is an extensive and lengthy process. My hon. Friend also mentioned requisition powers. To the best of my belief, they are adequate, but in the light of his comments I shall certainly look into the matter.
  With regard to Trident, I am aware that many people in British industry feel that the arrangement with American industry may not be starting as well as it might. I can tell my hon. Friend now, however, that the next stage is the publication of the guide produced by the strategic systems project office and now being widely disseminated to British industry. This is the jumping-off point for British companies to see the American prime contractors and get the business.
  The air staff target 1227 "Alarm and Harm" will be the subject of a statement in the fairly near future.
  I turn to the P110, on which I know that for a few sparse moments I shall have the attention of the hon. Member for Kingson upon Hull, Central. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester also supported the P110. I assure the House that hardly a day goes by without our discussing this programme with British Aerospace or other companies. In an extremely interesting intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) asked whether it was true that the Royal Air Force had doubts about the acceptability of the P110. To put it another way, the key question at the moment is whether the P110 satisfies the needs of AST403. I remind my hon. Friends especially that the "T" in "AST" stands for "target" and that the next step is to translate that air staff target into an air staff requirement. Some work will need to be done and only at that stage can a contract be let and a contract placed. Much work is going into this at present and I shall certainly keep the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North closely informed
  Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my hon. Friend recognise the urgency of a decision, whether or not it be converting from target to requirement, bearing in mind that the private venture capital must end, probably by the end of this year?
  Mr. Pattie: I assure my hon. Friend that the urgency, the timing and the needs of British industry are well appreciated.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion felt that certain lessons had come from the Falklands campaign that vindicated the recent reorganisation in the Ministry of Defence, and vindicated the decision not to have national service but to favour all voluntary forces, as was decided some years ago. It also vindicated our choice of equipment. He rightly felt that we should consider the growing global threat from the Soviet Union and what he described as the window opportunity that is in its favour.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden) made another extremely eloquent and passionate

  235
  speech on behalf of Chatham dockyard and rightly drew attention to the first-class work done at Chatham to help the task force.
  The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) asked about HMS "Endurance". HMS "Endurance" has been involved in the operation from the beginning and has played a uniquely valuable role. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, she has been in the South Atlantic for a considerable time. I can understand that the families of her crew are anxious for her return. "Endurance" will be returning to the United Kingdom as soon as is operationally possible and we are taking into consideration the time she has been deployed. I cannot as yet, for operational reasons that the right hon. Gentleman will understand, give the actual date of her arrival in the United Kingdom. The long association of "Endurance" with the Falkland Islands and her familiarity with the operating conditions in the South Atlantic have made her peculiarly and particularly useful. That is why it is not yet possible to release her.
  Mr. James Callaghan: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to create greater uncertainty with that general reply. The families who have been in touch with me understood that "Endurance" would be returning in September. To say that she will be returning at some time in the future will reawaken that uncertainty. Their case is that, because "Endurance" has been in the South Atlantic so long and because they understood that she would be one of the earliest ships to return, they want to know whether she can return before September. I understand that the ship's company would also like to know.
  Mr. Pattie: This enables me to refer to an important point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central. I realise that rumours are rife in ports with people saying that this or that is to happen. Where there is uncertainty we shall do everything possible to remove the periods of uncertainty quickly. It is clearly not in anyone's interest that these families should be anxious for longer than is necessary.
  I remind the House that these are not peacetime conditions. As regards the South Atlantic, we have still not received agreement from the Argentine Government that, apart from a ceasefire, they are prepared to end hostilities. Therefore, it is necessary to make sure that operational considerations apply.
  Sir Frederick Burden: My hon. Friend has made an important statement. Unless we can be assured of peace, it is wrong to consider the lessons and make provision in the dockyards for what work is necessary until the ships return.
  Mr. Pattie: We are making what provisions we can for the ships that are at present returning.
  Mr. James Callaghan rose—
  Mr. Pattie: I prefer not to give way. I intend to deal with other points that the right hon. Gentleman has made. I assure him that if he is still unhappy about the point I shall write to him. I hope that I have given the assurance that we shall try to end the uncertainty.
  Several hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, have used the phrase that if the Falklands campaign had happened two years from now Britain could not have coped. The facts simply do not
  236
  support this argument. It has been suggested in the polemics of the debate that the task force was made up of sailors most of whom had redundancy notices in their pockets. There were almost 10,000 sailors in the task force. Ninety of them had redundancy notices; five were compulsory and 85 voluntary. I wish to put that point in context.
  It has also been suggested that most of the ships were on their way to the scrap yard, were being sold or something of that sort, and that for these reasons the operation could not possibly have been mounted in two years. I shall say just one more time what has been stated on several occasions. We have two carriers, "Invincible" and "Hermes". Before either was disposed of, they would be replaced by other carriers of the "Invincible" class. I refer to the "Illustrious" and the "Ark Royal". We are therefore talking about two carriers that are operational now. The question about being able to mount the operation in two years time is perfectly fair. It is also true to say that of the 42 warships that have been deployed in the task force six were on the disposal list.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the "Invincible". Can he say tonight that the "Invincible" will not be sold to Australia?
  Mr. Pattie: No, I cannot. I am also glad to have the opportunity to say in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford, who prematurely announced that we had taken that decision, that his announcement was premature.
  The right hon. Members for Cardiff, South-East and for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) spoke about the balance between our forces. I regarded their contributions as almost a continuation of last year's White Paper debate. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said that our forces had been unbalanced for years. The right hon. Gentleman is a pretty authoritative source to be saying that, and to be saying that it was also true in his day. It is not sufficiently appreciated that this unbalance of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks has occurred more within a Service than between Services. It is all very well to say that the Navy should be doing this or the Air Force doing that. What about the balance that is provided and contributed towards our defence efforts within a Service? If the Government were as hostile to surface ships as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply, we would hardly be bringing forward the type 23 frigate with such care and attention. We are making it a general purpose frigate to give precisely the flexibility that the right hon. Gentleman requires.
  Of course we rely on sea routes but we have to take account now of the speeds of merchant vessels, which are vastly different from what they were in 1943. An escort vessel that turns aside to prosecute a possible target or contact 30 or 40 miles away from the ships it is escorting will have its work cut out to catch up with the vessels it is escorting. We are looking at new techniques of protected lanes and of getting convoys to their destination. It is important that we keep up with technology and that we make ships capable of improvement without the major refits that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined in his White Paper last year. Several people have said that the choice is still between more platforms or better weapons. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intervened during the speech of the right hon.

  237
  Member for Cardiff, South-East to say that the fundamental question remains one of resources: where will we get the resources from? In the Labour manifesto of 1979—not from futuristic documents—we saw:
  "We shall continue with our plans to reduce the proportion of the nation's resources devoted to defence"
  The last election was fought on that issue but we are now told that we must have new resources. I was disappointed that a former Prime Minister, in the search for resources, should point the finger at the British Army of the Rhine, without apparently considering the critical effect that will have on the cohesion of the Alliance and on the apparent perception by the United States of America of our ability in Europe to resist. He is against Trident, and I find that the saddest thing of all. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman can take that position. We either want a strategic nuclear capability or we do not. If we want one it has to be effective.
  The right hon. Gentleman was the Prime Minister in a Government who took the leading role in achieving the Chevaline improvement programme. Apparently that was all right, but we are now to continue until some unspecified future date and just fall off the end. The right hon. Gentleman apparently knows more about what will happen than the rest of us.
  Mr. Douglas: I return to the issue of mid-life refits. Where would the "Yarmouth" have been if it had not had an extensive refit?
  Mr. Pattie: The "Yarmouth" would have satisfied operational requirements perfectly well. The hon. Gentleman has raised several detailed points that are important. I do not have time to respond in detail but I shall write to him after the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead in an excellent speech took a position which has not been fashionable. He argued the case for retaining BAOR because in-place forces outweigh the value of reinforcements. That was the line followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) asked whether his hovercraft would feature in the competition in October. The answer is "Yes".
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, in a first-class speech, stressed the importance of air power. He pointed to some possible savings, in which of course we are interested. He talked about pensions, local administration and communications, and the procurement executive, which is of interest to many hon. Members.
  The Falklands conflict revealed the usual spectrum of opinion, ranging from those who do not want a task force, those who want the task force sent provided it is never used to those who are prepared to accept that force had to be used to resist an aggressor after all diplomatic efforts to resolve the matter had failed.
  Before we indulge in such a welter of analysis and inquiry that we begin to doubt whether we won we must remember that the Falkland Islands were invaded by Argentina on 2 April and British troops re-entered Port Stanley on 14 June. Whatever arguments there are about weapons systems and detailed operations, there can be no escaping the fact that many things went right. If they had not gone right we should not yet be in Port Stanley.
  238
  The Falkland Islands campaign subjected British forces to the most vigorous series of challenges faced for many years, and they were overcome by superior motivation, training and sheer professionalism.
  Mr. John Roper rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 30, Noes 295.

  Division No. 257]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Bradley, Tom

  Magee, Bryan

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Cartwright, John

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Penhaligon, David

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Freud, Clement

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Ginsburg, David

  Sandelson, Neville

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Horam, John

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Howells, Geraint

  Wellbeloved, James

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillhead)

  Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Maclennan, Robert

  McNally, Thomas

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Alexander, Richard

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Ancram, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Arnold, Tom

  Churchill, W. S.

  Aspinwall, Jack

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

  Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

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

  Cockeram, Eric

  Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

  Colvin, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Cope, John

  Banks, Robert

  Cormack, Patrick

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Corrie, John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Best, Keith

  Critchley, Julian

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Crouch, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Blackburn, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Blaker, Peter

  Dover, Denshore

  Body, Richard

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bowden, Andrew

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Eggar, Tim

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Elliott, Sir William

  Bright, Graham

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Brinton, Tim

  Eyre, Reginald

  Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

  Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Brotherton, Michael

  Farr, John

  Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

  Fell, Sir Anthony

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Bryan, Sir Paul

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

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Buck, Antony

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Budgen, Nick

  Forman, Nigel

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Butcher, John

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  239

  Fry, Peter

  Marten, Rt Hon Neil

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Mawby, Ray

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Goodhew, Sir Victor

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Gorst, John

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Gow, Ian

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Gray, Hamish

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Greenway, Harry

  Moate, Roger

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Grist, Ian

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Moore, John

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Morgan, Geraint

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Hannam, John

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mudd, David

  Hastings, Stephen

  Murphy, Christopher

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Myles, David

  Hawkins, Sir Paul

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Needham, Richard

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Neubert, Michael

  Heddle, John

  Newton, Tony

  Henderson, Barry

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hicks, Robert

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Osborn, John

  Hill, James

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hooson, Tom

  Parris, Matthew

  Hordern, Peter

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Pattie, Geoffrey

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

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Irvine, Bryant Godman

  Pollock, Alexander

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Porter, Barry

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Jessel, Toby

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rathbone, Tim

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Renton, Tim

  Kimball, Sir Marcus

  Rhodes James, Robert

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Knox, David

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lamont, Norman

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Lang, Ian

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Latham, Michael

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Rossi, Hugh

  Lee, John

  Rost, Peter

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Loveridge, John

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Luce, Richard

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Shepherd, Richard

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shersby, Michael

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Silvester, Fred

  MacGregor, John

  Sims, Roger

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Smith, Dudley

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Speller, Tony

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

  Spence, John

  Madel, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Major, John

  Sproat, Iain

  Marland, Paul

  Squire, Robin

  Marlow, Antony

  Stainton, Keith

  240

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Stanley, John

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Steen, Anthony

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Stevens, Martin

  Waller, Gary

  Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

  Walters, Dennis

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Ward, John

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stokes, John

  Watson, John

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Wells, Bowen

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wheeler, John

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Whitney, Raymond

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Wickenden, Keith

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Thompson, Donald

  Wilkinson, John

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Trippier, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Trotter, Neville

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Viggers, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Waddington, David

  Mr. Anthony Berry and

  Wakeham, John

  Mr. Carol Mather.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 219.

  Division No. 258]

  [10.13 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

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

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Alexander, Richard

  Chapman, Sydney

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Churchill, W. S.

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

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

  Ancram, Michael

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Arnold, Tom

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Cockeram, Eric

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

  Colvin, Michael

  Atkins, Hobert (Preston N)

  Cope, John

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

  Cormack, Patrick

  Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)

  Corrie, John

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Banks, Robert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Critchley, Julian

  Bendall, Vivian

  Crouch, David

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Best, Keith

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dover, Denshore

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Blackburn, John

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Blaker, Peter

  Dykes, Hugh

  Body, Richard

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Eggar, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Bowden, Andrew

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Eyre, Reginald

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

  Bright, Graham

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Brinton, Tim

  Farr, John

  Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

  Fell, Sir Anthony

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Brotherton, Michael

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

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

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Forman, Nigel

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Buck, Antony

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Budgen, Nick

  Fry, Peter

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Butcher, John

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  241

  Goodhew, Sir Victor

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Gorst, John

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Gow, Ian

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Gray, Hamish

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Greenway, Harry

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Grist, Ian

  Moore, John

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Morgan, Geraint

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Hannam, John

  Mudd, David

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Murphy, Christopher

  Hastings, Stephen

  Myles, David

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hawkins, Sir Paul

  Needham, Richard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Neubert, Michael

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Newton, Tony

  Heddle, John

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Henderson, Barry

  Onslow, Cranley

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Hicks, Robert

  Osborn, John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Hill, James

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Parris, Matthew

  Hooson, Tom

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Hordern, Peter

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Irvine, Bryant Godman

  Pollock, Alexander

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Porter, Barry

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillhead)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Jessel, Toby

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Renton, Tim

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Kimball, Sir Marcus

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Knox, David

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Lamont, Norman

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Lang, Ian

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Latham, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rossi, Hugh

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Rost, Peter

  Lee, John

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Loveridge, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Luce, Richard

  Shepherd, Richard

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Shersby, Michael

  McCrindle, Robert

  Silvester, Fred

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Sims, Roger

  MacGregor, John

  Smith, Dudley

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Speller, Tony

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Spence, John

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

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Madel, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Major, John

  Squire, Robin

  Marland, Paul

  Stainton, Keith

  Marlow, Antony

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Marten, Rt Hon Neil

  Stanley, John

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Steen, Anthony

  Mawby, Ray

  Stevens, Martin

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Stokes, John

  242

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Waller, Gary

  Tapsell, Peter

  Walters, Dennis

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Ward, John

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Warren, Kenneth

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Watson, John

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Wells, Bowen

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Thompson, Donald

  Wheeler, John

  Thome, Neil (Ilford South)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Whitney, Raymond

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wickenden, Keith

  Trippier, David

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Trotter, Neville

  Wilkinson, John

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Viggers, Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Waddington, David

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wakeham, John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Mr. Anthony Berry and

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

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

  Adams, Allen

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

  Allaun, Frank

  English, Michael

  Alton, David

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Anderson, Donald

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Ewing, Harry

  Ashton, Joe

  Fitch, Alan

  Atkinson, H. (H'gey,)

  Flannery, Martin

  Bagier, Gordon A.T.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Ford, Ben

  Beith, A. J.

  Forrester, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Foster, Derek

  Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

  Foulkes, George

  Bidwell, Sydney

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

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Freud, Clement

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

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Buchan, Norman

  Golding, John

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Gourlay, Harry

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

  Graham, Ted

  Campbell, Ian

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Canavan, Dennis

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

  Cant, R. B.

  Hardy, Peter

  Carmichael, Neil

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clarke, Thomas C'b'dge, A'drie

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Heffer, Eric S.

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

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

  Coleman, Donald

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

  Cook, Robin F.

  Homewood, William

  Cowans, Harry

  Hooley, Frank

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

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

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

  Howells, Geraint

  Crowther, Stan

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Cryer, Bob

  Huckfield, Les

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

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

  John, Brynmor

  Deakins, Eric

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Dewar, Donald

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

  Dixon, Donald

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Dobson, Frank

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dormand, Jack

  Kerr, Russell

  Douglas, Dick

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Dubs, Alfred

  Kinnock, Neil

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lambie, David

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Lamborn, Harry

  Eastham, Ken

  Lamond, James

  243

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Morton, George

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Newens, Stanley

  Litherland, Robert

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  O'Neill, Martin

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  McCartney, Hugh

  Palmer, Arthur

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Park, George

  McElhone, Frank

  Parker, John

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Parry, Robert

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  McKelvey, William

  Pendry, Tom

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Penhaligon, David

  McMahon, Andrew

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Prescott, John

  McTaggart, Robert

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  McWilliam, John

  Race, Reg

  Marks, Kenneth

  Radice, Giles

  Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

  Richardson, Jo

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Maxton, John

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Robertson, George

  Meacher, Michael

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Rooker, J. W.

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Ryman, John

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Sever, John

  244

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Tinn, James

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Torney, Tom

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Watkins, David

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Weetch, Ken

  Silverman, Julius

  Welsh, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  White, Frank R.

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Snape, Peter

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Spearing, Nigel

  Whitlock, William

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Stallard, A. W.

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Steel, Rt Hon David

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

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Stoddart, David

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Stott, Roger

  Winnick, David

  Strang, Gavin

  Woodall, Alec

  Straw, Jack

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Wright, Sheila

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Tilley, John

  Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1982, contained in Cmnd. 8529.

  National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors)
  10.25 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the statement on the Order Paper that the instrument has not been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments? That is not the case, because the Joint Committee considered the instrument at its meeting this afternoon. The Committee asked the Clerk to make representations to the Leader of the House because the Committee took evidence from representatives of the Department of Health and Social Security which is linked to the statement that has been placed in the Vote Office by the Committee this evening in order to help the House.
  The evidence could not be printed in time and therefore the Clerk was asked to contact the office of the Leader of the House to see whether this instrument could be deferred and the prayer dealt with next week. The Committee asked that it should be dealt with in that way because the Leader of the House represents the Government who have control over the time of the House. It is not the Opposition who dictate the time for a prayer to be put down and debated.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Joint Committee is set up under a Standing Order of the House. The Committee feels that it is extremely foolish for the House to set up a Committee and entrust it with the job of examining instruments and, where a report has to be made, for the House then to ignore the Committee's report by going ahead with the debate tonight.
  I should like you, Mr. Speaker, to look at this matter with a view to enforcing the Standing Order in such a way that this position cannot occur again.
  Mr. Speaker: This prayer was put down by the Leader of the Opposition and Opposition Members and I must follow the Order Paper. However, if the Opposition do not wish to pursue it, the simple remedy is not to move it.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for that guidance.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order—
  Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order, but I remind the House that we have now embarked upon the time which will run out at 11.30 pm.
  Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise, but I understood that the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) wished to raise a point of order. I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. The Joint Committee must have been placed in difficulty because the Government originally laid the instrument on 14 June, but withdrew it and tabled another instrument, which differs only in one sum of money and one small bit of wording from the original instrument.
  I understand that the Government laid this instrument not because of any defect in the original instrument, but to enable the official Opposition to pray against it, as my hon. Friends and I had already prayed against the first instrument. Is that not why the Joint Committee was unable to consider the second instrument until recently?
  Mr. Mike Thomas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House is also entitled to know the Government's intentions on the instrument relating to Scotland. That has also been prayed against—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That cannot be a point of order. The hon Gentleman has raised a business matter, not a point of order. I must tell the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) that I have to follow the Order Paper. The Speaker is not given authority to decide its contents. The rules are simple. The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) wishes to move the prayer and she must be allowed to do so.
  Mr. Thomas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for pursuing the matter further, but we are entitled to ask whether it is proper for the Government to withdraw an instrument when they see it prayed against by one group of hon. Members so that, apparently, another group of hon. Members can pray against it.
  Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to interpret the Government's motives. I should be on very dangerous ground if I did so.
  10.33 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It does not matter at what point of the calendar the prayer is moved. I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) (No. 2) Regulations 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 863), dated 24th June 1982, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th June, be annulled.
  The regulations are obnoxious and unacceptable and should be defeated by the House. The original decision to charge overseas visitors was presented to the House by a previous Secretary of State, because, as he said some time ago in an extremely emotive speech at St. Stephen's hospital, the National Health Service was being exploited by people whom he categorised as being well-heeled foreigners.
  The former Secretary of State then said that he intended to ensure that the British taxpayer was not in any way penalised. That has been found to be a totally and utterly shallow boast. Although it would be out of order to refer to the Scottish instrument, when I speak from the Front Bench on behalf of the Opposition I do so on behalf of everyone in the United Kingdom, including the kingdom of Scotland. It is sometimes necessary to go outside to discover the reasoning behind the political moves that occur. I have never suspected the Chancellor of the Exchequer of having a sense of humour. To be frank, I have always regarded him as a rather pedestrian thinker. However, we have the Conservative political centre summer school in Cambridge to thank for a really good joke from the Chancellor. At least, if it is not a funny, it deserves to be, especially as it gives us a clue about what is behind the regulations. On 3 July the Chancellor spoke about health and said that the Conservatives had long questioned
  "whether subsidised universal provision would effectively help those in need".
  He also said:
  "The use of economic pricing of services is currently restricted to only small areas of the programmes concerned. Opening up the supply of a much wider range of goods and

  247
  services to something approximating the market place may be a way of enriching and enhancing the quality and variety of what is provided. In some cases, a system of charging can help to direct resources where they are most required and at the same time induce a sense of priorities amongst recipients of the services involved."
  People do not only get a free service, but apparently they have to be suitably chastened and grateful as well.
  The Chancellor went on:
  "In some cases charges might be a preliminary to some form of private sector involvement. As we develop our thinking along these lines we must never cease to proclaim that the objective of such an approach is not to defend a rump of privilege for the few,"—
  perish the thought—
  "but to enlarge the bridgehead of choice for the many."
  It does not matter how often the Chancellor tries to put forward that line of thought, no one will believe him. The only thing that can be read into the absolute determination to bring forward these regulations, which are both divisive and unacceptable, is the fact that the Conservative Government are committed to a decision that is racist and unacceptable in every way. They have it in mind, first, to pander to the straightforward xenophobia of the Conservative Party.
  Never mind that even after energetic research the Government can produce only the flimsiest evidence of any abuse of the National Health Service. Never mind if the previous Minister's encomium must be scaled down because of a lack of hard facts. The Government have pushed ahead with this destructive scheme, determined to bring it into operation by 1 October 1982. When it was first suggested, the chorus of complaint, not only from organisations representing students but from those representing the immigrant community, forced them at least to accept some consultation, but they have done their best all the way through both to limit the terms of reference of the working party and to ignore many of the representations that were made to it. Their impact on race relations has been wholly unacceptable.
  When the working party was set up, the implicit justification for the new charges was to stop abuse of the NHS, but the working party found that, of the 8,152 who were questioned in the survey, only 81, or 1 per cent., were even suspected of being chargeable after stage one of the questioning. During that time the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster area health authority—an area that must have one of the largest concentrations of overseas visitors to Britain—said that abuse formed a minute proportion of the total work load with no perceptible effect on its waiting lists.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is it not also true that only 12 of those who were asked objected to answering the questions?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: If one asks someone to participate in a voluntary scheme often, because of his good manners—a quality not always shared by the Conservative Government—he will respond positively. If he is forced to answer a series of personal questions, his response may be very different.
  The facts in this case have not concerned the Government. Their cavalier attitude to the money that they said would be raised in this way are clear evidence of that. First, we were told that the measures would save £5 million. Then we were told that they would save £6 million, but we have not had evidence for those calculations.
  248
  The Secretary of State has never offered an estimate of the administrative costs of bringing in the scheme. He must know that if the detailed charging that is revealed in the schedules to the regulations is implemented the extra administration involved will be large, not only because of the exemptions that he has been forced to include—no matter what he says, many people will not be required to pay—but because of the complexity of the categories. It is comforting to know that patients will not be charged for their treatment if they present the hospital with plague.
  The creation of a large and detailed price structure is a costly hammer with which to crack a tiny nut, unless the real reason behind the whole elaborate charade is to dismantle the National Health Service as a free service and put in its place after the next general election a system that will force everyone to pay for some of the services that they receive under the National Health Service. If one looks at it in that light, one begins to understand that this statutory instrument is meant not just to damage the interests of students and overseas visitors but to deter those most in need.
  Let us consider overseas students. The Government have had to change the arrangements that they initially made. There is a long list of people who will manage to obtain exemptions from the overseas charges, but students who come from the poorest countries overseas will be most damaged by this imposition. The Government have never made it clear whether they intend to take out insurance for Third world students who otherwise would be deterred from coming here because they would not be able to afford the insurance cover so that they could follow their studies. If the Foreign Office and the British Council will have to undertake large payments for the students, is it not true that the savings about which we have been told are illusory?
  Is it not clear that this procedure will result in direct and open conflict in our hospitals? We are told that the admission staff will ask everyone the same straightforward set of questions. That will be so throughout the country, whether or not there are large numbers of visitors. Although there has been consultation about that aspect, it is obvious that the Government have no intention of consulting on the second stage of the questioning. It is that second stage that will be the most delicate, most important and most open to misinterpretation.
  The manual that should have been provided by the DHSS, which I am told is available, although I have not been able to get hold of it, lays down a number of suggestions on the way in which a patient should be handled. However, a great many questions remain unanswered. Will there be delays? There is a fairly calm assumption in the manual that if a patient presents himself in a hospital and cannot answer the first stage of questioning satisfactorily, unless there is clear evidence of urgency, he must wait for the second stage of questioning, if needs be after consultation with an authority that can establish the patient's right to treatment.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that the manual is unsatisfactory because it shows the short procedure and the detailed procedure for those who do not escape on the first count, but it does not go into whether people can afford to pay for the treatment? The major problem is what happens when someone does not have the insurance to guarantee to the hospital that he has the money. The draft procedure does nothing about how the hospital ensures that people

  249
  have the money. In the evidence given to the Select Committee today there appeared the major problem of the hospitals giving treatment without being sure that they can get the money.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those points.
  Such complex charging machinery must be backed up by means of collecting debts. If one collects debts from people who are ill, and if one does it on the word of a questioning procedure that is extremely doubtful and will be easily misinterpreted, one will run into considerable difficulty. If we return to the days when people who were seriously ill were questioned in considerable detail before they could receive any assistance, that is a negation of any sort of civilised treatment. The Government should be ashamed of suggesting it.
  The regulations have public health implications for British citizens because it is not clear what the Government intend to do in the case of people with communicable diseases who entered the country within the 12-month period. Clearly such people will be likely not to tell the entire truth about their circumstances. At present, for example, people coming from Third world countries and presenting themselves at large hospitals are routinely screened for open tuberculosis because it is still a common disease in many such countries, although it has been largely eradicated from the British population.
  The Minister has a responsibility to make clear what he intends to do about this in future. If people coming into this country know that if they admit to being here for only a short time they will be charged for medical treatment inevitably they will either not present for screening and thus may be a public health danger or they will be encouraged to lie about the circumstances.
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The hon. Lady will see that tuberculosis is one of the communicable diseases exempt from charges under the regulations.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: My point is much simpler. For example, Asian mothers entering this country are already at much greater risk. There may also be a language barrier. They will not present themselves to the doctors if they think that there is any likelihood whatever of being committed to paying heavy charges, so they will not present themselves for screening.
  With regard to ante-natal care, too, it is almost inevitable that instead of coming early for assistance the mothers most at risk will present themselves only as emergencies, with consequent far higher risks to themselves and their babies. That will be the effect of these utterly deplorable regulations.
  The scheme is the result of a political decision. It will affect a large number of people in this country in many different ways. There is no clear statement as to how the Government intend to confirm the status of patients presenting themselves at hospitals. The immigrant community in this country may be forgiven for regarding this as yet another extension of internal immigration controls. It is not clear whether they will be asked to produce their passports. People born and brought up here will inevitably resent being closely questioned by hospital admissions staff. Moreover, if the answers given are
  250
  regarded as unsatisfactory, will the admissions staff be expected to check with the Home Office or some other Government Department to decide whether the patient has the right to be treated?
  I shall put some simple questions to the Minister. How will the status of patients be confirmed if they are suspected by hospital staff of being overseas visitors? Will they have an unnecessary wait for treatment? Presumably the estimate of the urgency of the case will be made by the admissions clerk or the senior officer who is called.
  What will happen in the case of overseas students? Who will provide insurance cover for them? What plans has the Minister to protect those coming from the poorest countries who will be most deterred by the burden of extra cost?
  Mrs. Jill Knight: I appreciate that the hon. Lady has been kind enough to give way on several occasions. I am following her argument carefully. I am sure that she is aware that a very large number of countries make charges for the medical care of those who visit them for long or short periods. If the other countries which make such charges are able to do it simply and as a matter of routine, why cannot we do so in the United Kingdom?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Lady knows that when this matter was previously discussed there were only three major countries that could be demonstrated to be sending people here who had no cover or reciprocal agreement. I should have thought that behaving in a civilised manner because we have a National Health Service was a matter of pride, to be coveted, and copied elsewhere in the world.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Answer the question.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Very well. I am proud of the education system in this country and I welcome those who come here to receive post-graduate training, further education, and take back to their countries a new form of education. If we do anything to deter them from doing that, we are behaving in the bigoted way that we now expect from a Conservative Government.
  Mr. Tom Benyon: Will the hon. Lady answer the question put by my hon. Friend? The hon. Lady has changed her story. She was referring earlier to those who damage the system the most and to damaging the service irrevocably. Now she says that she is proud of the fact that the service is free. Will the hon. Lady be kind enough to balance the argument?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman should do me the courtesy of listening. I said that the education system in this country is good and that is why students from overseas, particularly from the Third world, want to come here. I also believe that if they come from poor countries they will be deterred by the enormous increase in fees imposed by the Government and by the heavy insurance they will have to carry to make sure that if they are ill they can receive treatment. If that is the hon. Gentleman's idea of civilised behaviour, I have news for him—it is not mine.
  I do not want to take up much time on the details of this scheme. Whatever organisation has been asked to comment on it, without exception the response has been one of appalled denial that such an idea should have been brought into operation. The World University Service said that it was very worried about the exemptions and that

  251
  individuals who come here as refugees, or to visit refugee relatives, from outside the European Community will not be covered. The Joint Council of the Welfare of Immigrants, the Commission for Racial Equality and students' organisations all regard the decision to charge overseas visitors as politically unacceptable, administratively unworkable and a clear sign that the Conservative Government are more concerned with their prejudices than with the administration of the National Health Service.
  We shall vote against this nasty little prayer tonight because it is a racist and divisive measure.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Before I call the Minister, I remind the House that it will be necessary for me to put the motion to the House at 11.30 pm.
  10.54 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The attack of the hon. Lady the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) on the regulations was so excited and yet so confused that she ended by inviting the House to vote against her own prayer. However, I got the gist of her argument. At times her general intention was to widen the debate into arguments about the validity of charges in the National Health Service generally. She said that the regulation was a threat to a free service and that it was racialist, and she made various other accusations. She was, however, shot out of the water by the question put to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). My hon. Friend indicated that practically every other country charges overseas visitors, including British visitors, for health treatment. Most people will see ours as a fairly commonsense change to make more effective and fairer long-standing arrangements that are supposed to apply in this country. We are introducing a more effective arrangement to levy charges against short-term visitors to this country.
  The proposition defended by the Government is that short-term visitors should usually insure themselves against medical costs and pay for their medical treatment when they fall ill just as British subjects make similar arrangements when making visits abroad. We have made wide exemptions to ensure that this principle does not give rise to hardship. We exempt those who come here to work, who have been here for more than a year and who come from countries with which we have reciprocal agreements. We exempt accident and emergency treatment, and communicable diseases, including tuberculosis. We exempt refugees and the seriously mentally ill. To charge the ordinary short-term visitor, who is probably a tourist who will expect to insure himself before arriving, will raise a potential £6 million. This would benefit the National Health Service and the taxpayer.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is remarkable to hear the Labour Party denounce the regulations when one considers the 1949 and the 1977 statutes for which they were responsible? Both statutes empower the Minister to make precisely this kind of regulation.
  Mr. Clarke: We are using Labour powers to make the regulations. The trouble is that the regulations were never made. It is a system that the Opposition operated but about
  252
  which they did nothing while in power that turns out to be racially discriminatory, haphazard and ineffective in raising revenue for the Health Service.
  We shall raise £6 million in a fairer and better way. That amount cannot be waved aside given that the Government say that the benefit can be kept by the health authorities.
  Mrs. Dunwoody rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way when I have made this point.
  The estimate that we have made is comparatively modest. As the hon. Member for Crewe has pointed out, a small number of patients is potentially involved. If only 0·5 per cent. of the cost of all acute hospital treatment was raised by this measure, we would raise about £15 million. A figure of 0·25 per cent. of the total cost would raise £7·5 million. The sum of £6 million is therefore a modest estimate of the benefit that we expect.
  I underline how little we are changing the principles of the present position. Those hon. Members who have already spoken appear to imply that it has always been the case that everyone who happens to be in this country at any time is eligible for National Health Service treatment. That is not the case. The hon. Member for Crewe sounded dangerously near to saying that. The National Health Service is only available broadly to ordinary residents of the United Kingdom, people who have temporarily been abroad, people who are here to work and visitors staying for not less than a year. We also have reciprocal agreements with other countries. In theory, all others have not been eligible for treatment in this country. They should be treated as private patients. The only guidance ever issued on the subject in 1963 assumes that this will be the case.
  In fact, some are treated as private patients. Some are treated on the National Health Service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) says, the Labour Government took powers in the 1949 Act to charge those who were not eligible, but no regulations were ever made under it. A number of visitors have been charged. As a matter of law, there was no means legally whereby charges could be recovered if patients failed to pay. That was the ramshackle system that we inherited. It gave rise to risk of abuse. It led us to examine the system and to decide how best to raise revenue that should be raised in a fair manner.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The Minister is a lawyer. He has referred to the legal position. Does he not agree with the minority report of the Select Committee that there has never been any legal right to charge anyone prior to the introduction of these regulations? The 1949 Act enabled powers to be taken to make regulations but they were never made. Any money deducted was therefore probably deducted illegally.
  Mr. Clarke: That is more or less what I have just said. The 1949 Act, which was introduced by a Labour Government, enabled regulations to be made, and charges to be levied. No regulations were subsequently made, and we are using those powers to make these regulations. Charges have sometimes been collected in a rather haphazard way. If the patient had refused to pay there was almost certainly no legal basis upon which the charges could have been recovered.
  That unsatisfactory position led us to look at the procedure and to contemplate a system of charges. We

  253
  found that the existing system was used in a way that gave rise to a serious risk of racial discrimination. The regulations and the draft manual of guidance are steps to eliminate the discrimination against ethnic minorities that the working party that we set up found existed. The working party included representatives of ethnic minorities and we were careful to ask the working party to look at that problem. Ministers asked that care should be taken to ensure that any procedures that were proposed were fair and acceptable to all patients and should not disadvantage ethnic minorities living here.
  When the working party looked at the present arrangements it found that the way charges are levied depends upon the intuition of the staff and the practice in individual hospitals. Its finding was:
  "The present arrangements pose a distinct risk of discrimination against members of ethnic minorities living here."
  We decided that that must be stopped. We have devised a procedure, about which we are consulting, in the manual of guidance that seeks to eliminate that risk. There must be a simple procedure so that the same questions are directed at all patients, and no longer must those with the wrong colour skin or funny foreign names be concentrated upon.
  Mr. David Ennals: Come on.
  Mr. Clarke: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying "Come on". He was obviously not aware while he was in office of the fact revealed by the working party that that is the present practice in some of our great hospitals. We shall now ask all patients the same simple questions aimed at establishing residence. When the hon. Member for Crewe studies the manual of guidance—anyone is entitled to do so, and we invite comments because we are consulting upon it—she will find that passports are dealt with quite explicitly. The assumption throughout the manual is that officials will ask only for passports for European Community countries and others with which we have reciprocal agreements because the passport is the quickest way to prove entitlement. There are strong warnings against using passports in other cases because of their sensitivity.
  The manual of guidance is aimed at eliminating racial discrimination. The campaigning has been pretty silly when it comes from Labour Members who claim that we are introducing a racialist measure when in fact we are correcting an abuse of which they were not aware all the time that they were in office.
  The hon. Member for Crewe argued about the cost of introducing the new arrangements. We were sensitive to that and the working party was asked to look at that aspect. The working party included administrators who would be mindful of any cost to the service. The request to the working party by Ministers was:
  "That the procedures should be as simple as possible and should not be unduly burdensome to the National Health Service or costly to operate."
  The working party found that the present arrangements were haphazard and, as I have said, relied on the intuition of staff, and that the staff complained about their lack of guidance. It found that the present administration needed improvement. I quote paragraph 7 of the working party's report:
  254
  "There is a need for clearer guidance irrespective of the Government's present proposals to introduce National Health Service charges."
  The working party held a trial of the system that we propose and found that it worked in a simple and effective way and that it could be implemented without additional staff being employed. It was found also that the staff reaction was generally favourable. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham has said that over 80,000 patients took part in the trial and that only 12 of them, when asked specifically, said that they objected to being asked the questions. The working party's conclusion was that our proposals should be capable of being implemented by health authorities without any significant increase in administrative costs.
  I accept that the second stage will involve the recruitment of a few additional staff in some hospitals. The costs involved in a few hospitals taking on the odd additional administrative officer will be far outweighed by the financial benefits of finally getting round to levying properly the charges that should be paid by the short-term overseas visitor.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I wish to refer to students without taking the entire debate. We have tried to accommodate students within our proposals because we do not wish to victimise students who are already here by imposing costs upon them. The arrangements that we have arrived at are substantial concessions for students and others. We have reduced the period of residence before exemption from charges from three years to one year. New students will not be exempt in the first year. However, we have announced transitional arrangements, which provide that students will be exempt if they have enrolled here and commenced their studies by 1 October 1982, which is the proposed commencement date for the entire arrangements.
  There are some who have argued about the commencement date of 1 October 1982. It is claimed that it is unfair to students who are not here and have not commenced their studies prior to 1 October. There are bound to be problems with any commencement date. We are making some special arrangements for students vis-a-vis other people, but in practically every category there will be some who come on 2 October who find that they are worse off than those who came here on 30 September.
  The idea was that students already here would be exempt in their first year, but we have gone beyond that and some students who arrive for the first time will be lucky. They will enrol and start their studies before 1 October and they will be exempt. The idea that some students will be lucky because of the transitional arrangements should not be extended to become argument for exempting all students enrolling this year for the first time, thereby giving them a complete year's exemption.
  There has been plenty of warning of the arrangements. The history of this issue goes back to March 1981, when we first began to moot a change in the arrangements. Draft regulations were issued, the working party was appointed and there have been consultations. On 22 February a statement was made to the House. We made it clear that we intended to bring the new arrangements into effect on 1 October. We made substantial concessions to students, but those who come after 1 October will have to insure like other people. There will be insurance costs, which will

  255
  probably amount to £100. That is not a large sum compared with the thousands of pounds that it costs to educate a student in Britain.
  There are arrangements for assisting students from poorer countries with their education in Britain, but that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, and the Overseas Development Administration, who have the task of determining insurance cost arrangements for poorer students. Students from America, Canada, Australia and the Middle East—these are the students who come to Britain from more prosperous countries than the United Kingdom to further their education—cannot regard it as too onerous if, after the transitional arrangements are over, they have to pay a modest charge to receive treatment like other people. That is the basis upon which we move the regulations.
  I shall not deal in detail with the Joint Committee's proposals and the report that has been made available today. We have amended the regulations and before doing so we withdrew them. The prayer of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) has been lost and the hon. Member for Crewe had the dubious privilege of moving the misconceived motion that is before us. We withdrew the original regulations and amended them in line with suggestions that came from the Joint Committee, whose chairman, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, has expressed such indignation that we are ignoring his suggestions. The Committee's report, which became available today, contains detailed drafting proposals to which I shall reply if I have the opportunity to do so. I probably will not, and in that event I shall take up the detailed proposals in correspondence. However, they are before the House and the details are available in the Vote Office. They are all capable of answer either in this debate or afterwards.
  The policy has been before us since March 1981. The Government have gone through the most laborious process of producing draft regulations, withdrawing them, and then amending them. There have been consultations and a working party with representatives of ethnic minorities and professional administrators. Concessions have been made to students. What we have now achieves the commonsense aim enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston. To say that there is still room for abuse, hardship, racialism and all the other nonsense is fanciful nonsense, which neither the regulations nor the prayer will support.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I again remind the House that it will be necessary for me to put the Question to the House at 11.30. I therefore appeal for short speeches.
  11.11 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall be as brief as I can. First, I wish to express the views of the all-party Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which was set up in 1979 to scrutinise instruments coming before the House. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that, when the first regulations were put before the Committee and we asked for a number of questions to be answered, they were all met, because that is not the case. We asked for a memorandum on the first regulation which we received virtually simultaneously with the second set of regulations, which were also defective. We considered those items and put a report in the Vote Office. I said, on a point of order, that the Government dictate the time of Parliament and not
  256
  the Opposition. The Opposition were right to seize the opportunity to debate the instrument because we feared—our fears were confirmed by the Minister's rapid progress through the various points—that if the time to debate the prayer was lost tonight it would not reappear. On the basis of parliamentary procedure, it would have been fairer and better had the Government said "We will not debate the regulations tonight. We will provide time, but only when the House has had time to read and understand the report and also when the Committee has had time to provide the evidence." That evidence was taken this afternoon. We spent about 35 minutes cross-examining representatives from the Department of Health and Social Security. That evidence contained some useful points that would benefit the House. Otherwise we would not have bothered to undertake the expense of printing it.
  The Committee felt that to debate the prayer would be to ride roughshod over the procedures of the House. I can well remember the present Lord Chancellor talking about an elective dictatorship when we had a Labour Government, but tonight we have had an example of an elective dictatorship riding roughshod over our procedures.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: If my hon. Friend is feeling injured because of the neglect of the Select Committee report, he may notice that speeches were made from both Front Benches, neither of which referred to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which considered this important issue. Its report was published only a few months ago.
  Mr. Cryer: I do not want to go into the relative merits of Select Committees, but the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is designed to help the House over specific instruments. It considered this specific instrument this afternoon. It listed a number of ambiguities and reported the instrument to the House on the basis that it needed elucidation. As I said before, it is not true that all the various points were met. I do not propose to go into them, because they are in the report. The Minister will reply, but that is not the same as answering the points in a debate. If the report is tabled and the Minister has time to read it, those points can be made and put on the record.
  My second point is that the manual of guidance and explanation of application of the regulations is an integral part of the regulations. When people express fear and concern about the application of the regulations, if there is a manual of guidance that fear and apprehension will apply to it, too. The manual was not supplied by the Department of Health and Social Security to the Committee. We were told, on examination of the witnesses, that a copy had been placed in the Library. The Committee has expressed regret that copies of the manual of guidance were not placed in the Vote Office or the equivalent Office in the House of Lords. It is an affront to the legislative process to have a manual of guidance which is being circulated to regional and area health authorities and to the medical organisations but which is not provided for the very body that is scrutinising the legislation. Moreover, it has not been provided for the Committee that was set up to scrutinise the legislation.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The manual of guidance has been in the Vote Office for a long time. It is attached as

  257
  an annex to the draft circular, which the hon. Gentleman, despite his careful scrutiny, has not had the time to read, beyond page 1.
  Mr. Cryer: I am told that it went into the Vote Office on Monday night. I am merely repeating what the witnesses told the Committee this afternoon. The Minister ought to ensure that his witnesses give more accurate information.
  Mr. Clarke: I am told that the witnesses said that the manual was in the Library. It is from that that on careful consideration the Committee has leapt to the conclusion that it was not in the Vote Office. Surely the Committee should have asked the witnesses or gone to the Vote Office to find out.
  Mr. Cryer: The Minister is on thin ground if he attempts to argue that point. If he were really concerned about the Committee, he ought to have ensured that copies of the manual reached it in time for consideration of the instrument this afternoon. Moreover, the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have ensured that the explanatory note to the instrument referred to the manual of guidance so that people were not unaware of the fact that other official documents were in circulation.
  Paragraph 3 of the manual of guidance states:
  "Hospitals should use the 'Liability to Charges' Form … or may adapt their patient registration form to include its contents. It is important that the wording of the questions should be preserved".
  A form is included in the manual. Why not make it a prescribed form? If it is so important to preserve the wording, make it a statutory requirement. The Committee would like an answer on that point.
  The hospital authorities will be judge and jury in disputes regarding charges. They will decide whether a charge will be applied. They will also decide whether a refund should be made and what evidence is required to prove that a refund is necessary. That cannot be right, particularly when, as I understand it, the Minister has powers to establish the well-known tribunal system to administer this sort of thing.
  The Minister's representatives told the Committee that there would be reference to the courts. I cannot imagine a more difficult process than arguing a dispute over charges through the courts.
  The Committee came to the conclusion that:
  "More generally, the Committee are concerned about the practical problems posed by a patient who may in fact fall within one of the categories of visitor exempt for charges under Regulation 4, but who because of his illness is unable to supply the information necessary to establish his exempt status. The witnesses agreed that the burden of proof would be placed on the person claiming exemption".
  That places a difficult burden on that person and diminishes the rights of citizens. That is the limit of the Committee's views, because it does not examine the merits of the instrument, only the powers exercised by the Minister within the framework of the primary legislation and the application of the statutory instrument.
  That conclusion of the Committee indicates that there are real reservations about the merits of this instrument. It will place citizens at considerable disadvantage. That does not strike at the Committee's report but at the merits of the instrument, which in its application to the procedures of the House as well as its merits, is defective.
  11.18 pm
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am in favour of the principle of these regulations which the Minister has argued so ably.
  I wish to put three brief questions which I hope my hon. and learned Friend will think about. First, is it sensible and wise again to pass regulations that so clearly discriminate against the Commonwealth, particularly after the events in the Falklands when the Commonwealth made its views so clear? Is it right and sensible that when someone presents himself to a hospital as a short-term visitor, if he is Australian he will be liable to be charged whereas if he is Irish he will be automatically exempt?
  Secondly, if someone requiring health care comes from Guyana, is it the case that if they come from British Guyana they will have to pay, but, if they come from French Guyana, they will not have to pay because they are exempt?
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: There is a simple answer to all these questions—it all depends on what treatment the countries extend to British visitors. If there are reciprocal agreements, we treat visitors from those countries on the same basis as we treat our residents. That means that the country in question has agreed to do the same with our visitors. In the case of Australia and British Guyana, they would charge a British visitor having health treatment in their country.
  Mr. Taylor: The case is not as simple as that. If the Minister will read his Secretary of State's evidence on page 28, paragraph 146 of the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, he will see that it says that the procedure in the Common Market is different from that of our country, and accepted to be so by the Government.
  Mr. Clarke: That is not what I said. The principle is that where there is a reciprocal agreement, the country concerned treats visitors to that country on the same basis that it treats its residents. We therefore treat German visitors here on the same basis as British residents and the Germans treat British residents in the same way as they treat German residents. That is broadly the principle that is applied.
  Mr. Taylor: I am aware of the position that the Minister has explained and has mentioned time and again in the annexes. However, does he not think that this is unfortunate and regrettable? This is particularly so in view of the fact that we have just considered another set of regulations that would mean, for example as it affects students, that a medical student from Australia who wishes to study to become a doctor at a British university will now pay £6,000 a year, while a student from any EEC country will have to pay £500 and will have an automatic grant of £5,100 a year from the British taxpayer.
  If we accept that the basis is so-called reciprocity, although the Secretary of State said in his evidence that the procedures were different in Britain and the EEC, will the Minister give us an assurance that any Commonwealth country seeking reciprocal agreement with the United Kingdom will be granted this provision? For example, if Australia or Canada, or other Commonwealth countries, say that they would like the same reciprocal agreement, will the answer be "Yes"? It is important that if we are preserving the alleged principle of reciprocity, it should be available, particularly, to Commonwealth countries.

  259
  Thirdly, will the Minister explain the meaning of the second part of paragraph 4 of annex A? It refers to EEC nationals who expressly seek treatment. They are not casual visitors or holidaymakers but people who want to come to the country for medical treatment. If the person is Australian or American, he pays, but an EEC national does not pay and all that is needed is a certificate from the local social security institution saying that that treatment is not readily available in the country.
  There then follows this statement:
  "Such patients … must be given the same priority as patients living in the UK."
  This is a facility available only to those who are in the EEC. They will get free treatment for advanced arranged treatment not available in their country. For example, it is not possible to have a heart transplant in Italy. An application can be made to a British hospital and the person concerned must be given the same priority as a patient in the United Kingdom.
  What does that mean when our hospitals have extensive waiting lists, particularly for the costly and difficult treatment? Does it make sense when many of our people and taxpayers are waiting, often in pain and great difficulty, for such treatment, that we should insist that the same priority must be given to any EEC national who comes for the same treatment in this country? Is this correct, do the Government mean it and do they intend to implement it?
  While I am in favour of the principle, I hope that the Minister will give two assurances—that a Commonwealth country seeking reciprocity will achieve it, and that he does not mean the second to last sentence in paragraph 4 of annex A.
  11.25 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: It is deplorable that the House should have so little time to comment on such an important matter, and that it should do so in the absence of the report from the Joint Committee. I shall say a few brief words to explain why I hope that my hon. Friends will vote against the regulations.
  I want to stamp out abuses—as, I assume, do the Government—in the use of the Health Service by overseas visitors who come here, for example, for the purpose of obtaining treatment. However, the existing system provides for that, and its defects could have been dealt with without resorting to these procedures.
  First, it is obvious that ethnic minorities will inevitably find themselves the subject of greater scrutiny than other groups, especially as they will be brought into the second stage of the procedure. Secondly, it is quite wrong that anomalies should be built into the system such as that mentioned by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), in that citizens from French overseas territories, for example, will be treated more favourably than citizens of some of our own dependencies and Commonwealth countries. The effect on students from poor countries is particuarly regrettable at a time when they face many other burdens.
  Moreover, it is stupid of the Government to have chosen 1 October as the starting date. That adds to the administrative complications and divides the intake of students between those who will be affected and those who
  260
  will not. The Government could quite easily have chosen the end of December, when the number of students and tourists coming in is much smaller than at other times.
  The Government have failed to cost the scheme and have failed to explain what the real savings will be. That is a grave deficiency.
  Lastly, the Government have confused everyone by introducing two sets of regulations. The differences between the two are very slight. One of them is quite extraordinary. The new instrument makes it dearer to stay in a dormitory in a mental hospital than to stay in a single room, whereas the original instrument, quite properly, made it cheaper to stay in a dormitory than in a single room. In my opinion, the second was a device to enable the Labour Party to be the party which prayed against it. That is a device that is unworthy of the Government on a matter of this importance.
  11.26 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: First, I support one of the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) about regulation 8. He is right when he says that it is unsatisfactory that the authority should be a final judge on refunds when the charges have already been paid. The authority is, of course, the beneficiary, and it is undesirable that it should have the final say in the matter. I should like a system of appeal to the existing courts
  Moreover, the point is compounded when I reflect that if someone declines to pay, the only way to enforce payment is to sue that person in the courts, and that person then has recourse to the courts. I hope that the Minister will look at that anomaly.
  The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) was entirely wrong to denounce the regulations as racist. I do not agree. The criteria are quite clear. They depend on 12 months' residence or occupation, or an intention to settle here permanently. There are, of course, some minor exemptions, they are dealt with clearly in form L, which contains three specific questions. Those questions are wholly free of racial overtones. They can be answered very simply. The cry that this is a racist measure is wholly unsubstantiated, alarmist and, if I may say so, disgraceful.
  Lastly, I am satisfied that this system is entirely cost-effective. The working party looked at it carefully. It was tested in, I think, 10 hospitals. The hospital authorities approved it. It was found that stage 1 could be performed without taking on any additional staff, and stage 2 will require few additional staff, if any.
  These regulations are worthy of the House's support, and I hope that they receive it.
  11.28 pm
  Mr. David Ennals: These regulations are absolutely unnecessary. There is no proof whatever, and the Minister did not attempt to give any, that there has been any significant abuse of the present system. He says that he will save £6 million. He has given no costing whatever. He said absolutely nothing about what will be spent on staff training, administrative and clerical staff, the cost of drawing up bills, the legal costs of going to court for those who do not pay, and so on.
  The Minister says that the regulations are not racist, but he knows perfectly well that the people who will be most affected, the people who will be asked to complete the forms—particularly section 2—will be ethnic minorities, people whose faces are black. He knows, although he

  261
  denies it, that the present system has never led to racial discrimination in the Health Service. That is what the Minister is doing. He has not given the House a reason. The cost of administration will be as high as the value of the money that he will bring in. The order is a load of bureaucratic nonsense to satisfy the ignorance and prejudice of many Government Back Benchers.
  11.29 pm
  Mr. Mike Thomas: The World University Service represents a group of 100 to 150 student refugees who have been given refuge by—
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 4 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure)):—
  The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 276.

  Division No. 259]

  [11.30 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Douglas, Dick

  Adams, Allen

  Dubs, Alfred

  Allaun, Frank

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Alton, David

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Anderson, Donald

  Eastham, Ken

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

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

  Ashton, Joe

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

  English, Michael

  Bagier, Gordon A.T.

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Ewing, Harry

  Beith, A. J.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Flannery, Martin

  Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Ford, Ben

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Forrester, John

  Bradley, Tom

  Foster, Derek

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foulkes, George

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

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

  Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Buchan, Norman

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Callaghan, Jim (Midd'tn & P)

  Ginsburg, David

  Campbell, Ian

  Golding, John

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Graham, Ted

  Canavan, Dennis

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Cant, R. B.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Carmichael, Neil

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

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hardy, Peter

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Clarke,Thomas C'b'dge, A'drie

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

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

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Coleman, Donald

  Haynes, Frank

  Cook, Robin F.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Cowans, Harry

  Heffer, Eric S.

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

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

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

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

  Crowther, Stan

  Homewood, William

  Cryer, Bob

  Hooley, Frank

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

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

  Howells, Geraint

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Davidson, Arthur

  Huckfield, Les

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Deakins, Eric

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dewar, Donald

  John, Brynmor

  Dixon, Donald

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Dobson, Frank

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Dormand, Jack

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

  262

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Kerr, Russell

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Robertson, George

  Kinnock, Neil

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Lambie, David

  Rooker, J. W.

  Lamond, James

  Roper, John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Litherland, Robert

  Sever, John

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Short, Mrs Renée

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  McElhone, Frank

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Silverman, Julius

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Skinner, Dennis

  McKelvey, William

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Snape, Peter

  Maclennan, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  McMahon, Andrew

  Spriggs, Leslie

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stallard, A. W.

  McTaggart, Robert

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  McWilliam, John

  Stoddart, David

  Magee, Bryan

  Stott, Roger

  Marks, Kenneth

  Strang, Gavin

  Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

  Straw, Jack

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Maxton, John

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Meacher, Michael

  Tilley, John

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Tinn, James

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Torney, Tom

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Watkins, David

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Welsh, Michael

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  White, Frank R.

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Whitlock, William

  Newens, Stanley

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  O'Neill, Martin

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

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Park, George

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Parker, John

  Winnick, David

  Parry, Robert

  Woodall, Alec

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Pendry, Tom

  Wright, Sheila

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Prescott, John

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Race, Reg

  Mr. George Morton and

  Richardson, Jo

  Mr. Hugh McCartney.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Blaker, Peter

  Alexander, Richard

  Body, Richard

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Ancram, Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Arnold, Tom

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bowden, Andrew

  Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

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

  Bright, Graham

  Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)

  Brinton, Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

  Banks, Robert

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Brotherton, Michael

  Bendall, Vivian

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Best, Keith

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Buck, Antony

  Blackburn, John

  Budgen, Nick

  263

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butcher, John

  Hastings, Stephen

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Hawkins, Sir Paul

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawksley, Warren

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

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Heddle, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Henderson, Barry

  Churchill, W. S.

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Hicks, Robert

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hill, James

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Cope, John

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Corrie, John

  Hooson, Tom

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Crouch, David

  Irvine, Bryant Godman

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Jessel, Toby

  Dover, Denshore

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Eggar, Tim

  Kimball, Sir Marcus

  Elliott, Sir William

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Eyre, Reginald

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

  Knox, David

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Lamont, Norman

  Farr, John

  Lang, Ian

  Fell, Sir Anthony

  Latham, Michael

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

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

  Lee, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Loveridge, John

  Fry, Peter

  Luce, Richard

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  MacGregor, John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Goodhew, Sir Victor

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Goodlad, Alastair

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Gorst, John

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

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Madel, David

  Gray, Hamish

  Major, John

  Greenway, Harry

  Marland, Paul

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Marlow, Antony

  Grist, Ian

  Marten, Rt Hon Neil

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Mawby, Ray

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hannam, John

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Shersby, Michael

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Silvester, Fred

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Sims, Roger

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Smith, Dudley

  Mitchell, David (Besingstoke)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Moate, Roger

  Speller, Tony

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Spence, John

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Moore, John

  Sproat, Iain

  Morgan, Geraint

  Squire, Robin

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Stainton, Keith

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Stanley, John

  Mudd, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Murphy, Christopher

  Stevens, Martin

  Myles, David

  Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Needham, Richard

  Stokes, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Neubert, Michael

  Tapsell, Peter

  Newton, Tony

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Thompson, Donald

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Parris, Matthew

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Trippier, David

  Pawsey, James

  Trotter, Neville

  Percival, Sir Ian

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Pollock, Alexander

  Viggers, Peter

  Porter, Barry

  Waddington, David

  Prentice, Rt Hon Rug

  Wakeham, John

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Waller, Gary

  Rathbone, Tim

  Walters, Dennis

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Ward, John

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Warren, Kenneth

  Renton, Tim

  Watson, John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wells, Bowen

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Wheeler, John

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Whitney, Raymond

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Wickenden, Keith

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Wilkinson, John

  Rossi, Hugh

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Scott, Nicholas

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Mr. Anthony Berry and

  Shepherd, Richard

  Mr. Carol Mather.

  Question accordingly negatived.

  Trident Development (Clyde)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  11.42 pm
  Mr. Gavin Strang: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the important question of some of the planning issues associated with the Government's decision to buy the Trident II weapons system from the United States and to install it on the Clyde.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Campbell), who represents Coulport, where the development is to take place, intends to raise some of the local issues of particular concern to his constituents. It is almost two years since the former Secretary of State for Defence announced the Government's decision to acquire the Trident I C4 weapons system from the United States as the replacement for Polaris. As the House knows, earlier this year the present Secretary of State for Defence announced that the Government had decided to acquire the Trident II D5 weapons system instead from the United States.
  At the outset it must be recognised that the D5 is a very different weapons system from the C4. I was in the House when the Secretary of State made the announcement and the decision is probably the most important to be taken by any Cabinet. It certainly amounts to a most massive and irresponsible escalation of the international nuclear arms race.
  It is fitting that the debate should take place just after the debate on the Government's White Paper on defence. Trident, of course, is a very important element in the Government's defence strategy. Many hon. Members took the opportunity provided by the debate to complain about the enormous cost of Trident II and the resources that the decision will involve. Indeed, most people agree that Trident will cost about £10 billion at current prices. However, the most important factor is Trident's enormous power to destroy a large proportion of the human race. If we remember that one Polaris submarine can destroy about 15 million Russians in the main Soviet cities, and understand that the Trident weapon system is many times more powerful, we get some idea of the enormity of the decision.
  It must be understood that Trident II has not only a much greater range than Trident I but an enormously enhanced accuracy that is designed to enable the weapon to destroy the inter-continental ballistic missiles in their silos. It is its accuracy that makes Trident a counter-force weapon—a first-strike weapon—that undermines the basis of the policy of deterrence and creates the philosophy of mutually assured destruction.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman now saying, contrary to what he said in the defence debate, that Trident cannot knock out the SS20s, which are mobile and which will be our principal problem in the future?
  Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman will agree that if we know where the SS20 is, Trident II can take it out. But the basis of the SS20s and cruise missiles is that they are
  266
  mobile, so it is not accurate to say that Trident is designed to take out SS20s. However, it is designed to take out the massive intercontinental ballistic missiles.
  The development has provoked massive opposition in Scotland. The Minister will be aware of the thousands of people who marched through Glasgow only a few months ago in opposition to the development. The demonstration was important, not just because of its size but because it brought together people with differing political views and from all walks of life throughout Scotland. Many important questions must be answered about the development, which amounts to the compulsory conscription of the people of West Central Scotland into the front line of any nuclear exchange between NATO and the Warsaw Pact.
  The central purpose of this debate is to urge upon the Government the case for referring the Trident development proposals to a planning inquiry commission set up under section 44 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972. The major authority on planning law in Scotland is Eric Young's "The Law of Planning in Scotland" published in 1978. He states, in relation to such developments, that two main reasons for referring the planning proposal to a planning inquiry commission are
  "(a) that there are considerations of national and regional importance of which a proper evaluation cannot be made without a special inquiry; (b) that there are unfamiliar technical or scientific aspects of the proposed development."
  Either of those considerations would justify referring the proposed development to a planning inquiry commission, but the House will agree that the Trident base qualifies on both grounds.
  A local planning inquiry, such as that held into the plan to extend the NATO air base at Stornoway, would not be adequate. We understand that a Government Department—and this includes the Ministry of Defence—does not require planning permission for such a development, but it is right that the issues should be brought out at a public inquiry. The enormity of the local issues is such that only a planning inquiry commission could provide the proper framework within which those points could be made.
  While it is true that the report did not affect the Secretary of State's decision to agree to the extension of the Stornoway airport base, in the light of that inquiry the Secretary of State in his statement in December last year announced that some modifications would be made to that proposal. Although the inquiry at Stornoway was non-statutory, it enabled some important points to be brought out and some adjustments to be made in the plan as a result.
  It would be scandalous if, despite the massive opposition to the project in Scotland, the Government were to press ahead without a proper inquiry, enabling the people of Scotland to express their views and raise the many important objections and issues that relate to the proposed development.
  The Dunbartonshire district council has unanimously voted in favour of a planning inquiry commission. I received an answer from the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces on that issue on 23 June this year, which stated:
  "The Ministry of Defence wrote to Dunbarton district council on 21 May about the planning aspects of the development. No reply has yet been received, but my hope would be that the

  267
  council would soon agree to resume planning consultations. The matter therefore has not yet been referred to the Secretary of State for Scotland."—[Official Report, 23 June 1982; Vol. 26, c. 129.]
  If the matter is referred to the Secretary of State for Scotland, he will have to decide the issue. There should be a proper planning inquiry commission.
  That reply conceals the great concern in the Dunbartonshire district council about the development. As the Minister knows, it has unanimously voted to ask the Ministry of Defence to bring forward a new notice of proposed development. The original notice of proposed development predates the D5 decision. It is hard to believe that the major difference between the D5 and the C4, not to mention many other developments since then, is not a sufficient justification for a new notice of proposed development.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West may want to raise some of the unanswered questions that arose out of a meeting that he, Councillor Leitch and others attended with Viscount Trenchard. He will want to raise some important local points.
  If the Minister tells us about the benefits that will derive from this project in the form of jobs, I hope that he will understand that that is a policy of despair. It is a sad day when people, in order to find work, must work on projects of mass destruction. Those people will take those jobs if they are available, but they would prefer to carry out useful work, for example in the National Health Service and the education system, which have been attacked by the Government, and in the factories where they could produce useful goods rather than take part in a development that is designed for mass destruction and in a nuclear arms race that can have only one end—the elimination of human civilisation.
  I emphasise that I hope that the Government will take heed of the views of Dumbarton district council. I hope that the Ministry of Defence will submit a new notice of proposed development so that proper negotiations can take place with the local authority. Above all, I hope that the Government will accede to the demands that are now being made from many quarters, including the local planning authority, that there should be a proper planning inquiry commission into the development. Anything less would be a denial of the basic rights of the many people in Scotland who are rightly concerned about the development.
  11.54 pm
  Mr. Ian Campbell: As in a good Scots sermon, I should like to make three points. Unlike a minister at the pulpit, however, I do not have 15 minutes or more to develop my theme. I wish to re-emphasise the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang).
  I put down a question for Scottish Question Time last week, but unfortunately it was not reached. I asked:
  "if there has been any advance in the planning negotiations for the Trident site at the Clyde submarine base."—[Official Report, 30 June 1982; Vol. 26, c. 350.]
  The Minister has told me, however, that Dumbarton district council has already submitted a request for a revised notice of proposed development.
  From my knowledge of talks and discussions with the district council, I believe that both sides must start from the beginning again on a solid base. As my hon. Friend has said, the planning application may have altered substantially as a result of the change from Trident I to
  268
  Trident II and I believe that the district council is now ready to consider the matter again. I know that in the past there was some blockage of the proposals by the council, but I think that that attitude is changing. I hope that the Minister will put it to the Ministry of Defence that the matter should be started again from scratch. This would mean, of course, the readvertisement of the various proposals according to the normal procedure for planning applications.
  Another point that is disturbing many people in the district, particularly the convenor of the Dumbarton district council planning committee, relates to the public meeting at Helensburgh, at which the matter was raised in the first instance by Lord Trenchard on behalf of the Government. Cognisance was taken of plans submitted to the audience about the safety limit shown on the map of the Rosneath peninsula. The line was drawn just beyond existing housing and other buildings. In answer to a question at the meeting, it was stated that the line had been drawn in that way to show the safety zone and that various buildings in the planning application had to be sited without the explosion zone. It was agreed by the Minister and by civil servants who were there at the time that the formula used to decide the zone would be submitted to the planning officer so that he could check the measurements taken, which would be a valuable assistance to councillors and others in making up their minds about the planning application. Again, in Dumbarton district council and elsewhere, there is a feeling of having been let down as the agreement seems to have been withdrawn on a unilateral basis—the word "unilateral" has appropriate connotations in this context—by the Ministry of Defence.
  Finally, in relation to the planning inquiry and planning permission, a document entitled "Faslane-Facts and Feelings" has been written by Iain 0. Macdonald, a minister of the Church of Scotland, and published by the society, religion and technology project of the Church of Scotland. I was one of many who gave evidence to the author. Its conclusions go across the board from those who actively oppose the development and those who are worried about it to those who are worried about the defence capability of this country. The general feeling behind the document, however, is that there is a lack of knowledge among the people in whose midst the development is proposed to take place.
  I hope that the Minister or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have the chance to consider this and will take on board the points that have been made. I suggest sincerely to them that they should try to expand any inquiry into a full commission of inquiry so that all the various fears and questions can be raised and perhaps set at rest when the inquiry takes place.
  12 midnight
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I am glad to have the opportunity to reply to this debate and to some of the planning questions put to me by the hon. Members for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) and for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Campbell). The debate also gives me the opportunity to clear up some misunderstandings among some members of the public about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's position as regards consideration of the planning aspects of the proposed Trident development.
  As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said, development proposals by Government Departments do

  269
  not require planning permission, but procedures broadly similar to those prescribed in planning legislation are followed in determining whether particular developments should go ahead. These procedures are set out in circular 49/1977 dated 2 November 1977 issued to local authorities when the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) was Secretary of State. That circular is admirably clear and lucid and I shall summarise the main points in it for the benefit of the House.
  In the first instance, the developing Department is called upon to inform the planning authority concerned of its proposals by submitting a notice of proposed development. The notice may be submitted in outline only—this is relevant to the debate—on the understanding that detailed proposals will be provided in due course or in a form equivalent to that of a detailed planning application. The circular makes it clear that the notice should be given just as much publicity as if it were an application for planning permission. Subsequently, the planning authority invites representations from interested parties.
  If, following the consultation stage—which should normally be completed within two months—the planning authority decides that it cannot agree to the proposals and the developing Department cannot resolve the issue to the satisfaction of both sides, the developing Department is required to bring the matter to the attention of the Scottish Office—the Scottish Development Department—should it wish to proceed with the development. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must then consider by what means he will resolve the situation.
  It might be of assistance to the House if I put on record the steps that have so far been taken to have the planning aspects of the proposed Trident development examined. Both hon. Gentlemen referred to this. Following presentation of their proposals at the Helensburgh meeting, to which the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West referred, in June 1981 the Ministry of Defence submitted to the district council a notice of proposed development in outline relating to the construction at Loch Long of berthing facilities for submarines, facilities for the storage and processing of Trident missiles and other support buildings and services. This notice specified the area of land required for the project. It provided some broad information about the buildings to be constructed on the site, it made clear that any necessary infrastructure provisions would be the subject of further consultations with the local authorities and it emphasised the determination of the Ministry of Defence to minimise the environmental impact of the development so far as was reasonably possible.
  A start was made on consultations set out in the notice, but the district council subsequently decided that it was not prepared to consider the plans in outline. The council therefore withdrew from discussions, indicating that it would give further consideration to the proposals only if it was provided with details and plans equivalent to those accompanying a detailed planning application. As the Ministry of Defence was not in a position to provide fully worked out and final detailed design proposals for a project with an eight-year planning and construction period, it was, for a time, not possible for any progress to be made on consultations with the council.
  270
  The Ministry considered that it had provided sufficient information about the scope of the project to enable the outline planning decisions it was seeking to be taken. But as it wished to consider certain detailed changes in its proposals, which would not alter the scope of the project but which would, incidentally, have some significant environmental advantages, it decided not to refer the matter to my right hon. Friend immediately but to use the intervening period to work up these new proposals.
  On 11 March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced our decision to purchase the Trident D5, rather than the Trident C4 missile system. This anouncement led the district council to invite the Ministry of Defence to submit a new notice of proposed development, the implication being that the council would be prepared to reopen discussions with the Ministry on this basis. This is a point to which reference has been made. I emphasise, therefore, that the Ministry replied to the effect that it saw no need to submit a revised notice because its original notice had taken account of the possibility that a larger missile might at some stage supersede Trident C4. It again indicated that it had in mind certain changes that it felt would have significant environmental advantages and gave an undertaking that it would submit revised proposals as soon as these had been fully worked up.
  The council has asked the Ministry to reconsider this decision and correspondence on the matter is continuing. I hope that it will be possible for a basis for reopening the discussions to be agreed because it is obviously of very considerable importance. It is in the best interests of local people that the process of local consultation on the Ministry's proposals should be completed.
  It has been suggested—although not in this debate— by some organisations that my right hon. Friend has decided that he will not make arrangements for a public inquiry to be held. This is absolutely untrue. I wish to put that clearly and firmly on the record. As I have explained, the established procedures for the consideration of proposals for developments by Government departments provide for such a proposal to be referred to my Department by the developing Department if objections put forward by the planning authority cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the two parties.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Stewart: I make no complaint about the fact that I received less than half the time available for the debate, but I should like to finish my speech. In this case, consultations between the Ministry of Defence and Dumbarton district council have not been completed. The circumstances in which reference of the matter to my Department might be appropriate have not therefore arisen and, until such a reference is made, my right hon. Friend has no locus in the consideration of the planning aspects of the Trident proposals. He has not, therefore, been involved in the discussions which have so far taken place.
  I hope that it will be possible for Dumbarton district council and the Ministry to reach agreement. If not, my right hon. Friend could seek to deal with the matter on the basis of written representations, an informal meeting with the parties, or a non-statutory public local inquiry. No disagreement has, however, as yet been referred to him for

  271
  resolution and it would not be right for me to speculate at this stage on the steps which he might take should such an approach be made.
  That brings me to the points made by the hon. Members for Edinburgh, East and for Dunbartonshire, West about a planning inquiry commission for which provision is made under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, although there has never been such a commission. The right hon. Member for Craigton agrees with me about that.
  I cannot speculate about the measures that might be adopted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to resolve a disagreement between the planning authority and the Ministry of Defence if the matter were eventually to be referred to him. I appreciate the importance of the Trident proposals, but it is not immediately apparent that they give rise to any local planning problems that could not be dealt with comprehensively and satisfactorily under the usual planning procedures that I have set out.
  Reference has been made to Strathclyde regional council which aims to interest all the local authorities in the region in making arrangements for an environmental impact assessment of the Trident proposals to be followed
  272
  by an unofficial local inquiry. There has been no final decision to put those plans into operation. In the light of what the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West said, as the planning authority appears to be prepared to resume consideration of the Ministry's proposals in accordance with established procedures I hope that the regional council will not take precipitate action to promote an independent inquiry. That inquiry would have no status. It would be better for the regional council and us to wait and see what the Ministry's new proposals are, how Dumbarton council reacts to them, whether the matter has to be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and, if so, what action he proposes to take, before the regional council considers any such steps.
  We have no means of knowing how the planning aspects of the Trident proposals will be resolved. As hon. Members made clear—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twelve minutes past Twelve o'clock.

WALES
  Welsh Development Agency
  Welsh Development Agency
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
PRIME MINISTER
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Employment Policy
  Employment Policy
  Paris
  Paris
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Stockport
  Stockport
NATIONAL FINANCE
  European Investment Bank
  European Investment Bank
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Travel Expenses (Tax Relief)
  Travel Expenses (Tax Relief)
  Civil Service (Pay)
  Civil Service (Pay)
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Public Expenditure Contingency Reserve
  Public Expenditure Contingency Reserve
  Unused Capital Allowances
  Unused Capital Allowances
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Allowances (Abolition)
  Allowances (Abolition)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Equal Opportunities Commission (Report)
  Equal Opportunities Commission (Report)
  Fires
  Fires
  Sawn-off Shotguns
  Sawn-off Shotguns
  Mr. Paul Carberry
  Mr. Paul Carberry
  Nationality Division
  Nationality Division
  Naturalisation and Discretionary Registration
  Naturalisation and Discretionary Registration
  Illegal Immigrants
  Illegal Immigrants
  Video Tapes (Obscenity)
  Video Tapes (Obscenity)
  Traffic Offences (Court Hearings)
  Traffic Offences (Court Hearings)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  RAF Pollington (Food Storage)
  RAF Pollington (Food Storage)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Housing Legislation
  Housing Legislation
  Housing Executive (House Sales)
  Housing Executive (House Sales)
  Lear Fan Aircraft
  Lear Fan Aircraft
  Kinsale Gas Field
  Kinsale Gas Field
  Rolling Stock (Terrorist Activity)
  Rolling Stock (Terrorist Activity)
  Road Accident Statistics
  Road Accident Statistics
  Traffic Offences
  Traffic Offences
  Economic Council (Reports)
  Economic Council (Reports)
  Public Bodies (Loans)
  Public Bodies (Loans)
  Driving Instruction
  Driving Instruction
ENERGY
  Domestic Supplies
  Domestic Supplies
  Combined Heat and Power
  Combined Heat and Power
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Economic and Social Committee
  Economic and Social Committee
  Middle East (Prisoners)
  Middle East (Prisoners)
  Common Format Passport
  Common Format Passport
  European Parliament (Election Expenses)
  European Parliament (Election Expenses)
  Missing Persons (Buenos Aires)
  Missing Persons (Buenos Aires)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  British Subjects Overseas
  British Subjects Overseas
  Middle East
  Middle East
EMPLOYMENT
  Mexborough
  Mexborough
  Long-term Unemployment
  Long-term Unemployment
  Stockport (Long-term Unemployment)
  Stockport (Long-term Unemployment)
  Yorkshire and Humberside (Community Enterprise Programme)
  Yorkshire and Humberside (Community Enterprise Programme)
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Merseyside (18-year-olds)
  Merseyside (18-year-olds)
  Early Retirement
  Early Retirement
  Young Persons (Job Statistics)
  Young Persons (Job Statistics)
  Unemployment Statistics and Training Measures
  Unemployment Statistics and Training Measures
  Young People (Skill Training)
  Young People (Skill Training)
  Regional Statistics
  Regional Statistics
  Industrial Disputes (Lost Days)
  Industrial Disputes (Lost Days)
  Closed Shop (Compensation)
  Closed Shop (Compensation)
  Employment Bill
  Employment Bill
  Rural Areas (Retraining Facilities)
  Rural Areas (Retraining Facilities)
  "Benefit Plus" Scheme
  "Benefit Plus" Scheme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Leicester
  Leicester
  CBI and TUC (Discussions)
  CBI and TUC (Discussions)
  Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
  Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
  Young Persons (Wages)
  Young Persons (Wages)
  Wolverhampton
  Wolverhampton
  Birmingham (School Leavers)
  Birmingham (School Leavers)
  Unemployment (International Statistics)
  Unemployment (International Statistics)
  Non-registered Unemployed Persons
  Non-registered Unemployed Persons
  Merseyside (Jobcentres)
  Merseyside (Jobcentres)
  Sheltered Industrial Groups
  Sheltered Industrial Groups
  Disabled Persons (Community Enterprise Programme)
  Disabled Persons (Community Enterprise Programme)
  Unemployment (Derbyshire)
  Unemployment (Derbyshire)
  Public Sector Pay Settlements
  Public Sector Pay Settlements
  Industrial Tribunals
  Industrial Tribunals
  Labour Productivity
  Labour Productivity
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Unemployment (Consett)
  Unemployment (Consett)
  New Training Initiative (Birmingham)
  New Training Initiative (Birmingham)
  Trade Unions (Secret Ballots)
  Trade Unions (Secret Ballots)
  Seasonable Workers (Employment Rights)
  Seasonable Workers (Employment Rights)
  Women (Employment and Training)
  Women (Employment and Training)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Primary Schools (Liverpool)
  Primary Schools (Liverpool)
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
TRADE
  Tariffs
  Tariffs
  Clothing (Imports)
  Clothing (Imports)
  Free Ports
  Free Ports
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Audio Tapes (Imports)
  Audio Tapes (Imports)
  Steel Imports
  Steel Imports
  Cotton (Import Quotas)
  Cotton (Import Quotas)
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Traffic Offences (Summary Arrest)
  Traffic Offences (Summary Arrest)
  Stainless Steel (Imports)
  Stainless Steel (Imports)
DEFENCE
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  "Atlantic Conveyor"
  "Atlantic Conveyor"
  Cruise Missile
  Cruise Missile
  Mine Detection
  Mine Detection
  Military Corrective Training Centre
  Military Corrective Training Centre
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  National Health Service (Pay)
  National Health Service (Pay)
  Dispensing Chemists
  Dispensing Chemists
  Consultants and Registrars (Qualifications)
  Consultants and Registrars (Qualifications)
  Brook Hospital, Woolwich
  Brook Hospital, Woolwich
  Housebound and Elderly Persons
  Housebound and Elderly Persons
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Nuneaton)
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Nuneaton)
  Shotley Bridge Hospital
  Shotley Bridge Hospital
  Medical Treatment (Waiting Times)
  Medical Treatment (Waiting Times)
  Private Health Schemes (Staff Training)
  Private Health Schemes (Staff Training)
  National Dental Health Survey
  National Dental Health Survey
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Partial Incapacity Pensions
  Partial Incapacity Pensions
  Scotland (Pensioners)
  Scotland (Pensioners)
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Lost Working Days
  Lost Working Days
  Special Health Authorities
  Special Health Authorities
ENVIRONMENT
  Disabled Persons Act 1981
  Disabled Persons Act 1981
  Doncaster (Housing Capital Expenditure)
  Doncaster (Housing Capital Expenditure)
  Rents
  Rents
  Repairs (Grants and Loans)
  Repairs (Grants and Loans)
  Empty Houses
  Empty Houses
  Planning Decisions
  Planning Decisions
  Itinerants (Sites)
  Itinerants (Sites)
  Caravan Sites Act 1968
  Caravan Sites Act 1968
  Water Meters
  Water Meters
  Palace of Westminster (Expenditure)
  Palace of Westminster (Expenditure)
  London Enterprise Zone
  London Enterprise Zone
  London Docklands (Consultation)
  London Docklands (Consultation)
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Recreational Land (Sales)
  Recreational Land (Sales)
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
  Merseyside (Ministerial Visit)
  Merseyside (Ministerial Visit)
  Merseyside Development Corporation
  Merseyside Development Corporation
  Slum Clearance
  Slum Clearance
SCOTLAND
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Job Search Scheme
  Job Search Scheme
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Geriatric and Psychogeriatric Patients
  Geriatric and Psychogeriatric Patients
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Medical and Dental Posts
  Medical and Dental Posts
TRANSPORT
  Southampton Docks
  Southampton Docks
  Sealink
  Sealink
  Stockbridge
  Stockbridge
  Rail Wagons (Purchases)
  Rail Wagons (Purchases)
  Russell Scott School
  Russell Scott School
  Sealink Harbours Ltd.
  Sealink Harbours Ltd.

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

Isle of Man: Aircraft Passenger Security
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the security authorities should require three days to clear a British passenger to the Isle of Man travelling in a British registered private aircraft with a British pilot when the same passenger could travel by public transport without question.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, the minimum period of notice required for applications to fly from airfields not designated under Prevention of Terrorism legislation is 24 hours. All passengers travelling to the Isle of Man by public or private transport are liable to examination by police under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply, but would be not agree that the filing of a flight plan is sufficient security in itself, bearing in mind that the progress of the aircraft is monitored through various control zones, and there is a security check at Ronaldsway at the other end in any case? May I further ask my noble friend whether he does not agree that a pilot indulging in some nefarious deed would not file a flight plan and would not go and inform security, but would just fly at 100 feet under the radar cover to his designation? Therefore, does my noble friend not consider the security arrangements at this end to be superfluous?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as to the first part of my noble friend's question, we are dealing here with the common travel area formed by Great Britain, the Channel Islands, the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man, in which no immigration regulations as apply to other destinations exist, and in view of the threat posed by the free movement of terrorists within this area it was decided back in 1974 to legislate to bring that travel under the purview of examining officers.
As to the second part of my noble friend's question, it is not simply the pilot that the authorities are concerned with; it is the passengers, who may appear to perfectly ordinary pilots starting from non-scheduled airports to be perfectly innocent people but who may have succeeded in deceiving those people. In view of the level of the terrorist threat, I think your Lordships would agree that it is proper that this traffic should be kept under purview.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his explanation. Would he please bear in mind that it is possible to fly in a private aircraft with passengers all over Western Europe, and you merely present the passengers' passports at the other end; you do not have to notify anybody as to their identity before you leave? And would be bear in mind that the Isle of Man is not exactly Ireland; it is an independent island on the way, so to speak?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is the phrase, "in the way", which sums up the way", in which I shall bear this in mind.

The Acheson Report: Primary Health Care
2.40 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to implement the Acheson Report on Primary Health Care in inner London.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are actively considering the Acheson Report in the light of the many comments which we have received on it, and we hope to make an announcement soon.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord the Minister for that reply, may I ask that steps be taken, as I am sure they may well be, to bring the report to the attention of the new district authorities? Also perhaps one would like to know whether the reorganisation of the administration of the National Health Service will improve the situation in London, particularly in view of the Written Answer given in another place by the Minister of State for Health and Social Security on 17th November,
"that establishing family practitioner committees in their own right with powers to engage their own staff, this is likely to facilitate the development of primary care services and lead to increased efficiency in the administration of family practitioner services".—(official Report, Commons, col. 112.)
One cannot but remember that the Acheson Committee believed that an effective integration of services was required for effective primary care.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, as far as the noble Lord's first question is concerned, indeed we shall bring the report to the attention of regional health authorities and any other interested bodies where they are not already aware of the report with all its findings and conclusions. We believe that they are very well aware of that.
So far as the noble Lord's second question is concerned, I take the quotation that he has made; I note it, but I would not be able to comment on it in detail at this stage. I am sure the noble Lord and indeed your Lordships will be aware of the five main recommendations contained in the Acheson Report, which are all very closely concerned with primary health care and community care in urban areas.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he will indicate to the House what steps the Government have taken to secure comments and observations on this report? I rather got the impression from the noble Lord's reply to my noble friend that the Government were prepared to consider any comments and observations, but are the Government taking steps to secure comments and observations from informed individuals and informed groups?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I hope that there is not much difference between the reply which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, and what the Government are doing. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will be pleased to know that both the Acheson Report and indeed the associated Harding Report have been very actively considered together, and so far we have received comments from 64 different and important organisations on the Acheson Report, and over 100 on the associated report by Dr. Harding.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, in that case I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether an approach has been made on a co-ordinated basis, and whether the social services together with the health authorities have been approached on the implementation of this report?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am not aware of any specially co-ordinated approach, but I am given to understand that there have been informal discussions with the General Medical Services Council, and over 50 of the recommendations in the Acheson Report relate to pay and conditions of service for general practitioners. Indeed, discussions have concentrated on various issues such as retirement age for general practitioners together with various other major issues which are found in the Acheson Report. There have also been discussions with regional nursing officers on various other proposals for improvements in primary health care nursing.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, there is a certain uncharacteristic lack of clarity about the noble Lord's replies to this Question. Can he say clearly to the House that an initiative has been taken by his right honourable friend? He talks about letters having been received—40 letters from here and 30 letters from there. Are those letters in response to a request from his right honourable friend? Is it not necessary, if co-ordination is to take place, that the co-ordinator should be the responsible Minister? Can he say that, in fact, the initiatives taken from above are not in some haphazard way from below?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord attempts to flatter me for my first attempt at replying for this particular sector of the Government. I hope that I have been nothing less than truthful. I hope that I have been as clear as I can be. Indeed, the noble Lord mentioned over 40 letters. I said 64 letters and 100 letters, and so I hope that I was clear on that particular aspect. No, we have received the report and my
656
honourable friend in another place, if I may quote him, said:
"This report not only points out the special problems in London, but also shows ways to improve London's health services".
He continued:
"I am sure that this is the way to get a better medical service to the people of London".
My honourable friend is very willing to receive communications and, indeed, observations and views. I hope your Lordships will agree that it is not necessary for my honourable friend to go out actively to seek responses. Indeed, 164 replies for two reports is nothing short of active response by those interested.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, would my noble friend confirm that in all consideration of health matters dentistry is also fully considered? I must declare an interest here as an inner London practitioner. Would my noble friend confirm that medicine cannot be viewed separately from the other parts of the health service as regards primary care?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am not aware as to whether dentistry is covered by the Acheson Report or, indeed, by the definition of "primary health or community care". I am afraid that I am not able to answer that point. Perhaps I may discover the answer and write to my noble friend.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government have accepted in principle the recommendations and observations of the committee?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I could not go so far as to say that we have accepted every comma and every dot in each of the reports, but I could say—I hope that the noble Lord and the House will accept this —that we have welcomed the reports.

Wine: Trading Standards
2.48 p.m.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they received the report of the Local Authorities Coordinating Body on Trading Standards on the subject of prescribed quantities of wine sold by the glass; which bodies consulted favoured legislation, which expressed serious reservations, and which were opposed; and whether they will now reconsider using their powers under the Weights and Measures Act 1963 to introduce an order.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the report in question was received by my honourable friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs only on 24th June this year. I am sure your Lordships will understand that he is now considering its contents and the suggestion for statutory control.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, is it correct to say that there was a surprising consensus of view among the 14 thoroughly representative consumer and trade organisations and the local authority associations consulted and that only two out of that 14 had any reservations at all? Did they not also conclude that the time is now ripe for legislation in this field, in a country which last year consumed 105million gallons of wine, and that legislation should be introduced on the same broad lines as already exists, thoroughly successfully, in, for example, Austria, Germany and France?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, as far as drinking in Austria Germany and France is concerned, I shall not weary your Lordships with my personal, or indeed governmental, observations on measurements or drinking. But as far as my noble friend's first question is concerned, I am sure he will know that the LACOTS conclusion was that this trade, together with the spirit trade, should now be subject—to quote their words—
" to some form of regulation".
Certainly the Government believe that regulation and enforcement is a particularly difficult area in this liquid trade (if we can call it such) since, I am sure your Lordships are aware, wines tend to vary with quality. This also has some bearing not just on the measure of wine but also on the price that is paid.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, should there not also be a standard measure for the elastic restaurant carafe, which can vary from a niggardly half-litre to a full litre —a dangerously generous full litre?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, very few of us seem to find what he calls a generous full litre. I would confirm to him that under the Weights and Measures (Sale of Wine) Order 1976 in paragraph 2 it states that wine may only be sold in prepacked carafes in one of six measures—including, indeed, a half litre. If the noble Lord can get a generous measure of a litre, he is indeed lucky. Wine may be sold in 25 centilitres, 50 centilitres—that is his half litre—75 centilitres, one litre, or two imperial measures of 10 or 20 fluid ounces.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, does this apply to restaurants as well as to retailers?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, it applies anywhere if you sell by carafe—retail, wholesale, restaurants, your Lordships' House. It applies in all of them.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether sherry comes into the report? Does he not agree that price as well as quality and quantity come into this? Is he aware that British Rail serves 14 glasses of sherry out of one bottle, which is the equivalent of over £13 a bottle?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, in my opinion my noble friend is extremely lucky if she can obtain sherry on British Rail. I congratulate her on her good fortune. However, I am not able to ascertain whether sherry, wine or derivates thereof are covered, first, by the Sale of Wine Order 1976 or, indeed, by other prescribed metric quantities for wine. But I understand that the
658
prepackaging and labelling of wine and grape must is detailed in the EEC requirements. Whether sherry, its derivatives or the liquid that my noble friend was able to purchase on British Rail come within that definition, I am not sure, but I shall certainly ascertain the answer and write to her.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, while fully supporting the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, in this matter, is the Minister aware that the undoubted increase in wine drinking by the glass—to which his noble friend has drawn attention—is due in part at least to an increasing realisation by beer drinkers that they are being defrauded of upwards £250,000 a year in short measure? If they are now to understand that they are being similarly defrauded in respect of wine, is it not high time that the Government acted to deal with both these abuses?
Would it not be very simple, administratively, to lay down a fixed measure for a glass of wine, as it is equally simply to phase out the brimful measure of beer and make the use of the oversized marked glass obligatory?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord was aware of my earlier reply, that wine is sold in varying qualities and that, of course, the price paid —the noble Lord used the phrase "being defauded"—can vary, or perhaps not, according to the opinion of the drinker and according to the quality of wine that the drinker thinks he is paying for or would wish to pay for.
On measurements and regulatory sizes, I am sure that the noble Lord and the House will be aware that it is extremely difficult to measure wine out of the bottle with the aid of what are customarily known as optic measurements. I am told that to upend a bottle of wine tends to destroy much of the quality, at least for drinkers of quality wine, to whom the noble Lord is referring.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, is it not abundantly clear by now that this is one of the most important questions that has come before your Lordships' House?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his comment and I am proud to attempt to answer it.
Lord Glenkinglas: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree, as he has the good fortune to come from a better country than England, that if you have to drink whisky in this country you can hardly see it at the bottom of a glass. Will he not agree that if we are talking about drinking high quality wines, they are not drunk by the glass, they are drunk by the bottle, the magnum or the jeroboam? We are talking about reasonable wine at a sensible price in a sensible measure, a known measure.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am ever flattered by my noble compatriot and friend that, coming from one side of the border, we drink reasonably and sensibly. Indeed, many of my compatriots do not have that reputation, but, as he points out, I note that reasonable consumption of reasonable wine should be able to be

659
regulated or measured in some way. Indeed, the Government are looking into a reasonable method of achieving regulation of sales of wine by the glass. It requires much consultation and, indeed, it is very difficult to obtain a reasonable measure of what constitutes a glass. I understand that there are two measures: the Anglo-glass and the Euro-glass. The Euro-glass, naturally, is considerably larger than the other one. We have not yet come to a "Scotto-glass", but we shall come to that with another question.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that proper measures are being employed in your Lordships' House?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I shall look into that and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, would my noble friend be very kind and publish in the Official Report the very brief conclusion reached by LACOTS in the report submitted to the Minister? Secondly, would he, his Minister, and perhaps the Minister's PPS, who succeeded me in Lewes, like to come on a short pub crawl with me so that I can convince them of the error of their ways?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, indeed, I should be most grateful to take up any invitation from my noble friend, but in a purely personal capacity. I would not wish to commit the Government to any such functions. I shall attempt to publish any conclusions in the Official Report.

China: Control of Strategic Exports
2.56 p.m.
Lord Rhodes: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have come to a conclusion about removing China from Cocom procedures and thus changing the status of China from that of a member of the Eastern bloc to that of a friendly nation.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, at present it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government that the export of strategic items to China should be subject to Cocom control. However, a wide range of British defence equipment is available to the Chinese within this framework.
Lord Rhodes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is very little difference between what he has said this afternoon and what he said on 19th May? Further, is he aware that during the month of June there has been a dramatic change in the attitude of the United States of America towards this question, to their advantage and to our detriment?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if it follows what the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes says, the attitude of the United States of America will, no doubt, be made evident within the context of Cocom. However, as things stand, it is necessary for there to be unanimous agreement among our Cocom partners for China to be removed from the list of proscribed recipients. If I may repeat what I know I have said before to the noble Lord, British views about Chinese interests have been put forcefully to our Cocom partners and in Cocom we have supported a flexible approach towards China to give due weight to China's relations with other countries.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the noble Lord say which of our Cocom partners is resisting liberalisation?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords. The negotiations, or at least the exchanges, within Cocom are confidential.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, in view of the initially disappointing response of the Minister, although he did explain later that we were pressing our partners, have the Government really taken on board the dramatic difference in the United States' attitude to this, that they are now proposing all kinds of trade ties with the Chinese—scientific, technological and educational exchanges-and that we may be in danger of losing the very great advantages which we first had in making advances to the Chinese before the Americans?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I understand the concern of the noble Baroness, which she has expressed before, but I would remind the House that the United States —as indeed, all the other Cocom partners—is operating within the Cocom context if it is trading with those countries which are listed as the proscribed recipients of goods. I think we should just add that in practice Cocom procedures are at present probably less of a restraint to British defence sales to China than current Chinese economic retrenchment or readjustment policies. I think that it is right just to bear that in mind.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in the long term there could be tremendous opportunities for both China and Britain if there could be closer co-operation between our two countries in the field of information technology, and that some initiatives would be particularly welcome if they could be taken within Information Technology Year, 1982? Does the Minister know what steps would have to be taken for us to be able to escape from the constraints that Cocom imposes on trade in hardware and software respectively?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the answer to that question is that one of the periodic reviews of the Cocom strategic exports embargo lists is going to start in October. Our objectives will be to revise the embargo lists in such a way as to safeguard our, and Western, strategic interests, but with the minimum necessary disturbance to legitimate trade.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that expression he has just used, to revise the embargo lists, is a vital necessity to Britain's trade? Is he further aware that I myself can vouch that we lost a contract for rolling stock in China because rolling stock was put on the embargo lists? Secondly, is he further aware that the Chinese Ministers have now said that where they buy they have to sell? Last, is he further aware that the third greatest dealing nation with China is the United States of America, as vouchsafed this week by the National Council for USA-China trade? When is Britain going to wake up and play a part and stop talking of the "Falklands spirit", but build up the chances of international trade?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the essence of the noble Lord's question is that the existence of the lists is detrimental to our trading interests. I should like to give the noble Lord an assurance that efforts are being made to speed up the handling of case work in order to provide decisions more rapidly. A British proposal to this end is currently under consideration in Cocom.
Lord Morris: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he would consider carefully on behalf of Her Majesty's Government the advice given to him by his officials in view of his right honourable friend the Prime Minister's impending visit in September to China, and to do something in the direction suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, because I am convinced that this would undoubtedly give a fillip to his right honourable friend's visit at that time?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the forthcoming visit of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister reflects the long history of friendship between the British and Chinese peoples. I should just like to add to my noble friend Lord Morris, that of course we keep our policies, including the policy we are discussing this afternoon, towards China under constant review.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Lord that he recommends his colleagues —
Several noble Lords: No!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am about to suggest that he should exercise with his colleagues a modicum of care in defence sales to China, as, with the Argentine, he may never know who they are going to be used against?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, our defence exchanges with China have developed over the last few years and there has been a series of high level visits in each direction. The sale of defence equipment forms a part of our general trading relationships. But, in considering defence sales on a case-by-case basis, strategic implications are always kept in mind.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister making it clear to the House that the Government would in fact like to see China removed from the lists, and that the only thing that prevents this is the attitude of the other signatories to that agreement?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords, I am not saying that, first of all, because the exchanges within Cocom are of a confidential nature, and, secondly, because what I have said is that within the context of Cocom we are supporting a flexible approach towards trade with China.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his replies are a little unsatisfactory? Is he aware that there has been unequivocal support from Her Majesty's Government for some time for Chinese communism? Surely it would be wise in the circumstances for the opportunities to be given to British exporters in following the political stance that the Government have taken?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Government believe that the opportunities for British exporters within the context of the Cocom rules are very considerable. I would repeat that, in practice, Cocom procedures are at present probably less of a restraint to China, certainly so far as defence sales are concerned, than current Chinese economic retrenchment or readjustment policies.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, before the Prime Minister visits China—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, we have now had nearly nine minutes on this Question, and may I suggest that we take the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, who has been trying to get in for some time, and then move on to the next business.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, before the Prime Minister visits China, could she be advised to stop using the word "Marxist" as a term of abuse?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as I said, the forthcoming visit of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister reflects a long history of friendship between the British and Chinese peoples. I know that my right honourable friend is looking forward to the visit, and so I believe are the Chinese.

Future Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening. The Committee stage of the Employment Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period. During this adjournment the Third Reading of the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill will be taken.;
It may also be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the House will definitely sit this Friday, 9th July, to continue the Committee stage of the Transport Bill. I think it would be helpful if I add that, subject to the progress of the business, it is hoped that the Committee will be adjourned no later than 2 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, as the noble Lord is dealing with business, could he tell the House whether there are any plans to make a Statement in this House

663
regarding the Falklands inquiry despite the fact that it is contained in a Written Answer in another place?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I understand that a Question for Written Answer has been put down also in your Lordships' House.

Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Southern Water Authority Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Employment Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Compensation for certain dismissals]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below").
The noble Lord said: Before coming to Amendment No. 1 perhaps it would be appropriate for us to say how delighted we are to see that the Government have called up the 1980 reserves in the form of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. We are particularly happy to welcome him back because I know that, from that experience in the 1980 Bill, he will recognise as we go through this Bill the customary moderation of our amendments in the light of a Bill which, even more than in 1980, appears to be irredeemable in its iniquity.
We begin with an amendment which is indeed a modest amendment, and one which I think I would be genuinely sorry to see the Government totally resist. The schedule and the clause that open the Bill give to the Secretary of State some of the most extravagant powers which a Minister has had in recent times to dispense, in his entire discretion, public money. It gives him the power to distribute, it is estimated, up to£2 million among persons who were dismissed from employment between 1974 and 1980, on the basis that if the Government's Act of 1980 had been in force at the time, and if he takes the view that they might have had a remedy under its provisions, then he can pay them
664
any amount that he sees fit within certain broad limits in the schedule.
In another place there was considerable debate about whether this was retrospective or retroactive legislation, but I do not think your Lordships will be interested in that semantic discussion; it is perhaps sensible to call it a retroactive statutory discretion, and it certainly falls within the classical description of the retroactive and retrospective provisions of Mr. Justice Willes in 1870, when he spoke of laws that change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law. It changes the character of the past transaction and it puts the Secretary of State in broadly the same sort of place as an industrial tribunal would be in if it faced a case which had occurred between two and eight years ago.
We shall argue in the debates on these clauses that there is no obligation whatever on the Government to introduce legislation as wide as that for the past, or indeed in respect of what they have already, and certainly not in this Bill for the future on union membership arrangements: and we shall on the appropriate amendments look in detail at the judgment of the Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg on which the Government have placed a certain reliance. But they cannot rely on that judgment for the extravagant provisions in these two provisions which do not include —and this is the point of our amendment—any provision whatever for the Secretary of State to make public what he is doing. The burden of the amendment is only to say that, if we fail in all else, the Secretary of State must tell us what he is doing with this money.
Clause 1 and Schedule 1 of the Bill are very different from the rest of it. The subject was not mentioned in the consultative proposals; nobody heard a word of this desire to make retroactive payments until the Bill sprang, as it were, like Athene fully armed from the unencumbered head of the Secretary of State after the consultative proposals. Employees who assert their rights to claim unfair dismissal under legislation normally do so openly in a tribunal. Industrial tribunals rarely sit in camera, and there is no suggestion in the Bill that they should sit in camera more than they do now.
Here, however, the Secretary of State may appoint an assessor, but he is not bound to take the assessor's judgment on fact or law—that is explicitly provided for in the schedule—and he can decide the exact amount of compensation. The amendment says that he must tell us what he does before he actually distributes the money, and in the amendment we provide for a period of three weeks, which seems to us reasonable. There is surely a very strong case for this House to look at this sort of provision.
It is frequently said that retrospective or retroactive legislation is bad, but I shall not stand here and suggest that either side does not from time to time initiate retroactive or retrospective legislation. All Governments do it from time to time. What I say however is that if it is done, it should be scrutinised with the closest attention. And if it is done, it should not allow for very important powers, and the expenditure of public money, in secret in a way that cannot be known about.
What have the Government said so far? I will take briefly the six points they made in another place.
Most of them come from the Under-Secretary of State on 11th March, in columns 267 onwards, in Standing Committee, and I summarise the points, I hope fairly. First, the Minister said that it would be a waste of public money to present such reports. Secondly, he said it was undesirable because it would infringe the privacy of the transactions between Government and individual. I pause here to say that since this individual, had he had the rights at the time, would have had to sue in public in tribunal, what worth can be put on that argument?
He said, thirdly, that it was wrong to disclose the names of employers and unions involved—this does of course involve a dismissal from a closed shop situation and there must be a UMA, a union membership arrangement, between an employer and a union—because it would look as though, said the Under-Secretary, the unions and employers were being put in the dock. I do not believe that for a moment. It was agreed that answers might be given to parliamentary Questions, although it is not at all clear what would be said, and perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, would tell us what would be said if a Question were put down about a particular case. Then it was said that these decisions to pay compensation were different from industrial tribunal decisions because the Secretary of State was exercising a discretion.
Then it was said, and as it is so important I will quote the words:
" I may have misread the press, but I understand that the trade union movement has recently been issuing threats to take action against people who try to benefit by taking such action as the Bill made available to them. Perhaps I did not understand what appeared in the press, but if I have understood it aright, those people were saying, quite irresponsibly, that what Parliament will decide to do, they will do their best to obstruct and frustrate".
He was challenged on that, and on a number of occasions afterwards, to produce evidence for it, and he produced none; and I trust the Government will make it clear that they know of no such threats—because there are none—or else produce evidence of them.
It is even worse than that because if such threats had been made by someone irresponsible enough to do so—of penalising somebody for exercising his legal rights the man would be in the same position as if he had sued in an industrial tribunal. If the trade union movement wants to go around penalising people for exercising their rights under the legislation, they can get the names of those who do so in the tribunals, but I know of no one case where that has been done, and if there is one let the Government produce it, as a straight answer to an action in a tribunal.
Surely none of this is an answer to the plea that the Secretary of State should say what he is doing, for here there is no appeal to a court; there is no appeal to the employment appeal tribunal. It may be that a claimant could go to the High Court on judicial review if the Secretary of State was so erroneous in an extravagant manner and got his law all wrong, but that would be a very rare case.
A point of the greatest importance, one to which we shall return in our debates—it is right that I should raise it at an early point because I know that my noble friend Lord McCarthy will have something to say on it—is that the Government, at the beginning, estimated that they needed £2 million to dispense on the clause
666
because they thought there would be some 400 cases of injustice that might need recompensing of those dismissed between 1974 and 1980. Your Lordships will appreciate that I am not at the moment debating the type of injustice, because that is not relevant to the amendment, although I would and shall on other amendments.
The Government said they based the 400 estimate-or, as the Minister of State said, "the shot in the dark of 400"—on the research of Miss Helen Jackson and, secondly, a research team commissioned by the Department of Employment three years ago which is now co-ordinated by Professor Gennard of the University of Strathclyde. There is a nice irony in this because Miss Jackson's research (which is normally understood to be a guess, which is what it was, of 400 cases) was punctured by Professor Gennard and his team in a letter to the New Statesman in June 1980, and little has been heard of her research methods since. Since then, however, the dark in which the shot was made has become even more gloomy. The Gennard Report is well known in various circles to be around in final draft form, but the Government will not publish it. They say it is unfinished and they cannot publish it. The Secretary of State repeatedly refused to disclose the report in another place, even though his Minister of State said in Committee on 11th March, at column 218:
" Those drafts"—
that is, drafts of the Gennard Report—
"are now and have been for some time the subject of discussion and detailed examination normal in commissioned research, but it is not finished".
I do not wish to challenge that, but I say that it has been challenged. The Financial Times is not normally an irresponsible newspaper. On 24th May, in a report by John Lloyd and David Goodhart, its labour correspondents, it stated:
"Employment Ministers say 'The report has not been published because it is unfinished '. That is only technically correct. The report is completed, but it has not yet been formally accepted by the department. Until it is, it cannot be published".
Then, suddenly, also in Committee in another place, the Government decided to make a concession, and they handed across a two-page document which gave some of the figures from the Gennard Report, presumably upon which they were relying. The document showed that there were fewer that 400 such dismissals over a much longer period, and it was not at all clear which would fall within the schedule and which would not. Various persons, including the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, have asked the Government for the report, and to my knowledge have not yet received it. Even if the report is only a draft, when it is known by everyone who knows anything about it—there have been extensive press leaks, and every labour correspondent has a copy—it is quite wrong for Parliament to be asked to debate the spending of £2 million worth of public money by shots in the dark when the window could be opened and the light from Gennard could stream in to infuse the debate with some knowledge and clarity.
I hope that the Government will anounce that they will release the report, especially in view of the fact that on 9th December 1975 a Back-Bencher in another place spoke about the need for the press to be present

667
and to have publicity in all kinds of tribunals. That Back-Bencher is now the Secretary of State for Employment, Mr. Norman Tebbit. In a glorious speech, reported at col. 335 of the Official Report—this is my final quotation; I shall not quote all of the speech—he said that the press must be there, the plaintiff must be represented, everything must be done in the open. He is right. He was right then, and he ought to be right now. It is because of that fundamental, very simple and very modest point, which goes to the root of the way in which the Government have so far handled the matter, that I beg to move the amendment.
3.22 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It is refreshing to begin the Committee stage of the Bill with an effort, an unaccustomed effort, on the part of the Opposition Front Bench to press for restraint and control over public expenditure. I only hope that on other measures the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, will infect his colleagues with similar zeal, perhaps in cases where more public money is involved and where the merits of the expenditure are less obvious than they are in this case. The noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite exercised all his impressive forensic abilities to try to turn this really rather modest matter into a major issue of principle and of policy. But what the amendment that I think he was moving seeks to do is simply to provide paving for a number of subsequent amendments which would formalise, delay, and prolong matters and would involve considerable additional administrative expenditure in respect of the fairly simple and straightforward issue dealt with by Clause 1.
As I understand it, Clause 1 simply seeks to remedy what I think the noble Lord opposite will find the great bulk of public opinion in this country regards as a very real wrong suffered by a limited number of people who lost their jobs as a result of an unfair state of affairs. That opinion is held not only by some of us on these Benches; it is also the opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, the impartiality of which in the political sense is I think beyond dispute. After a prolonged discussion of the matter, the court held that in some of the cases there was a breach of fundamental human rights. The clause is designed to put that right, and on any view the amounts involved are moderate. It is a once-and-for-all proposal.
On the whole I share the dislike of the noble Lord opposite for legislation which is either retroactive or retrospective, but where, as in this case, the sole retroactive effect is to confer a benefit, the normal objections do not arise. It is objectionable to alter the law retrospectively where people who have acted under the law as they thought it was, find it altered subsequently to their disadvantage. That is not the case with this proposal. An advantage, a modest advantage, by way of recompense is conferred on people who have suffered wrong and injustice. I see no reason whatever for setting up, as is proposed by noble Lords opposite, an elaborate piece of machinery the only effect of which can be to spend further public money on administraton and to delay the payment to people who suffered their wrongs some years ago.
Finally, the noble Lord was I think for once guilty of something of an inaccuracy when he said that my
668
right honourable friend the Secretary of State would spend the money in secret. I speak subject to confirmation by my noble friend on the Front Bench, but it would be my impression that the expenditure would be subject to review by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and if he found any irregularity, abuse of power or excess of action the matter would be reported to the Public Accounts Committee. Those of us in this Chamber who have had the privilege of serving on that committee know what effective sanction and control it provides. Not for one moment do I think that there is the slightest likelihood of any irregularity, but I agree with the noble Lord opposite that if there were to be, since public money is involved, there should be some protection. Speaking subject to my noble friend's confirmation, I believe that there is the normal protection provided by the audit of the Comptroller and Auditor General and by examination by the Public Accounts Committee. Therefore, I hope that, without undue delay, your Lordships' Committee will reject the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the noble Lord sits down I wish to apologise to him and to your Lordships. The noble Lord said that he was not sure which amendment I was moving. If your Lordships will permit me to point out, I should have said at the onset that, with your Lordships' approval, I wished Amendment No. 3 to be taken with Amendment No. 1,because they go together.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I thank the noble Lord.
Lord Rochester: At Second Reading I made plain that we on these Benches support in principle the Secretary of State being empowered to compenstate the individuals to whom the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, has referred. However, on the face of it to us it seems reasonable that when the Secretary of State is taking powers to disburse what are potentially large sums of money—I think that on this point I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—without reference to industrial tribunals that are available for the purpose, or even without necessarily having to consult anyone else, then, as the amendment proposes, there should at least be some obligation on him to give reasons for the decision that he has reached and to publish any report that might have been made by the person appointed by him under Schedule 1. While there might be doubt as to the practicality of ascertaining, as is suggested in the next amendment, the opinion of the former employer and the trade union which may earlier have been involved, I have considerable sympathy with the principle that the Secretary of State should be made more accountable for the decisions that he makes in this matter.
Baroness Seear: I should like to raise a point, a narrower point, but one which I should have thought would be dear to the hearts of members of the Front Bench opposite. In the reference in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill to the amount of public money to be spent it is stated that it is proposed to pay out up to £2 million. It is then stated that it will cost a quarter of a million pounds to pay out £2 million. That seems to be an enormously high

669
administrative cost for the paying out of £2 million. Do we really have to spend all that money to dish out £2 million?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: These amendments and the clause to which they relate are likely to become a feature of our political and parliamentary life if the see-saw trends of recent affairs continue. It seems now as if one Government propose and the next one dispose, and one wonders whether we are entering a period of politics in which Governments will have a single term and probably no longer, in which case the succession of Governments will be involved in undoing what their predecessors did.
I am not in sympathy with these amendments, and I am not really in sympathy with the clause either, because this is another move in the see-saw politics to which I object. Nothing seems to stick, and I do not see how we can continue to govern this country on the basis of doing and undoing. It used to stop at doing and undoing, but now we have retroactive or retrospective measures to repair the harm done by the previous legislation. The Labour Government, when they came to dismantle the 1971 Industrial Relations Act, made retrospective the tax relief on the income of funds of trade unions which registration under the 1971 Act qualified them for but which non-registration did not: and from recollection, I believe £10 million was provided to restore to the trade unions the tax relief that they had foregone, and knowingly foregone, because of non-registration under the 1971 Act.
Call it what you like, it was a retrospective repair of harm alleged to have been done under the earlier legislation—and this, in principle, is precisely the same, with, I regret to say, the same political bias behind it in both cases. This is not really the repairing of an obvious harm to individuals which public opinion generally feels should be put right. There is a political bias both ways when one comes to deal with matters of this kind, because they arise from a highly political piece of legislation, whether it is the 1971 Act, the 1974 Act, the 1976 Act, the 1980 Act or the 1982 Act. They are all highly political, and arouse deep feelings and emotions, extreme bitterness and grave exaggeration in all criticisms of them from both sides. There are, of course, some differences here, but the retrospection provided for the refund of tax reliefs foregone was based upon an assessment of what relief was due, and it was easily ascertainable; it was not, so to speak, at anybody's discretion. But under the proposals here, payments are within limits within the discretion of the Secretary of State.
My sympathy in this matter certainly rests with workers who found themselves dismissed on account of the introduction of a closed shop arrangement, who had never undertaken to join a union, who had never done so and whose employment was never conditional upon their being members of any trade union of or a particular union. They exercised the freedom of the citizen to not join a union if they so decided. To alter the conditions of their employment and to turf them out is, I think, a grievous wrong on individuals; and, furthermore, I do not think that people who take that stand are necessarily dishonourable people. The dissenter is often a very noble person indeed, and a very courageous one, who places individual liberty above all
670
else. Others of more temperate outlook on life decide that one stand for liberty has to be reconciled with another, and by that means compromise is brought about. But we must not feel that there is necessarily a justifiable bias against those who may claim the payments that can be made under this clause.
That is why I am very much out of sympathy with the proposal to publish their names and to publish the reports that are made upon their applications. It may be, of course, that some of them have already had publicity before an industrial tribunal, because they may have failed in their claim for wrongful dismissal. Some may have decided that it was not worthwhile making a claim, and may not have received any publicity so far. But I think the Secretary of State will obviously account for what he is doing, in the sense that he will provide an analysis of the payments he has made and the numbers involved, and all the desirable details about what he has done. But what is the point of publication of names? It is to put them in the pillory. That, I fear, is what would happen to them, and that is extremely undesirable. I do not feel that one should victimise people who avail themselves of this opportunity to get compensation retrospectively merely because they were excluded from continued employment in their particular jobs.
I therefore feel that Parliament ought to look at where we are going on this kind of legislation, and ask ourselves whether the public are going to continue to have patience indefinitely with this feature of our political and parliamentary activity. I think it is taking up an enormous amount of time. There are much more important things in this Bill than this. The discretion has to go somewhere. The industrial tribunals are usually awarding against employers and not against the state; they are not spending public money, so the discretion has to go somewhere. It could all go to one tribunal. I think it is undesirable to have this scattered all over the country in different industrial tribunals which may have a different approach to this kind of case and which they are not used to hearing retrospectively in this particular way.
So I regret to say that I do not feel that I can go along with these amendments. In so doing, I do not think I need to repeat time and time again my own connection with the trade union movement; but while my own union had a 93 per cent. membership on a voluntary basis, I saw no reason for a closed shop. It really makes the leadership lazy, arrogant and sometimes aggressive towards members, who are captive members and whose confidence and goodwill they do not rely on for their continued strength as union leaders. But that is a debate for another occasion. I am sorry to introduce a dissenting note at this stage, so early in the debates on this Bill, but one has to decide: does one say nothing and let it go, or does one feel that there is something to be said in principle on a matter of this kind? I feel there is, and that is why I have said it.
Lord Howie of Troon: I do not intend to follow the line of argument pursued by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, although it will be no great suprise to those who know me that I agree very much with many of the things that he has said. I want to revert, and to revert very briefly, to the arguments

671
raised in defence of the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, or at any rate to these arguments in so far as I understand them—and any misunderstanding will have been due to me and not to the noble Lord, whose clarity of expression is legendary in your Lordships' House and elsewhere.
As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, appeared to me to defend the Government against the allegation of secrecy by referring to the position of the Auditor-General and of the Public Accounts Committee. What he said was right. What the Government do with money comes under the scrutiny of the Auditor-General and whatever comes under the scrutiny of the Auditor-General comes within the purview of the Public Accounts Committee, a body of which he has great experience and I have none, so that he speaks as an insider and I as an outsider.
I would remind him (and he will correct me if I am wrong) that the work of the Auditor-General, consequently and the work of the Public Accounts Committee, covers a vast field. In the nature of things, the Public Accounts Committee does not deal with everything which might theoretically come within its ambit. While it might be true that the Public Accounts Committee could theoretically deal with this particular aspect of public expenditure, it is not necessarily true that the Public Accounts Committee would do so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. As I understand it, the position is that the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Exchequer Audit Department with their staff of between 400 and 500 are working through the departments throughout the year. Of course, a great deal of what they ascertain never comes before the Public Accounts Committee, but any irregularity, any making of payments which should not have been made, even though the amounts are small, they would normally find it necessary to draw to the attention of the committee and the committee would feel it its duty to deal with it.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am sure that the noble Lord because of his experience is correct. Nevertheless, it remains true that the amount of work for the Public Accounts Committee is such that they will always give greater or lesser weight to each of a variety of items which comes before them. It might be that this area of expenditure is something upon which they might feel inclined to spend a lot of time, but I am sure that the noble Lord will agree with me that it may not be so. There may be from year to year a wide variety of items of Government expenditure which the Public Accounts Committee would find much more important and pressing and would deal with rather than this kind of thing. I think that the argument which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, raised was a strong one, but I do not think it was strong enough, and because it was not strong enough I think the Committee should pay very careful attention to these amendments before us now.
Lord Oram: Neither my noble friend Lord
672
Wedderburn of Charlton nor the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, found very much objection to the fact that the scheme proposed in Clause 1 is retroactive or retrospective. And neither do I. I agree that both sides of this House pass retroactive legislation and I see no particular objection, in that sense, to that part of this clause. But I would suggest that it is uniquely retrospective, and perhaps dangerously so, in that it requires a decision to be made in respect of events of an earlier period, perhaps of six, seven or eight years ago, on the assumption that the 1980 Act had been in existence years before it actually was enacted.
There may be precedents for this kind of thing but I am not aware of them. I believe it to be true that this clause is unique in that respect. Certainly it would raise enormous practical difficulties in operation. It would put great strain upon the impartiality of those whose duty it is to reach decisions, and to reach proper and fair decisions, in the cases that will come before them. Because this amendment that my noble friend has moved would help to deal with that difficult task, and would ensure that each case was more deliberately and carefully examined in the face of the enormous difficulties to which I have referred, I think this amendment should commend itself to your Lordships.
Lord Plant: I support this amendment wholeheartedly. There is no question of delay with this amendment. It turns the searchlight of democracy on this issue. We are voting on this issue but we do not know how many cases will be involved. The sum of £2 million is set aside but there has been no authoritative statement yet from the Benches opposite as to how many cases they expect. I do not think they know. We want to know not only the number of cases but how the Secretary of State will deal with them. It is all right for us to pass a Bill or to amend a Bill and not take into account that the media will turn their searchlight on issues of this kind. If we think that the people who are going to receive monies from the Secretary of State will keep it quiet, I do not think we understand the ingenuity of the press.
There is an emotive issue here for 12 million trade unionists. This is a benefit for non-members, for people who refused to join a trade union. They are the bounty hunters and the Government are taking pride in giving money to non-members, money to people who were too mean to belong to a trade union. I disagree on this with my noble friend Lord Houghton, who was predecessor as Chairman of the Inland Revenue Staff Association for 40 years; I was general secretary for 16 years. I think that we have to understand the feelings of those trade unionists who have paid their dues and fought the battles with the employers and got benefits which the non-members have accepted. Now they see these non-members being remunerated and benefited by the Government.
Therefore, I think we ought to have the searchlight of democracy on this issue. And that is why I want to see reports made and names published. I do not think that many people will be too ashamed to have their names published if there is some brass at the end of it. I, too, will be influenced to some extent by what the Government will be able to say about the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I think this is an important point which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd

673
Carpenter, raised. We do not know at the moment whether it is going to be looked at carefully by the Comptroller and Auditor-General or by the Public Accounts Committee. However, I support the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: May I make a few remarks backing up what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said earlier, which I hope noble Lords are not forgetting, for we have since had these long statements. All this amendment will do will be to complicate things and slow them down. The sooner they are dealt with, the better. They are perfectly legitimate; the Court of Human Rights said so in particular cases. There are others which are similar; but I believe but there are not too many altogether. It is right, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said, that publicity for this for individuals is probably undesirable. There is no reason why, if they themselves want to make it public, they should not do so; but it should not be forced upon them from without. I would have thought it was quite an important point, and the sooner it is dealt with fairly and straightforwardly the better. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, there is ample machinery within the system to make sure that the Secretary of State does not abuse his powers in this respect. Therefore, I would have thought that this complicated amendment is better rejected by your Lordships.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: May I draw the attention of the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Mottistone, to the speech just made by my noble friend Lord Plant, and also to the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton. The argument that is being put by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, with some support from the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is irrelevant to this amendment. The question is not whether the Public Accounts Committee will find irregularities: that is not the object of it at all. The object of the amendment is to make public what the Secretary of State is doing, and if the Secretary of State is handing out up to£2 million of public money, I would have thought that anybody who believes in open government, in democratic government and, as my noble friend Lord Wedderburn quoted from the Secretary of State himself, public accountability, would support this amendment.
The object of the amendment is for the country to see what the Secretary of State is doing. If the Secretary of State is going to hand out this money, he must be seen to be doing it according to certian criteria, and those criteria should be published and made known. All I would say to my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby is that if the figures that have been bandied about in Standing Committee and in another place and during the Committee stage in another place, are correct, and if in fact the people we are referring to—300 to 400 people—are going to get something of the order of £20,000 to£30.000, then I very much doubt whether they would be too much worried about their names being publicised. It rather reminds one of putting a cross on the football pool coupon—" no publicity, please."
674
The essential element of Amendments 1 and 3 is the issue of public accountability. Do not let us get misled into the fields of the Public Accounts Committee and the searching for irregularities. We are talking here about public accountability of a member of the Government. Surely that is what Parliament is about. Surely, when a Secretary of State is asking for powers to distribute money in this way, whether we agree with it or not, the first thing we should insist on is that he is accountable to Parliament and to the public for the way in which he spends that money and the criteria he uses to distribute it.
Lord Scanlon: Listening to debates in your Lordships' Chamber, one gains experience all the time. I came into the Chamber today believing that in general terms and in general principle, retroactive and retrospective legislation was obnoxious in the extreme. I still believe that, and I do not think it has anything to do with fair play, with justice, or with any of the other words that have been used. In the main it is purely punitive and it is in that spirit that I believe it is being operated in this case. But in case my words may be misunderstood, I take inspiration for I am encouraged that in future debates we shall have the support of the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Houghton of Sowerby, when we introduce further retroactive legislation to make these people pay back this amount of£2 million they have already received, wrongly, in my view. I am sure we shall receive their support in that regard.
The only other point I should like to make concerns the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, about the closed shop. He said he would never support it so long as he had 93 per cent. members by so-called voluntary means. That is all right when you have a sympathetic employer. However, most employers are not sympathetic. They recognise a trade union only when that trade union is strong enough to compel that recognition, and if action is taken to operate even fundamental rights—the right to refuse to work with a non-unionist, which is an elementary right enshrined for many, many years —we shall be committing an offence when this Bill takes effect. Therefore, in my view, there is no question of some impartial way in which these things can be brought about unless you have a sympathetic employer; and unfortunately that is not the case in Britain today.
Lord Shinwell: I never thought, when I took part in the debates on the Industrial Relations Bill in 1970 and 1971, that I would ever be involved again: I suffered enough. But as I understand the subject of this debate—I have some difficulty in following it—it appears to me to be somewhat complicated, and I am a little out of touch with these matters nowadays. But if I understand the kernel of the subject aright, it relates merely to a matter of publicity. Should the activities, whatever they may be, arising out of legislation be made public? That is all. It is merely a question of whether there should be publicity for an action taken on behalf of the Secretary of State or by himself directly, or whether there should be no publicity whatever. That is what I understand the debate to be about.

675
I am bound to say just this: if it were another Secretary of State I would not worry so much about it, but one must have in view his obvious bias and partiality, and his determination to weaken the trade union movement. There is no question about that. There is one thing to be said for the Secretary of State: he conceals nothing about his innermost feelings and sentiments. He is the kind of Secretary of State I like. You can deal with him. I would rather have that kind of Secretary of State than somebody who withholds from the general public, and certainly from Members of your Lordships' House and those of another place, what he is up to.
I think it would be interesting to know what he is up to in almost every particular of his activities. It would be very interesting and therefore, if the subject or, as I say, the kernel of this debate is a matter of publicity as to whether his activities in this particular area should he made known, and, especially as regards the expenditure of money, whether on behalf of the Government or on behalf of employers, should be revealed, I hope this amendment will be accepted.
I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is to reply. We all know his humanitarian instincts—they have been made known to us on many occasions—and I am certain that he would be the last man in your Lordships' House to try to conceal anything. Here is his opportunity. This democrat, this noble democrat, this aristocratic democrat—you cannot get a better democrat than that. If there is one, I should like to know about him. I would write an article about him and make a hit of money from that. But I do not want to be involved in these matters for very much longer. You get a bit out of touch when you get a bit older and, in the course of a few years, I shall be getting a bit older. It seems to me that I had better keep out of these disputes. But as this one appears to me, it is a simple issue—a matter of publicity. I am all for publicity. I hope that the noble Earl will respond accordingly.
Earl Ferrers: Before I come to that inviting and touching subject to which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has referred, may I respond to the courteous welcome which the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, gave to my noble friend Lord Gowrie. He said that we had brought up the 1980 reserves and he was glad to see it. We were merely responding to the cry of noble Lords opposite on Second Reading to "Bring back Gowrie". As I told him then, he is as welcome on this Front Bench on this occasion as noble Lords opposite will find him welcome to them.
I think that we have got slightly off the main beam of the amendment, because this seems almost to have turned into a clause stand part debate. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said at the start that this Bill was irredeemable in its iniquity. I am sure that he will chew up those words before it is finished, because, as he knows perfectly well, it is a very modest Bill. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, said that they do not like retrospective action, retrospective legislation or retroactive legislation. I think that that is a hare. This is retrospective justice, because, as they know perfectly well, it was as a result of the European Court of Human Rights saying—and this
676
was a staggering thing for them to say—that this Parliament, which, after all, is the Mother of all Parliaments had abjectly failed to protect the essential freedoms of its citizens, that this Government thought that it would be retrospective justice to ensure that, for those few people who may have been caught, there would be a method of remedy. That is what this clause is about.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, raised the problem of Gennard and he said "Let us have some light from Gennard". He said that every labour correspondent has a copy of the Gennard Report. All I can say to the noble Lord is that, if every labour correspondent has it, then they have something which my right honourable friend does not have, because, as he knows perfectly well, the Gennard report is not finished. It has caused much distress to Professor Gennard that his report has been quoted in extenso by various people, when, in fact, it has not been finalised. So it would be totally wrong for the Government to start quoting from a report which is only in draft form.
The real point about these two amendments is that the Government are seeking to give some compensation to people who have had a raw deal as a result of the previous Government's legislation. These people will already have suffered very considerable distress as a result of their dismissals, and it would be quite intolerable if the process of applying for this compensation were to be a yet further ordeal. That could well happen, if details of each individual's case had to be made public, as these amendments would require. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, expressed regret that he offered a note of dissent. I assure him that he need have no regret for that, because I thought that his dissent was wholly admirable and totally justified. He said that it was like putting people in a pillory. I think that that is so.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, very kindly and flatteringly described me as humanitarian. I think that that is the first occasion on which I have been called that, but there is always a first occasion for some things. He said that I am aristocratic and that is not the first occasion. Then he said that I was democratic and that is a matter of opinion. But the answer to this democratic, aristocratic, humanitarian argument is that he would not wish to see the light thrown upon individuals' cases for everyone to see, and, as he knows only too well, this is a cast-iron plank upon which all Governments operate, becuse there is a general principle that a Government should not make public the dealings between them and individuals, about such matters as tax, social security payments and so on.
This is a case to which this principle clearly applies, and it would be quite wrong for the Government to start publishing amounts of money which various individuals have received as a result of this legislation. That is not to say that information of a general nature about the compensation provisions in the Bill would not be made available.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Plant, said that they wanted the searchlight of democracy. They can have the searchlight of democracy, because they both know that Questions from Members of Parliament, or from your Lordships, about, for example, the number of applications which

677
have been made and the total amount of compensation which has been paid, would all be answered in full. In the same way, if your Lordships or Members of another place were involved with an application on behalf of a particular person, the Government would be as helpful as possible in providing all the relevant information for that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that £250,000 is a lot of money to administer £2million, but I would just tell her that that is the maximum and covers staff salaries and other administrative costs. The salary of the assessor and the cost of advertisements will also have to be found from this maximum figure, and if the money is not spent it will not be wasted. I think she will agree that it is really a pretty small sum of money to be spent on the defence of what has been shown to be justice—
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Will the noble Earl allow me to interrupt? Could he just tell the Committee what distinction he makes, so far as publicity is concerned, between other unfair dismissals going to a tribunal and the unfair dismissal that he has characterised in this Bill?
Earl Ferrers: When an unfair dismissal case goes to a tribunal, that is a legal proceeding and the amounts paid are paid by various people. The amounts of money which are paid by this method are sums of money paid out of Government funds. I will give the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, an analogy. He knows perfectly well that in business, or in agriculture, any grant that is made to an individual is not disclosed, because you would be disclosing an individual's private means. That is a factor which has prevailed under all Governments and I suggest that it is one which should prevail under this Government. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked for confirmation that the expenditure would be subject to review by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Of course, he was entirely correct and was also correct in his mild altercation with the noble Lord, Lord Howie. The real point is not that these figures will not be known by the Comptroller and Auditor-General or by anyone else but whether or not they should be made public in a published report. It is that which the Government feel should not happen.
Lord Howie of Troon: I wonder whether the noble Earl would say a word or two about the very mild and friendly altercation to which he referred. The matter between us centred upon certain irregularities, about which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was very worried. What worries us are the regularities, not the irregularities. It is quite clear that while the Public Accounts Committee might possibly, though not certainly, deal with the irregularities, it would not be empowered to deal with the regularities.
Earl Ferrers: I do not think that makes very much difference. I repeat what I said at the end. The fact is not that the facts will not be known; it is whether they should be published. The Comptroller and Auditor-General has a perfectly sound method of investigating all expenditure by Government, as all Government departments know. So, in this case,
678
I do not believe that it is correct to publish these sums. But I do believe that it is perfectly correct—and it will happen—for the overall figures to be available to those who wish to know them, by the normal parliamentary processes.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: We are not getting on very well. It is a very simple amendment. What we are asking for is quite simple. I apologise to your Lordships for not having read part of Amendment No. 3. We want to know the Secretary of State's decisions and we want to know his grounds. It is no answer to that to say that what should be a judicial procedure—when you already know what it is, because it would be published—has been turned by the Government's own Bill into an administrative procedure and should therefore be kept secret. That is no argument —rather the opposite. That which is done in secret in the expenditure of public money on grounds which are not disclosed is far more obnoxious than keeping it secret in court when it is dealt with in camera.
With no disrespect to your Lordships who have otherwise spoken, may I make two points to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I was very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said, as was said in another place by the Conservative Party generally, without one single piece of evidence to support him that these people would be pilloried. It is an offence to 12 million trade unionists not to produce evidence for that kind of allegation. Last year there were 35,000 cases which went before industrial tribunals. Very few of those cases were won, but quite a few of those which were won were won by non-unionists. There were 50 cases which went before the independent review committee. Both I and my noble friend Lord McCarthy sit on that committee. We have never heard from non-unionists who have come to argue their case before the committee that they have been pilloried. Until, therefore, somebody produces a shred of evidence I hope noble Lords will refrain from the rather dishonourable practice of speaking about people being pilloried when they have no evidence of it happening.
If there is a case, let us hear of it. I say that there is no evidence sufficient to override the basic point that a Secretary of State in deciding legal questions—noble Lords will see when we come to the amendments that there are thousands of legal issues—should get all of them right. Yet he is not obliged even to refer a case to a tribunal or to an assessor, unless he feels like it, and even then he can ignore the report which is made. We want to know the grounds of that report, where he has one, and the grounds upon which he acts. It is no answer to say, in broad terms, that it has got to be done like this because the European Court of Human Rights says that it must be so. With respect to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, it is not the case that the European Court of Human Rights declared that this Parliament failed to protect the essential freedoms of its people. That is a very broad proposition. The noble Earl obviously had not consulted the Secretary of State about that passage in his speech, because on 16th March in another place Mr. Tebbit said at col. 475:
" It has also been suggested that the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the British Rail case was the main

679
justification for Clause 1 and Schedule 1. I should like to put the position on the record clearly and firmly. The judgment of the European Court in the British Rail case in no sense required the Government to bring forward those provisions. The judgment concerned only those who took their case to Strasbourg. The judgment has merely added further justification, if that were needed, for the Government's view that it is right to provide such compensation".
I disagree with the last sentence. I wholly agree with the first, because it is absolutely right.
We are going to have a lot of Gennard. The Government should save a lot of time by putting the draft Gennard Report in the Library. We know that it will be a draft report. Professor Gennard has no status to object to that, if the Government request it. Three parts of the Gennard research have already been published in the Department of Employment Gazette. It is only the part about the closed shop which has not been published. I am not sure whether the Minister is still saying that he has not seen it or that he has not got it. If so, he cannot have been speaking to the Secretary of State. Three times in Committee in another place the Secretary of State declared that it was in the department and had been discussed for months. So let us have the draft report and not the air of hugger-mugger secrecy which is befuddling this issue. Quite apart from Gennard, if Gennard had never seen the darkness and gloom, let alone the light of day, the simple point is that the Secretary of State will be taking decisions which would normally be taken by industrial tribunals. The grounds for those decisions would normally be published in reports. We say that he should publish his decisions and the grounds for those decisions in an equivalent manner.
Earl Ferrers: Before the noble Lord presses his amendment, may I make one or two points. It was entirely unwittingly, I am sure, but the noble Lord was guilty of one or two inaccuracies in what he said. He wanted to know about Professor Gennard's report and said that we must not be hugger-mugger. The fact is that the report is in the department. The fact is that the Secretary of State has not seen it. The reason why the Secretary of State has not seen it is because it is in its draft form. The reason why it is not being published is because, as a result of discussions which are normally carried out when these reports are made, it may be subject to considerable change or revision. Therefore, I repeat that it is wholly wrong to put in the Library a report which is not complete and whose final version may be changed. There is nothing hugger-mugger about that.
The noble Lord also implied that there was a difference between what I said and what my right honourable friend said. Of course the European Court did not say that it was necessary for us to bring in this legislation. What it did say was that in the case in front of them there were certain methods and dealings which went against the rights of the individual. We then said that if that is so there might be other people similarly affected. Therefore, we as a Government thought it was correct to bring in legislation so that if others were found to be in a position where their rights as individuals had been offended against there should be the possibility of redress. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, and the noble Lord, Lord Plant, said that this offends
680
12 million people. It may offend trade unionists, but I cannot believe that—
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: That is not true.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord said it is not true, but he has just said it. He has said that it offends 12 million people. All I am telling the noble Lord that this piece of legislation is being suggested in order to allow retrospective justice. It is because of justice that it is being brought forward. There is no secrecy about it. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, came back and the first point which he made was that he did not want there to be any secrecy. I would ask the noble Lord to address his mind to any payment which a Government makes on anything. Look at tax matters; they are not divulged. Look at social security payments; they are not divulged. Look at grants to individuals; they are not divulged. Look at grants to companies; they are not divulged. It would be quite wrong to divulge in a published report payments of this nature to individuals.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Can we just get the question of the hour straight? The noble Earl has made an important statement. He said that the draft Gennard Report is in the Ministry but that the Secretary of State had not read it. We know that the draft report has been in the Ministry since at least the beginning of the year. Is the noble Earl really saying—over six months later, when there has been a Standing Committee in the other place sitting many days to go through the details of this Bill; when the Bill has been through its Second Reading and Committee stage in another place; and when it has been through its Second Reading here and is now at Committee stage here—that the Secretary of State has not even read the Gennard Report and that he has not got the information? We are not talking here about whether the report is ready for publication. We are not talking about looking for a commercial publisher for the report. There is good material there and the noble Earl has confirmed it is there.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: What has this to do with the amendment?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Is the noble Earl really saying that all these stages of the Bill have been gone through without the Secretary of State even looking through the draft report, which the noble Earl says has been in his Ministry for so many months?
Lord Howie of Troon: Before the noble Earl sits down, may I press him a little further on this report as courteously as possible. We are not dealing with the most earth-shaking matter but it has some importance, if only because the Government in dealing with this measure in another place have used the report in evidence. Possibly the Government have used it incompetently, possibly inadvertently, and certainly they have done so confusingly. But the Government have most certainly used the report in the course of the debate. There is a kind of convention, although I am not sure how firm it is, that when a document is referred to in Parliament, the whole document should be produced in some way.

681
It may well be that the Government are right in saying that the document is incomplete, is unusable, or is not in its final form. But at all events the Government have used it to some extent, and because the Government have used it they should certainly release it. It may not be possible for the Government to release it merely by way of publication, but there must be some way which the highly intelligent people who form the Government and who sit opposite us today can think of. Can they not publish an interim report? Or can they not publish somebody's reflections on an interim report? Or can they not publish the report in a green cover in the form of a discussion document? Or as a last resort, could not Professor Gennard write, "Dear Sir" at the front of his report and send it as a letter to the Secretary of State? There must be some way by which the Government can let us into this secret.
Lord Mottistone: Why?
Earl Ferrers: I really do think we are getting into a bogey-hole on Professor Gennard, if I may say so. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, said that I made an important statement. It was very nice of him to say it, but actually I did not think it was very important. In fact, I had given the information in an Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on 23rd June. This is public knowledge and there is nothing funny about this. A draft report from Professor Gennard was received at the Department of Employment in February of this year. In Professor Gennard's view, his report is not yet complete, nor is it in a publishable form. That is Professor Gennard's view. It is Professor Gennard's report and he elects when he wishes his report to be published. It is perfectly normal for a person producing a report to consult a department to make quite certain that some matters concerning factual accuracy or statistical accuracy are correct.
When the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, asks whether my right honourable friend has read some of the draft, I am not privy to what my right honourable friend reads in his bed at night, but I would not think it would be a draft report of the Gennard Committee. My modest experience as a Minister is that one has so much paper to read which is fully documented detail that one does not read drafts which are then likely to be changed.
I do assure the noble Lord and your Lordships that there is nothing at all curious about this. Some extracts of Professor Gennard's work have been made public with the agreement of Professor Gennard, but that is a totally different thing from publishing a report. I can offer to put the same document as the Committee in another place had during the course of Committee stage in another place into the Library for your Lordships' attention. That is not the whole document, but I will see that that is done.
Lord Underhill: The noble Earl referred to the Question I posed to him. I accepted his Answer in the spirit in which it was given. But if at that time I had read the Committee stage in another place and had known that extracts of the report had been referred to, I would have pressed the noble Earl much further.
Earl Ferrers: That merely shows the wisdom of the noble Lord reading a little bit quicker another time.
4.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 133.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Leatherland, L.

Amherst, E.

Listowel, E.

Ardwick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Bacon, B.

Balogh, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Banks, L.

McCarthy, L.

Beswick, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Birk, B.

Molloy, L.

Bishopston, L.

Northfield, L.

Blyton, L.

Oram, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Peart, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Brockway, L.

Plant, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Bruce of Donington, L.

Caradon, L.

Rochester, L.

Chitnis, L.

Scanlon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Seear, B.

Collison, L.

Shinwell, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Soper, L.

David, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stone, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Strauss, L.

Glenamara, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hall, V.

Underhill, L.

Hampton, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jacques, L.

Winstanley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

De La Warr, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

De L'Isle, V.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Allerton, L.

Digby, L.

Alport, L.

Dundonald, E.

Ampthill, L.

Eccles, V.

Annan, L.

Ellenhorough, L.

Auckland, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Aylestone, L.

Elton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Energlyn, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Erne, E.

Beloff, L.

Faithfull, B.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Bessborough, E.

Feversham, L.

Blake, L.

Forester, L.

Boardman, L.

Fortescue, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gainford, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Caccia, L.

Gisborough, L.

Caldecote, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gormanston, V.

Cathcart, E.

Gowrie, E.

Chelwood, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Gridley, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Daventry, V.

Davidson, V.

Halsbury, E.

De Freyne, L.

Hankey, L.

683

Harris of High Cross, L.

Portland, D.

Harvington, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Reilly, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Renton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Richardson, L.

Kimberley, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

St. Davids, V.

Kinnaird, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Saltoun, Ly.

Lauderdale, E.

Sandys, L.—[Teller.]

Long, V.

Seebohm, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Selkirk, E.

Lyell, L.

Sempill, Ly.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Sharples, B.

McFadzean, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Spens, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Stamp, L.

Mancroft, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Mansfield, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Marley, L.

Swansea, L.

Mayhew, L.

Swinton, E.

Merrivale, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mersey, V.

Terrington, L.

Milverton, L.

Teviot, L.

Monson, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Trenchard, V.

Moyne, L.

Trumpington, B.

Moyola, L.

Vaizey, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Newall, L.

Vivian, L.

Northchurch, B.

Walston, L.

Onslow, E.

Westbury, L.

Orkney, E.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Windlesham, L.

Pender, L.

Wise, L.

Porritt, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.35 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 7, after ("State") insert (",after he has ascertained the opinion of the former employer and the trade union or unions which were parties to the relevant union membership agreement,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is much in line with the kind of thing that we were seeking to argue on the two amendments we have just dealt with. I want to take Amendment No. 2 along with Amendment No. 12, because they are both similar ways of doing the same thing. The objective, once again, is to try to make the provisions of this part of the Bill more acceptable, more normal, more usual, more like the way in which issues of this kind are decided in the institution for deciding issues of this kind—the industrial tribunals.
I would say, in answer to some of the points which have been raised earlier, that we are not at this stage in any sense discussing the merits of this clause or the schedule; we are not discussing whether there should he in principle retrospective or retroactive legislation on this subject. We are trying to say how it should be done if it is to be done. We are not proposing delays, we are not proposing things which cost more money, though, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, says, there appears to be plenty of money available; we are asking why these things cannot be done in the normal way. For example, why cannot we have reasons, why cannot we have grounds, and, in respect of these two amendments, why cannot we have representation?
Both amendments instruct, or attempt to instruct,
684
the Secretary of State to take into account the opinion of parties to a dispute of this kind, in this case the trade union or the employer; in the case of Amendment No. 2, he is to take the opinion of the trade union or the employer before he uses his power, and, in Amendment No. 12, which is in fact in the schedule, to say that, if he decides not to use his appointed person, who is the nearest thing he has to an industrial tribunal, he must give certain representation rights which are similar to the kind of representation rights which are there when issues of this kind go to industrial tribunals.
We put this amendment down partly because a similar amendment was put down in another place, on the assumption, I think, that the Secretary of State or the Minister of State might very well say that it was not necessary, because of course, if the Secretary of State exercised this power, or if the appointed person exercised this power, it would be perfectly understandable for either the appointed person or the Minister or whoever it was to take representations from interested persons like employers or trade unions. But I am bound to say that if one reads the minutes of another place on this matter one gets the impression that it is very doubtful whether the present Secretary of State is thinking in that way at all. One of the points I would like to ask the Government is whether I am right in reading it in this way. Can we assume that it is so, that the Government seem to be thinking that an issue of this kind is a matter between the complainant and the Secretary of State?
It seemed to be said at one stage that since it was the Government's money they did not have to explain to any of us how it was used and they did not have to let in on this secret process, for example, the employer concerned, who, after all, it is being implied dismissed a man in a way in which he should not have done; if it was lawful, morally it was wrong, and some people persist in believing against all the evidence that it was necessarily against the European Court. Surely in that case the employer ought to be there to say whether he thinks that is so or not, and whether he thinks it is a fair interpretation of his position. But we have no guarantee so far, reading the speeches of members of another place at Committee stage, that that would be the case.
To show why there is a prima facie argument that these people most certainly should be represented, I am sorry to say—I apologise to the Committee for this—that we have to refer again to Professor Gennard. Professor Gennard tells us—and these facts have been revealed in another place or in the Department of Employment Galette or in one way or another—that 90 per cent. of the people who are covered by UMAs were recruited without the aid of UMAs; that two-thirds of UMAs in fact make provision for existing members to remain. Those are precisely the kind of issues which are to be covered by the clause. Professor Gennard says that in the vast majority of cases the negotiations surrounding the introduction of UMAs illustrate the desire on both sides to provide safeguards to protect individuals from possible abuses. That is what Professor Gennard is saying about the application of union membership agreements, or what the House insists on calling "closed shops". Indeed, there are only a very few cases where the agreement provides only for religious objections—for example, the British Rail

685
case and the Strathclyde case. Even there, quite often there are, in practice, practices which take into account the position of the very people with whom this clause is intended to deal.
Therefore, when the Government say as they have done, using the Gennard Report—that there are 325 potential cases which might be covered, I say that that is not so because they are just the number of people who may have been unfairly dismissed given the previous legislation; it does not follow that they were unfairly dismissed given this legislation. The people most able to demonstrate whether they were unfairly dismissed or fairly dismissed under this legislation are, of course, the parties to those agreements at the time: the trade unions on the one hand, and the employers on the other. That is the basis of our amendment. We are saying that surely in those circumstances the Government, to ensure that justice is done to employers, if not to trade unionists, and to see that justice is done to employers, if not to trade unionists, would allow them to make representations either if it is done through the appointed person or even more so if it is done hugger-mugger through the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: As the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, confirmed again the idea which appears to be held opposite that Professor Gennard is not only relevant to every amendment to the Bill but is also the vehicle of quasi-divine inspiration, I for one should be grateful if one of the noble Lords opposite would tell me who he is, because I think that it might be of interest.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, seemed, with respect—whether with the aid of Professor Gennard or with his own unaided intelligence—to have missed the point as regards this amendment. Of course, where an employer, or, under this Bill in future, a union, may be liable to pay compensation to someone unfairly dismissed, it is essential that the employer and the union should have the right of audience before the deciding authority. In this case that does not arise. The money is to be provided from public funds. It is, therefore, not self-evident that either the employer or still less the trade union concerned, really could be of any assistance. If they had to be brought in they would, of course, further delay the proceedings about settling these cases. That seems to be the common note, as it were, that goes through all these amendments. There seems to be a surprising wish on the Benches opposite to propound suggestions which, whatever other effect they will have, will mean that people who have suffered a grievous wrong for a number of years will experience further delay in having recompense given to them.
But what, really, does the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, think the trade unions' position would be in these cases? The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, knows trade unions well. Indeed, he may recall that he once electrified this House by saying that he knew them better than anyone else in the House. He knows, therefore, that some trade unions are very difficult. Indeed, there is one with which he is concerned at the moment which is so difficult that it is a pleasant surprise to your Lordships that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is able to spare the
686
time to be here with us to give us his counsel this afternoon. Such trade unions obviously would be concerned solely to criticise the idea of any grant, or alternatively to try and get it cut down as much as possible to the person concerned.
Accepting as I do, as the majority in another place did and as I guess the majority here does the idea that the purpose of this not very important clause is simply to do very belated justice to a limited number of people as quickly as possible, it seems that this kind of amendment, apart from its other demerits to which I venture to refer, would be a sheer waste of time, and I hope that the Committee will reject it.
Lord Aylestone: I find Amendment No. 2 which is now before us rather mysterious, in that the Secretary of State is asked to ascertain the opinion of the former employer. That is not difficult in the case of someone like the Railway Board. However, in the case of a company, the officials who were responsible at the time of dismissing the employee may be completely different and the representatives of the trade union may be completely different—they may have retired or been replaced by others. It will be quite impossible because many of these cases will certainly go back to 1975—seven years ago. In that case how could one, if one wished to do so, operate Amendment No. 2?
Baroness Seear: I should like very much to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, that it will be extraordinarily difficult to track down this information if one feels that one needs to have it. In response to some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and to the query, "Who is Professor Gennard?", let me tell the Committee, if it is any help, that Professor Gennard was at one time a colleague of both Professor Wedderburn and myself. I do not know what light that throws on the matter.
As regards the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, I was deeply shocked to find that he was taking the illiberal line that there are not going to be so many cases to be compensated as the Government think. That will be very nice. It will cost the tax payer less. But surely the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, will agree that, if there is even one man to whom a gross injustice has been done, he should be entitled to compensation. It is no argument at all to say—and this is the old housemaid's baby argument—that because there are so few of them it does not really matter.
Lord Underhill: I hope that we shall not have the same position as we had as regards the previous amendment where we started debating the principle of the clause as in a "clause stand part debate" instead of discussing the actual terms of the amendment. It does not matter whether noble Lords agree with the principle laid down in Clause 1 or whether they disagree with it; we can still consider the amendment on its merits and that is what I hope the Government will do.
If we look at the schedules, we find that the individual applicant will be given the name of the person to whom the Secretary of State may, if he things fit, refer the matter for consideration and the individual, the applicant, may make representations. So the applicant will be completely free to say what he likes to the person concerned. However, it may not be truthful. I know

687
that there are penalties here for untruthfulness, but no one could verify whether what he said actually took place. Therefore, despite the rather irrelevant intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone— because that can be easily dealt with by making an adjustment on Report— I want to know whether the Government agree with the principle.
If we look at Schedule 1, paragraph 9, it says:
" The Secretary of State may, of his own motion or on the request of the applicant, reconsider his decision",
as to whether it,
" was made in ignorance of, or was based on a mistake as to, some material fact".
In other words, there is an opportunity to reconsider his decision if the facts given were not correct. Surely the most logical and sensible thing is to make sure that the facts are correct when the applicant—if he so desires—makes representations to the person appointed by the Minister. That seems to be sheer common sense and all the arguments of emotion on either side are unnecessary. Let us deal with that amendment as it stands, and the logic is such that the Government ought to accept it.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Oram: Perhaps I may remind the Committee of a point which I made in connection with the earlier amendment which we discussed; namely, that, as the Bill now stands, the Secretary of State is faced with the task of reaching a decision about events which may have taken place, say, six, seven or eight years ago, in the rather hazy distance of time. Surely, therefore he must not only rely on the word of the applicant and on the recollections of the applicant as to what took place those years ago; surely he must have what other evidence is available to him in reaching his conclusion.
The applicant will of course be claiming that he was victimised because he was not a member of a union, and that will be the complete statement of the applicant's case. But he may well conveniently have forgotten that the circumstances of his dismissal were more varied than that simple suggestion that he was a victim. There may be other reasons why it was concluded that he should be dismissed, as well as the fact that he was refusing to be a member of his union. Perhaps he was a bad time-keeper; perhaps he was a poor workman; perhaps he was guilty of stealing some spare parts. Perhaps, for a variety of reasons, the employer wanted to cease employing him, including the reason that he was a non-unionist. If they can be recalled, I suggest that all these factors should be taken into account by the Secretary of State or those who advise him in reaching a conclusion.
Surely suitable people to bring forward this additional evidence are those named in my noble friend's amendment; namely, the employer and the trade union, or unions, which were responsible at that time. They may remember these other factors which the applicant has conveniently forgotten. I think that there would be no other source, or no comparable source, that could be found from which the truth of that earlier situation could flow.
The noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, pointed to the fact,
688
quite rightly, that there might be difficulties in that the official at the company or the official at the trade union had retired or had died, that they had been replaced and that, therefore, it would be difficult to consult them. Clearly, that is so. But surely that reinforces our doubt whether the Minister can properly adjudicate on these things. How is he to know if the evidence that one hopes would be forthcoming from these other sources is denied him? He will be completely on his own, completely relying on the word of the man or the woman who is coming along and asking for money. I think that that is a completely unsatisfactory situation.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I rise to my feet because of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and I would suspect that anyone who is dismissed for stealing spare parts or failure to turn up to work on time can be legitimately dismissed and can take his case to the industrial tribunal where it can be discussed. What we are discussing today is the dismissal of people who fail to join a union and a closed shop agreement
I happen to be a member of the British Rail Board and I regret to say that I was a member of that board when this injustice was done. In case it should be thought that in these cases there is an employer and an employee side in discussing these matters, let me tell you that in a closed shop agreement there is only one side. The employees of British Rail who were dealt with in this case were dismissed because of failure to accept management direction, or something of that kind. They were not dismissed because the closed shop agreement insisted, and management had to carry out their dismissal. In that case an employee appealing against that has to face not simply the Secretary of State, or whoever is making the decision, but he has to face the combined decision of the employer and the trade union acting in concert, who have opted for a cosy life together. I should like to support the point of view that was made from the Liberal Benches, that where injustice is done against an individual we have to protect the individual, and that is important in our book.
Earl Ferrers: I thought that when the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, introduced this amendment there seemed to be two phases with which we would become familiar. One was "hugger-mugger" and the other was "Professor Gennard". I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that they do not seem to be able to get Professor Gennard out of their system. As the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was speaking I could not help recalling the young boy who was going in for a Scripture exam. He was told "One question you are bound to be asked is the dates of the Kings of Israel, so for goodness sake remember that." When he went into the Scripture exam he found one question which was: Criticise the character of St. Paul, and he was lost. He just wrote, "Far be it from me to criticise such an eminent saint, but I append here with the list of the Kings of Israel."
I would simply say this to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy; he may produce Professor Gennard the whole time, and he and I may use different weapons; he may use knives and I may use shells. But I do not propose to discuss Professor Gennard's so-called report, because, as I said on the previous amendment,

689
that has not been published. The important point in this amendment is that it seeks to invite:
" the opinion of the former employer and the trade union or unions which were parties to the relevant union membership agreement".
The Government accept that the dismissals of those who will be eligible to apply under these arrangements were not unlawful at the time. There is no question of seeking to establish whether these dismissals were right or wrong in some legal sense. The sole questions at issue now will be factual ones which—and again I must emphasise this—cannot lead to any liability on the part of a former employer or trade union. In view of this there can be no case for giving a former employer or trade union the right to state their views, as these amendments seek. In fact, the views of the employer or of a trade union are neither here not there. What is requested and required is a matter of fact and not a matter of view. The fact is: Is he eligible for compensation under the Bill and, if so, by how much'?
It may well help your Lordships if I explain what the appointed person will normally have to consider in the case of each application. First, he will have to advise on whether the conditions of eligibility for compensation are satisfied—in particular, whether the applicant was dismissed for non-membership of a union in a closed shop and, if so, whether his dismissal would have been unfair had the main closed shop provisions of the 1980 Act been in force at the time.
Secondly, he will have to advise, where he thinks that the applicant does meet the eligibility conditions, on what compensation should be payable. In doing this he must have regard in particular to the actual losses suffered by the applicant as a result of his dismissal. What will be important in relation to these matters will be solely the facts necessary to answer the questions. Of course, in many cases these facts may be clear from the papers which the applicant himself submits. For example, an applicant could well have copies of correspondence from his former employer and the union concerned about his dismissal which quite clearly show that his dismissal was for refusal to be a union member in a closed shop. Equally, he may well have evidence which clearly shows the losses which he has suffered as a result of dismissal. In these cases there may well be no need for the appointed person to consult the former employer or the union concerned at all.
Then, of course, in other cases there will be more difficulty in establishing the facts. In these cases the appointed person will no doubt wish to ask the former employer and possibly the union concerned for details, and this the Bill permits him to do. I need hardly say that if there is any doubt about the facts of a dismissal or about the loss which the applicant has suffered, then the appointed person will seek the facts from any individual or organisations who may be able to help.
The real point is this: neither the former employer nor the union concerned will in any way be defending these applications. They are not being judged. They are not being made liable. They are in fact not parties to the case, and there is therefore no reason why they should have a right to make their views known.
Lord Davies of Leek: I did not want to interrupt the
690
noble Earl because he is so kindly, but there is an aspect of this that has not been noticed. Take, for instance, anti-union free-riders who are sacked for non-member-ship. They would now have the automatic right to thousands of pounds of compensation where this kind of investigation has not taken place. The wide boy-1 use a term used among these people—up and down the country, as in the case of social security, could make use of this clause and slip in between without a proper investigation. Am I right, or exaggerating the case?
Earl Ferrers: I do not think that the noble Lord is right and I do not think that he is exaggerating the case. I think in fact that he is wrong. It does not give anyone an automatic right to anything. All that Clause 1 does is to permit the Secretary of State to make payments towards compensation, and the methods by which those payments should be adduced are in Schedule 1. Therefore, there is absolutely no question of anyone being given an automatic right.
The first thing they have to do is to get through the hurdles. Were they involved in a trade union? Were they dismissed by an employer between certain dates? Having got that fact fixed, it then has to be determined whether the cause of dismissal were such as to require a payment. Therefore, there is no automatic right.
Lord McCarthy: I thank the noble Earl for his reply, because in some ways he has reassured us on this side of the Committee, but not entirely. I must answer one or two questions which have been asked. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, says to me, "Who is Gennard?" He has clearly never heard of Gennard. I do not know whether Gennard has heard of him. Gennard is a professor at Strathclyde University who has written widely in the area of industrial relations. More important in this respect today, Gennard is the man the Government rely on, except of course they do not give us the evidence.
When they were pushed on the figure of 400 which came from a journalist on The Times, they said, "No, we are sorry: it is not 400; it is 325". When they were asked," Where did you get that from? "they said, Gennard". When they were asked, "What does Gennard say? Show us chapter and verse "they said," The Report is not in the Department of Employment". When they were told, "But you said it was", they said, "The Secretary of State has not read it". They have been putting one prevarication after another in our way ever since. That is who Gennard is.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said something that I have to correct. She said that I said—and I think that Hansard will bear me out—that in some way if there is injustice it does not matter because it is a small injustice. I never said that. I would not say that. What we are trying to do here is not argue whether there is injustice. Indeed, I would say that we are being very impartial about this. We say that if you say there is injustice, have a judicial approach. Have an inquisitorial system. Let those who are interested and have evidence come and put their evidence. That is the way you will get justice. Do not do it—I am sorry if I say this again—hugger-mugger, with Gennard or not. Do it by a respectable judicial system. Even if there is only one baby, he is entitled to say whether or not he shall be suffocated by due process of law.
Earl Ferrers: I thought I must have misheard the noble Lord. Did he say that the purpose of his amendment was to ensure that no one individual should be suffocated? It seemed to be contrary to what he was arguing.
Lord McCarthy: It would be a nice thing to do with an amendment to say that no one individual should be suffocated. No, I did not say that. I did not say that I am not concerned about injustice because there is only a small amount of it about. I did not say that. What I did say—and I say this in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone—was that we ought to have trade unionists and employers involved. He seemed to be saying at one stage that they will not have the evidence.
Let me give one example. There are certain kinds of unfair dismissal which it is quite impossible to decide without an employer. Take, for example, the case of constructive dismissal. In constructive dismissal the employer is denying that there was dismissal at all. He is saying that he provided the man with various alternatives, sets of job situations, and the man in the end said, "Well, that is not the kind of job that I call a job You are trying to dismiss me". The man might say, "I know that the reason is that I won't join a union". The employer might say. "No, it is not that. It is because the job is running out and I have to find you another job. I want you to do this, and it is not an unfair dismissal at all". That is a potential case of constructive dismissal. Is the employer trying to construct a non-job, or a less satisfactory job, as a way of getting the man out, or is there some undercover argument about non-unionism?
I do not see how equity, justice and fairness can be met unless the employer is a party to a process of that kind. The appointed person, or even the Secretary of State himself, if he was fair, would be more likely to decide that constructive dismissal had not been proved if the employer was not there. There are quite a number of cases brought in the industrial tribunals where the employer is condemned out of his own mouth. Without the ability to bring the employer to a tribunal to ask him to defend what he has done, one would be bound to say that the case was not proven, and the case after all has to be proven in the end.
This brings me to what was said by the noble Earl, and I thank him for it. I shall look carefully at Hansard tomorrow to see that I have understood it aright. He said that in certain circumstances the trade union and the employer would be sent for if, he said, the facts were in doubt. That is a considerable advance on what we were told in another place, where we were told that it is not really their business. It is an advance but it still leaves it very much in the office of the appointed person or of the Secretary of State to decide for himself whether he thinks the facts are in doubt.
What we want is a judicial process where the employer or the trade union can say, "The facts are very much in doubt. Maybe I cannot remember it rightly, but neither can be remember it rightly. I have certain evidence and documents, and I want to put them in". They may go one way or the other, but the essence of a judicial process is that we go through that process. That is why I moved this amendment.
Earl Ferrers: May I try to enlighten the noble Lord,
692
Lord McCarthy, a little more. It is sometimes a difficult process, but I will have a shot. His amendment really refers to allowing the trade unions or the employers to give their opinions. I would ask the Committee to address their minds to Clause 1 and to the schedule to which it refers. Clause 1 starts with the words:
"The provisions of Schedule 1 shall have effect for the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State",
to do certain things.
The provisions of Schedule 1 say, first:
"A person may apply for compensation under this Schedule where—
(a) he was dismissed from his employment",
between various dates;
"(b) he did not bring, or brought but did not succeed in, a complaint of unfair dismissal; and
(c) if the 1980 amendments had been in force".
Those are all matters of fact and, returning to Clause 1, it is on those matters of fact that the Secretary of State may make payments. It is erroneous, in my modest judgment, then to throw in by legal right the opinion of trade unions or employers on what is ascertained to be a matter of fact. If the matter of fact has not been ascertained, then, as I said, the appointed person may get the information from whichever source he likes.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Is the noble Earl aware that he could dispose of all the anxieties of my noble friend by seconding a group of tax inspectors to the department concerned to deal with claims? They would make sure that nobody received anything to which they were not entitled.
On Question, amendment negatived.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Before we part with the clause, I wish to make a few comments about its contents and significance. I have no intention of making a Second Reading speech—
Earl Ferrers: May I interrupt the noble Lord? He is of course entitled to make a speech on the clause stand part, but as the clause and Schedule 1 are so interlinked, I wonder whether he would think it convenient for the Committee if his clause stand part speech were made on Schedule 1 as opposed to Clause 1?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Very well.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Compensation for certain dismissals]:
5.12 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 22, line 5, leave out ("if he thinks fit") and insert ("after a declaration by an industrial tribunal that an applicant falls within paragraph 2 below").
The noble Lord said: We return to the same area as we were discussing previously, with another modest amendment which no doubt again will be misunderstood. Here we are making a further attempt to regulate the discretion of the Secretary of State. The amendment

693
would allow the Secretary of State or his appointed person discretion in respect of paragraph 3 on the question of compensation assessments. It merely says that in relation to the sort of questions that were discussed by the noble Earl on the previous amendment, it shall be seen whether he was covered in the time-span of the provision, whether he got previous compensation from a tribunal, whether he was a person who had a conscience or deeply-held conviction and whether he was an existing employee when a union membership agreement was signed. Those matters, should be referred to an industrial tribunal, and such matters as the level of compensation payment could, on the basis of the amendment, be left to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Gowrie): I wish at the outset to thank noble Lords opposite, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, for their kind act in welcoming me back from the deep peace of the Northern Ireland double bed to the hurly-burly of the industrial relations chaise longue. It is nice to be involved in these matters once more. I wish I could celebrate this homecoming by accepting the amendment, but it is defective and it would not be appropriate to accept it. The noble Lord is anxious not to be misunderstood, but I think he misunderstands an important principle in the Bill.
It is important to be clear that Clause 1 and Schedule 1, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said in an intervention, establish no legal rights or duties whatever, and therefore impose no liabilities of the kind for which a tribunal is normally and appropriately considered the right judicial body. By contrast, payments under Clause 1 and Schedule 1 will be wholly discretionary, and therefore what the Secretary of State will be asking from any person appointed to consider applications is advice in the exercise of his discretion, and that would not seem to us to be an appropriate function for a judical body making judgments, as it were, like a tribunal.
Therefore, it falls on us to remind the Committee why the discretionary basis is so important. The reason why Clause 1 and Schedule 1 provide a discretionary power to make payments where an applicant is eligible, rather than providing a right to payment in such circumstances, is that we are dealing with particular and specific exceptional cases. Those cases cannot all be foreseen in advance, though it might be helpful if, by way of example, I rehearsed the ways in which we could foresee some where it would be wrong to make a payment, even where the eligibility conditions were satisfied.
For instance, in the case of those people who took their case to the European Court of Human Rights, we know that they could be, and some have been, compensated separately, so obviously it would be wrong in those cases to make a further payment under the powers in Clause 1 and Schedule 1. Equally, a case could arise where an applicant met the eligibility conditions and was recommended by the appointed person to receive a payment but was also a debtor of the Department of Employment arising from some other matter. Again, that would not be a very likely occasion but it could happen, and hence the discretionary power. The Bill, therefore, as drafted ensures
694
that the Secretary of State can act flexibly and sensibly in those special circumstances, and Clause 1 and Schedule 1 as we have said, are targeted on specific and special individual cases.
I understand the legitimate concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that discretionary powers in legislation should not be exercised in any arbitrary fashion. It may therefore be helpful if I give the Committee the assurance that it would only be in the wholly exceptional cases such as I have outlined, where the Secretary of State might exercise his discretion not to pay compensation where eligibility conditions were met. I hope that, in the light of that assurance and for the other reasons I have cited, the Committee will reject the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Earl is, as ever, helpful, but he does not answer the case. As I understand it, he is saying that he cannot accept the amendment because the kind of evidence which will be required is advice on the exercise of discretion, and that is the kind of advice for which you do not need the judicial process. It seems to me that, in practice, that sort of advice will be about the facts, advice based on some system of cross-examination in which you attempt to establish what happened, with one group of people saying one thing and another group saying another, and in the end you will take a decision on the balance of whatever you believe to be the case and, accordingly, you will tender your advice to the Secretary of State on the exercise of his discretion. That is all a matter of fact and I should have thought a matter very fit for the exercise of the judicial process.
Secondly, the Minister says there is a discretionary element, and the example he gives of that—I fully respect it—is that of the men who took the golden road to Strasbourg. He says, "These chaps might indeed have been compensated already, and therefore the Secretary of State might quite rightly in his wisdom decide that even though a case had been made out on the facts", as I would put it, "nevertheless he does not think that they ought to be given any compensation". Well, I accept that, and under the amendment it would be perfectly possible because that is the part of the discretion of the Secretary of State which is protected under the amendment. We are seeking to make a division between discretion used to decide whether or not there should be compensation or the amount of any compensation, and what the Minister calls advice in the exercise of discretion, which I think becomes a matter of fact and, I repeat, is a suitable matter for judicial process.
The Earl of Gowrie: There is one further point I should like to add. There is of course precedent for what the Government propose. In the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1975, the Government of the noble Lord provided for the appointment of a single person rather than a tribunal to consider awards of compensation. That was in the issue of efficiency. One was simply trying to determine whether somebody suffered from the disease and how he had contracted it. That would not seem to be a case for a tribunal. In their Employment Protection Act 1975 the previous Government amended the Conservative Government's Employment Agencies Act

695
1973, which enabled the Secretary of State to appoint a person to consider representations made by a person whose licence under the Act was to be revoked or refused.
So this seems a Perfectly normal and conventional way of behaving when dealing not with issues of rights or issues of liability, but With issues of individuals who have been caught up in a particular situation which has now been corrected under general law. That is why we feel that the tribunal would be an inappropriate organism and why the amendment should be rejected.
Lord McCarthy: I think that we are getting closer and closer to the point. It is perfectly true that anyone can give examples from precedent and the way that administrative decisions have been taken. It is absolutely right; of course there are administrative decisions arising out of the pneumoconiosis issue and the employment agencies issue in which the way that the noble Earl has described it is the way in which it has been done. There are also many other tribunals, such as rent tribunals and tribunals dealing with social security payments and unemployment benefits, where the judicial process is carried out. We are saying that this is something which is part of a tribunal procedure, which requires a judicial process. It is not a simple matter of administration, and therefore it ought to be part of the judicial process.
On Question, amendment negatived.
5.23 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 22, line 16, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: I am afraid that this amendment rather hots up the temperature, just a trifle. It is not just a matter of simple administrative justice and judicial process. I am now taking Amendment No. 5, and with it I should like to take Amendment No. 6. They are amendments of a different kind, because whereas our other amendments to the schedule are for the most part about due process of deciding whether there is eligibility and what process there should be to determine compensation, here we are arguing about who should be covered.
We want to start the debate about spontaneous, deeply held convictions—and I hope that we can keep the debate at a fairly low temperature. In the amendment we are suggesting that the criteria to be satisfied in order for a person to be eligible for payment should be narrowed, so that someone who has accepted at the time of his engagement into employment an obligation as a condition of employment that he should be a member of the relevant trade union—in other words, someone who came on the job and joined the union in the first place—should not be covered by the provision. If we were able to, and if we had decided in some way to attempt to change the 1980 Act, your Lordships might logically say that this kind of amendment should have been in that Act. But that was the 1980 Act, and it was some time ago. We are talking about the present Bill. We are saying that surely it is reasonable to make a distinction between someone who has a deeply held personal conviction or conscience of long standing, and someone—in particular
696
in relation to retrospective legislation of this kind—who has gone before the tribunal, the appointed person, or the Secretary of State, and said, "Well, it is perfectly true that I joined the union some time ago, but now I am telling you that when I was dismissed in fact I had a deeply held conviction that I shouldn't be a member of the union".
One becomes a little doubtful here about mentioning Professor Gennard yet again, but it is a fact that the great majority of the exceptions in existing agreements go more to conscience than to deeply held personal conviction. The great majority of the exceptions relate to people who are non-members of a union when the closed shop or union membership agreement is imposed and such exceptions would not permit I think that there is reason for it—the development of what I call the spontaneous, deeply held conviction. That I think is quite understandable and is a common-sense situation.
Most people who have practical experience of the closed shop would say that in the area of conscience there are two kinds of objectors. There are those who can quote some religious objection; for example, the Corinthians, or I should say the Christadelphians—
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Lord McCarthy: They both quote the same part of the Bible; that is why I have got them mixed up. I am not sure whether the noble Lord is making a statement from a sedentary position, or whether he wants to intervene. Yes, the Christadelphians and the Seventh-Day Adventists both have the same position and both quote St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians. They say that, since that states that they shall not be yoked with an unbeliever, they cannot join the Transport and General Workers' Union. Well, this is a deeply held, long-term religious conviction which anyone who is a member of the sects can show he holds.
The other kind of deeply held conviction or conscientious objection is held by someone who for a very long time has had a rooted objection to trade unionism per se. This is something that is probably in the individual's family, background, and experience. It is not something which comes spontaneously, and certainly not after there is passed legislation providing compensation. Therefore, we are saying that it would be perfectly reasonable to accept this modest, but perhaps controversial, amendment registering the fact to which I have just referred. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said that he would do his best not to hot up the temperature of the debate by moving his amendment No. 5, which includes the word "and I did not think that of itself it was particularly inflammatory, but of course Amendment No. 6 goes further, and the noble Lord quite rightly took the two amendments together. Professor Gennard popped up again, but I shall not answer the noble Lord on that particular point.
The purpose of the amendments is to exclude from compensation anyone who was dismissed for not being a union member in a closed shop, but who had accepted the fact that he had to be a trade union member when he took the job in the first place. The reason the

697
amendment is not acceptable to the Government is that it would deny compensation to some people whose dismissals would have been found to be unfair had they occurred between 1974 and 1980, even though they might earlier have agreed to join a trade union when they took the jobs.
Schedule 1 to the Bill provides for compensation to be payable to people whose dismissals would have been unfair under the main closed shop provisions of the 1980 Act. One of those provisions makes it unfair to dismiss an employee from a closed shop if he objects on grounds of conscience, or other deeply-held personal conviction—that is in addition to the possibilities of dismissal on grounds of religious feelings—to being a member of any trade union whatsoever, or of any particular trade union. This is one of the key safeguards which we believe should clearly have existed between 1974 and 1980.
This amendment would exclude from compensation some people who were dismissed, without any remedy, from closed shops between 1974 and 1980 but who had genuine conscientious objections to union membership although union membership might have been a prerequisite of the job. This is because the effect of the amendment would he that no compensation could be paid where the applicant had accepted when he took the job, no matter how many years earlier, the obligation to join a union. This quite rules out the fact that by the time of his dismissal he may have held genuine conscientious objections to union membership.
These objections will of course have to be demonstrated. Applicants for compensation who resigned from a union in a closed shop and were sacked as a result will have to show that their objection to remaining in the union amounted to a genuine objection on grounds of conscience of other deeply-held personal conviction to being a union member. In those cases the appointed person will have to advise the Secretary of State on whether in his view the employee did have a genuine objection at the time of his dismissal. Obviously, it is unlikely that the appointed person would take that view where the employee had resigned from his union because of, say, a squabble over the payment of dues. But in other cases an applicant might have happily joined a union 15 years earlier but subsequently felt that the methods of operation of that union had become so distasteful to him that in all conscience he could no longer remain in membership.
One could find an example, for instance, as a result of a union having called for industrial action in, say, a hospital, which he regarded as morally wrong and indefensible. It will be up to the appointed person to advise on whether, in such a case, there was a genuine conscientious objection to union membership under the terms of the 1980 Act. But it is the firm view of the Government that where a sacked employee had genuine conscientious objections to union membership at the time of his dismissal the case for paying compensation, with no "ifs" or "buts", is overwhelming. This amendment would prevent compensation from being paid in some such cases, and I am afraid, therefore, that I could not advise the Committee to accept it.
Baroness Seear: We on these Benches are unable to support this amendment. Nobody in your Lordships' Committee knows better than the noble Lord, Lord
698
McCarthy, that it is not only union members who change their minds; it is union leaders who change their minds, and those in control of a union inside an organisation. As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has pointed out, a union which may have been entirely acceptable in its approach, its policies and its attitudes when an individual joined it, may, because of a change of control inside the organisation, become genuinely unacceptable, and in such cases such people should be as entitled to compensation as any other people.
Lord Oram: It seems to me that one of the great difficulties in this whole business would be to sort the sheep from the goats. By sheep I mean those who have a genuine claim, and by goats—and there will be goats—I mean those who are trying it on; those who see the attraction of certain amounts of money and make an application. The genuine ones will have a genuine conscientious objection to belonging to a trade union, but the others may pretend to have those genuine feelings. But let us remember that the amounts of money involved will be quite sizeable. We do not know the number of cases, but £2 million is available, and if there are a few cases it might be adjudicated that the amounts of money are quite large. It worries me that, after a few cases have occurred and it is seen that the amounts of money awarded are rather large, this may activate in other people's breasts some retrospective consciences.
A man may have taken a job quite easily earlier on, even though he knew that there was a closed shop, and may without any difficulty have accepted the conditions. Then, as I think the noble Earl suggested, there would be cases where perhaps there has been a quarrel with a shop steward, or there has been nonpayment of dues, or where for some other reason he parts company with his firm. But then, five or six years later, when memories are perhaps dim on these matters, that could be translated into a highly-principled attitude in opposition to unionism, and he might state a case which it would be difficult to fault in relation to his claim.
I was impressed by what the noble Earl said, that this amendment may nevertheless be hard on some sheep; that is, some genuinely conscientious people who have changed their minds. I recognise that, and I recognise that, therefore, this particular amendment may be faulty. But I believe it ought to be our effort to find another formula, perhaps at a later stage, by which that particular difficulty could be overcome. But at the same time I think we ought to tackle the problem to which this particular amendment is directed; that is, to make sure that phoney people do not put up a case which may get through.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Oram, was, if he will allow me to say so, much more reasonable than that of his noble friend on the Front Bench. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Oram, that there could well be cases of people who, having joined a union, then withdrew their membership for quite inadequate and, indeed, perhaps, even unworthy reasons—they did not want to pay the dues, they did not like the face of the shop steward, or many other reasons of that sort which very few people would wish to support.

699
But this amendment deals not only with them but also with a class of person for whom I think, by implication, the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has, as I have, very great sympathy. That is the man who takes the very brave step, being already a member of a union in a closed shop job, of saying that, nonetheless, something that that union has done or is doing is so intolerable, so unjust, so wrong, that he is not prepared to continue in membership and support it. This is the kind of person which recent developments in this country can well be producing, perhaps in substantial numbers.
My noble friend on the Front Bench referred to the case where there is a dispute in a hospital. It so happens that yesterday I went to see what was happening just across the river at St. Thomas' Hospital, where the union concerned in the health service dispute is adopting an attitude and a procedure by way of picketing which is doing a great deal of damage to a number of wholly innocent people. There the representatives of the union have taken it upon themselves to determine whether or not the case of a patient wishing to come in is urgent. and whether or not certain supplies that come in are necessary; with the result that in one of the finest hospitals in the world, just across the river, one-third of the beds are now unoccupied although normally in July they are 90 per cent. occupied, and with the result that, though normally they would have 130 operations a day, they are down to 30 because the supplies—the necessary sterile dressings, and so on—are being denied entry.
The result is that many people who need treatment are being denied it—perhaps they are not going to die next week through lack of it, but they may well be going to die next year because they have not had treatment in time. I can well understand how many members of that union—decent, honourable people—may well feel it quite intolerable to remain a member of it. Indeed, I do not want to upset the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, by going a little nearer the knuckle, but it appears that there are a number of engine drivers who are inclining to a similar view in respect of another dispute. People who put their own jobs at risk and, ex hypothesi in this case lose them, because of convictions of that sort are probably more entitled to compensation than any of the other categories covered, because they have shown a willingness to sacrifice their own interests to what they believe to be right. This amendment would eliminate that category; and for that reason if it is pressed to a 'Division I shall vote against it with conviction and determination.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Scanlon: The more I hear of this discussion the more I am convinced of the total air of unreality that exists. If I may illustrate where I think the discussion is going, it reminds me of the preacher who, when he was asked the reasons for his success as a preacher, said, "I tell them what I am going to say, then I say it, and then I tell them what I have said". This is the way it appears to me we are going. I say to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that I do not know of any trade union which in admitting a member does not say, "Do you abide by the rules and constitution of the
700
union?" and members sign a declaration that they will.
The rules and the constitution are complex indeed.
If I may give an illustration, our national committee debated the Industrial Relations Act 1971. I was empowered as president of that union to oppose that Act by a majority of two votes out of 52 people. There were many members of our union who may disagree with that decision, but all the debate took place within the constitution.
We are now saying that if somebody has deeply held convictions against a decision arrived at in a constitutional way, he can use this legislation to get compensation if he is dismissed as a result of opposing the union. Do not be surprised if it happens in a reverse way—because there are many who think that their unions are too complacent and are not taking the steps to justify the interests of their members. Will the same impartiality hold out for those individuals? I doubt it very much.
All that it portrays in all its nakedness is the vendetta against trade unionists who, for whatever reasons, are convinced that the way forward for their members may be to take certain actions which noble Lords opposite think is inconsistent with actions they should take. If legislation is to operate in that manner, then I hope that we have no part in it. In fact, I am more than ever convinced—and I do not like saying this—that it really is wrong to debate amendments on this Bill. The Bill is so iniquitous, in my view, that by moving amendments we may be involved in something which, I repeat, in its stark nakedness is coming out as a result of contributions made by noble Lords opposite. If we are going to legislate for a position where people can get compensation as a result of disagreeing with a constitution that they voluntarily entered into when joining a trade union, then that exposes this Bill for what it truly is.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, speaks of reality. One of the great realities which faces us, surely, is that we require a responsible trade union movement. Nothing that I should say should be misunderstood and thought to indicate the contrary, but —and there is a "but"—the reality of the man who joins the union in the circumstances where he cannot earn his livelihood unless he does so—and the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, then says that there are the rules and constitution and they are complicated but he signs and accepts them—is, in submission, not realistic. Then one comes further along the line to seize the point of realism.
Things happened which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred to but we all know of them without having to refer to them. Anything which I say is assuredly not intended to raise the temperature of this debate for the reason I have already given. But the man grasps the realism, the man cannot take it any longer and he resigns. In those circumstances, sheep—Lord Oram's sheep and goats. It is a very tough goat that puts his job on the line, if he is a sham goat, to fool the arbitrator that he is a sheep. If one looks at it from a realistic point of view, in my submission—and I repeat that nothing I say will ever be intended to be contrary to the trade union interests, as I see them—this amendment affords no fair resolution to a problem which has in it the seeds of injustice.
Lord Howie of Troon: I hesitate to dissent from the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Scanlon but I must do so. In doing so, I realise that I am dissenting from the views of someone whose passionate commitment to the trade union movement has been demonstrated time and time again over a long period and it is a commitment which is quite admirable—and I say that in total sincerity. I myself have been a member of a trade union for most of my life and I now earn my living, in part, negotiating with the unions, the NUJ and NATSOPA. I find in dealing with these unions a picture which is not quite the same as the picture which my noble friend Lord Scanlon sees. I understand how he sees it, and the passion with which he sees it, but it does not look quite the same from each side of the table or from the ends of the table or in the mind of an independent observer.
It is true that individuals join unions voluntarily and accept the rules of the union. It is true also that individuals join unions involuntarily and accept the rules of the unions. And the conditions are different in each of these cases. I think it is important that my noble friends on this side of the Committee should think very carefully about that distinction, about the distinction between the commitment of a volunteer and the commitment of a conscript, however willing he may be to accept the discipline of the union's rules and constitutions, and all those things to which my noble friend Lord Scanlon draws attention.
In my lifetime I have seen people who have voluntarily undertaken union membership turned off by the attitudes of their trade union colleagues, and that is something which seems to have been left out of the debate—at least, on this side of the Committee. My noble friends must realise that it is possible to join a trade union in good faith, to have loyalty to that trade union in good faith, and to wish to continue to have loyalty to the trade union. Yet there comes a time when the union's attitudes and behaviour are improper. We must recognise this on our side of the Chamber and we must recognise that if people, voluntarily or involuntarily, have entered into a compact with a trade union and find through experience that their compact is not living up to their legitimate expectations, they have rights. Where I think my noble friend Lord Scanlon goes wrong—and nobody recognises his sincerity more than I do —is in placing the organisation, the structure, before the individuals who make it up and whom the structure is intended to serve. It is not good socialism and it is not good trade unionism to forget the individuals which the Labour movement is intended to work for.
I do not intend to rebel on this particular amendment. All I do is to urge my noble friends to think very, very carefully about the nature of trade unionism and to reflect on the manner in which they are allowing the attitudes of a particular Secretary of State to provoke them into taking up postures which are mistaken. I would urge: do not be provoked into defending everything that the trade union movement does, because not everything that a trade union does is defensible.
Lord McCarthy: I am afraid we have been drifting away from our comparatively modest amendment. I suppose that was inevitable and it augurs badly in terms of the times of the Committee, for what is going
702
to happen when we get on to debate this schedule and whether Schedule 7 shall stand part of the Bill? This is a modest amendment that we have here. I said it was a controversial one, but it is really about the degree of compulsion to be imposed on union membership. What I believe noble Lords do not fully appreciate is that we are discussing this in the context of a post-1971 situation. We are discussing it in the context of unfair dismissal. The fact is that from 1893 onwards the common law had in effect decided that the closed shop was lawful. It remains lawful for cartels and professional associations. It is not entirely lawful for trade unions because they are in the employment relationship, and simply because of the law of unfair dismissal. That is what has changed and that is what had to be dealt with in 1974—the law of unfair dismissal.
The question is: are we to say that all forms of dismissal on grounds of trade union membership are unfair?—in which case we are going back on a policy which has been accepted in common law and in statute law from the end of the 1880s and under the 1906 Trade Disputes Act, and which is still the case in relation to other kinds of combination, which is very unfair—or are we to say: "No, there will be certain conditions and circumstances in which union membership agreements shall be lawful, in which the closed shop is lawful and in which union membership can become a condition of employment"?
Once you take that view and move away from the view that now is the opportunity to make the closed shop in all forms and in all ways an unfair dismissal liability, then you have to specify the grounds and you get into all kinds of practical trouble. The late Labour Government said—may be rightly, maybe wrongly—that you could draw a line down genuine religious conviction. At one stage they added" conscience". The present Government say in addition, "conscience and deeply-held personal conviction". It is a line which could be argued. We are putting in this amendment one small point relating to where that line shall be drawn, not for legislation as a whole for the future but from the point of compensation in the past. We are saying that one way of trying to make that line is to draw a line—I fully accept the words used by my noble friend Lord Oram—between the sheep and the goats, as we see it. I do not suppose we shall convert many people on the other side, but that is the sole limited objective of this amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 22, line 37, at end insert ("before an industrial tribunal one month after that dismissal").
The noble Lord said: If I may, I should like to take this amendment with No. 8. We are talking here about compensation again. We are back to the detailed way in which the clause is to be applied, and once again we are taking as our model the way in which unfair dismissal legislation works in the ordinary run-of-the-mill way in industrial tribunals. Therefore, we are saying that the clause should be amended so that on page 22, line 37, the provision goes on to read:
" before an industrial tribunal one month after that dismissal".

703
We are saying, in other words, that the principles on which compensation should be based should be the same principles as in cases before an industrial tribunal —one month after that dismissal. Therefore, we have to take out several lines further down in the clause; and that is the purpose of Amendment No. 8.
If this amendment were carried, the effect would be that the calculation of the maximum compensation would he taking into account anticipated loss—which is the method by which industrial tribunals decide—and therefore one would try to create the situation in which an industrial tribunal would have had one month after the dismissal, as against the calculation of the maximum which is there in the clause at the moment, which takes into account the actual loss sustained. That is the principle enunciated in lines 43 and 44 which we want to delete.
We would argue that, as it stands, this could mean that the system of compensation for people covered by this clause and the amounts of compensation could and should be quite different from those for all other kinds of unfair dismissal, which are anticipated loss, and not subsequently assessed actual loss. I fully appreciate that this principle could go either way and that on the present system, which we use in the great majority of cases before all industrial tribunals, people may get more by anticipated loss than they actually incur, because two days after they have received their reward from the industrial tribunal they get an enormously improved job and in fact they have very little loss at all.
On the other hand, it could work the other way. Somebody who has been told that he has an anticipated loss would in fact have had a very substantial actual loss. The thing could work both ways. We are not trying to do something that we feel is necessarily against the interests of the individuals covered by the clause. We are trying once again to put this legislation square with the legislation as it exists with all other forms of unfair dismissal. Therefore, I beg to move this amendment.
Earl Ferrers: The basic principle of these compensation arrangements is that what is now to be payable should be broadly what an industrial tribunal sitting at the time of dissmisal would have awarded if it had found the dismissal unfair. The first of these two amendments would place this imaginary tribunal hearing one month after the date of dismissal. In fact, an aggrieved employee has three months within which to go to a tribunal. This amendment therefore seems to introduce an arbitrary time scale, for which there appears to be no obvious merit.
The second amendment is somewhat more complicated. In the interests of common sense and consistency, the Government have added three technical refinements to the basic principle which I have just described, and the amendment would sweep away those refinements. If the second amendment were accepted the first refinement to go would be that in paragraph 3(a). This states that the fact that a tribunal at the time might have ordered reinstatement, rather than compensation, is to be ignored. It seems to me to make little sense to consider at this stage whether an imaginary tribunal would have made an order giving
704
the individual his job back. Clearly, that individual did not get his job back or he would not now be seeking compensation. So to take such a consideration into account would, I respectfully suggest, not be sensible.
The second refinement, in paragraph 3(b) of Schedule 1, which the amendment would remove is what I might call a small touch of generosity on the Government's part. If I may put it simply, compensation payments for unfair dismisal have, since June, 1976, been made in two parts. One part, which is known as the basic award, relates to the age and length of service, and the second part, which is known as the compensatory award, is designed to compensate for actual financial losses as a result of the dismissal. The complication arises because, before 1976, there was no basic award, although the second compensatory part was available. The Government wished to make consistent arrangements for all the candidates for compensation, so we added paragraph 3(b), which allows for an equivalent to a basic award to be paid to everyone w ho is eligible, whether he was dismissed before, or after 1976.
The third refinement, which the amendment would remove is in paragraph 3(c). This allows the imaginary tribunal to be credited with knowledge of what actually happened between dismissal and the present day. Normally, in assessing the compensatory part of the award, a tribunal has to guess at what may result in the future as a result of the dismissal, on the basis of such knowledge as is available to it at the time. But under this Bill these losses will now be known and, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said in some cases they might be higher than that which would have been imagined, and in other cases they might be lower
The fact is that they would be known and it is only common sense to base compensation on the reality of what has actually happened, rather than on the guesses which a tribunal might have made at the time. These amendments would, I suggest, create arbitrary obstacles to the practical operation of these arrangements, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, will therefore not seek to press them.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
6.4 p.m.
Viscount De L'Isle Viscount De L'Isle moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 22, line 47, at end insert—
("() Subsection (3) shall be applied to take also into account the cumulative effects of inflation since the dismissal occurred and any legal or other special costs incurred by the person dismissed in his attempts to obtain proper compensation.").
The noble Viscount said: I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, is not on the Front Bench. I should have liked to add my welcome to that rendered to him by both sides of the Committee. I hope that he has not gone back to the Emerald Island and will be here during other parts of our proceedings. The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, referred to the compensation paid to those who had proceeded to Strasbourg, and I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, who referred to the golden road to that city. If he was referring to the three ex-British Railways men, I have to tell the Committee that, apart from a small eleemosynary payment before Christmas, no compensation has been received by the railwaymen, because no

705
friendly settlement has yet been achieved. But that helps to illustrate the point of my amendment.
Those three gentlemen were out of their jobs from 1975. If they, and those who have suffered with them, are compensated on the basis of money values in that year, it does not need a statistician to calculate roughly what would he the value of that money in present-day terms. Therefore, I ask the Government to add this clause in fair justice to those people, because other people—even noble Lords on the Front Bench and Members of Parliament—have had their wages increased. Although it may be the intention of the Government and the Secretary of State to pay them compensation which allows for a diminution in the value of money, they have not so declared. Therefore, I ask that they should now declare that this is their intention. I beg to move.
Lord Spens: If I may make one small addition to what the noble Viscount has just said, I have asked the Library to make a quick calculation of the increase in the retail price index since 1st January, 1976. To date, it has risen by 117.7 per cent., which means that the value of any awards to anyone in 1976 has gone down by at least 50 per cent. and should, therefore, he doubled in order to bring about a reasonable and satisfactory compensation.
Lord Molloy: When the noble Earl is addressing himself to the noble Lord, I wonder whether he will apply the same argument to the trade unionists who have made their submission for a wage increase on the same basis, that inflation is eating away their standards of life.
Earl Ferrers: That is wholly outside the amendment. Therefore, I shall satisfy myself with not addressing my mind to that point.
Lord Molloy: I cannot allow the noble Earl to get away with that. If he does not reply to what I said, he cannot reply to what the noble Lord said. Accuracy on a vital issue like this cannot be smothered away in a few seconds with a tiny bit of humour, because there are 12 million people outside this Chamber who will be watching desperately what will happen if their standards of life are depressed, and if their rights to increase them in order to enable them to buy things from manufacturers and many organisations which are represented by noble Lords opposite are lost. That is all they want to do with their wage increases, and I fear that they will not be prepared to have a vital aspect of their point of view dismissed by a cursory joke.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, said that I cannot answer the noble Lord, Lord Spens, without answering him. All I can say to the noble Lord is that he had better wait and see. What he said was totally out of context with the amendment. But as I have not even been permitted to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, does not know whether or not he will be satisfied—
Viscount De L'Isles: Do not forget me.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend had a part in this amendment. He merely moved it. Therefore, if I may he permitted the courtesy of your Lordships to make my speech in my own way, bad though it may be, I shall endeavour, probably inappropriately and inadequately, to satisfy all sides of the Committee.
If I may first address myself to the amendment which my noble friend moved, this would increase the compensation which is payable. Naturally, the Government have a good deal of sympathy with the sentiments which have been expressed by the mover of the amendment, but, for reasons which I shall explain, and which I hope will be understood, we would prefer this amendment not to be made.
There are two strands to the amendment. The first is that under the amendment compensation would have to be calculated, taking full account of inflation since the date of dismissal. As your Lordships will appreciate, the Government have not ignored the ravages of inflation in drafting this part of the Bill. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 provides that interest is to be payable on the sums of compensation which are calculated to be appropriate by the appointed person. What we have done is to apply exactly the same principle which is employed by the High Court where it considers that a plaintiff has been kept out of money which he should have had earlier. That is the explanation of the reference to an Act of 1838 which your Lordships can see in Schedule 1. I can assure your Lordships that the rates of interest payable are not those which prevailed in 1838. The rates under that old enactment have moved with the times. The rate which is currently payable stands at 14 per cent. per annum.
This interest will not amount to total protection against inflation—there, perhaps, I have answered totally satisfactorily the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy—although it will go a substantial way towards doing so. But it is our judgment that it would be wrong to place beneficiaries under the compensation scheme in an uniquely privileged position in relation to inflation and in relation to all other cases which are treated in this way. That is why we base this interest provision in the Bill on the normal practice which prevails in the High Court.
The second part of the amendment calls for account to be taken, in determining the compensation which is now to be payable, of any legal or other special costs which may be or which may have been incurred by applicants in their attempts to obtain compensation. I have explained in relation to earlier amendments the general principle behind the assessment of compensation under the Bill, which is that the compensation now payable is to be calculated on the basis of what an industrial tribunal would have awarded the applicants at the time, had their dismissals been found to be unfair.
Industrial tribunals can include in such compensation any expenses which are reasonably incurred by a complainant in consequence of the dismissal, but legal costs are not covered. The reason for this is that it is considered that complainants who come before tribunals do not need to have legal representation at industrial tribunal hearings. This is not therefore a cost which is normally met from the public purse.
It is only right that once again we do not place applicants under these compensation arrangements in

707
the Bill in an uniquely privileged position in that respect. I understand my noble friend's difficulty about the people who went before the court. I understand that an interim award only has been received and that the case is before the court now, but in view of the reasons which I have given I hope that my noble friend will consider that the purposes which this amendment seeks to cover are in fact covered in the Bill.
Lord Renton: As I had to attend a long meeting of Sub-Committee E of the European Select Committee of your Lordships' House I was unable to hear the first part of this debate, but I know quite well what must have been said. Indeed, it has been admirably reflected in the speech of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. My attitude to the matter is to a very great extent governed by the unfortunate experience of the three railwaymen and the terrible delays that have taken place in their three cases. Their cases were started, I believe, nearly five years ago and even now they have not been resolved. That was not entirely—in fact, scarcely—the fault of the European Court. I am sorry to say that it was very largely the fault of various branches of Her Majesty's Government. One has to face this fact. If, therefore, my noble friend Lord Ferrers could give us some idea of the expedition, or lack of expedition, with which these other cases which will come under the statute eventually will be dealt with, it would enable my noble friends to judge what they should do as a result of the reply which my noble friend Lord Ferrers has given.
Lord Davies of Leek: Further to that point, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, raised the point of the £211/4 million for xpenses. Have we been dealing with inflation accountancy? Am I right in assuming that the Government would have to give at least an increase of that amount and that it would be part of the expenses of many of these cases which have been held up? We are pushing judges more and more into a difficult situation relating to trade unionism. The Government and Members on both sides of the Committee know well that a worker who is dismissed for non-member-ship can claim compensation from both employers and the union, in which case the tribunal will ultimately decide what proportion is to be paid by each side. This would be temptation, but under Clause 9 and other parts of the Bill the union could ultimately be made to pay the whole amount. This is a point which has to be remembered when one considers the attack on the unions. This is a second attack which follows on from the attack in the last Employment Bill with which we dealt.
Lord Spens: May I answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. I have in front of me the same journal from the Department of Employment from which I extracted that increase in the retail price index. It shows also the increase in average earnings. Since 1976, the increase in average earnings amounts to 205.5 per cent., so I do not think that any of the 12 million trade unionists mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, have any need to worry about the situation.
Lord Harris of High Cross: Since we on the Cross-Benches are not always animated by the passions which rage on the two sides, I wonder whether I could try to reconcile the noble and gallant Viscount who moved the amendment with his leader on the Front Bench. There is a problem, if you take the issue of inflation and interest rates together. It is quite clear that if there had been nil or modest inflation since the 1970s when these settlements might have been made, the interest rate in the intervening period would have been, typically, 2, 3 or 4 per cent. That is the real rate of interest which prevails over a period when inflation does not disturb our calculations. If, therefore, I heard the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, correctly—that there will be a 14 per cent. cumulative interest rate allowed—that amounts over a five year period precisely to a doubling of the capital sum. Actuarially, a 14 per cent. interest rate exactly doubles your money in five years. It is known as the rule of 70: five fourteens are 70. Therefore, I believe that we have resolved the issue. The interest rate will accomplish the purpose sought by the noble and gallant Viscount and peace may therefore reign on the Conservative Benches.
Lord McCarthy: It gives me great pleasure to agree with the Government on something tonight. We would put forward three arguments against accepting the amendment. First, it goes back to a point which I made earlier. It is a consequence of the wrong basis for compensation. Because the Government are seeking to make a distinction for these people and to introduce a quite different system of compensation based on actual loss rather than anticipated loss, they reach an apparent anomaly in which they are anticipating, or trying to assess, something which has moved as a result of inflation. If they had accepted our basis for loss, they would not have this problem. Secondly, the amendment would, if accepted, be a further departure from the way in which industrial dismissal compensation is assessed and from the way in which compensation is assessed in all other forms of tribunals. They do riot get their assessments inflation hedged. Thirdly, as the noble Earl has said and as he has been supported by the Cross-Benches, built into the clause as it stands, because of what we have on interest payment, is a very substantial element of indexing, anyway. We oppose this amendment.
Earl Ferrers: We seem to be getting on famously and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and I both agree that, on the whole, the amendment would not be an improvement to the Bill. The method by which compensation is payable, as I have explained, in fact allows for interest to be paid. I said that interest was running at the rate of 14 per cent. at the moment. In fact, the interest would be calculated on the basis of the interest rates which prevail during the course of each year for which the person was denied his monies. The principle of that is that it gives the person the interest for the money he should have had. It does not seek to take into account inflation. The fact that it may almost cover inflation would be incidental. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, that peace will reign on the Conservative Benches—if it did not reign before.

709
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, asked whether the £2 million would be sufficient if inflation was to be taken into account. That figure can be increased at a later date by money Resolution should it be found to be inadequate. I wonder if I could refer to the particular case of the British Rail employees which has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords. It may help if I make it clear at the outset that it is not intended that these three men should receive compensation under the arrangements which we are now debating. This is because they will be compensated as a result of their successful case before the European Court. It may also be helpful if I underline the current position on compensation for these British Rail employees. As some of your Lordships will know, after the court's decision was announced the question of compensation was referred back to the European Commission of Human Rights to see if they could negotiate a friendly settlement between the railmen and the Government. Regrettably, this did not prove possible, with the result that the question of compensation has now been referred to the European Court of Human Rights, who will pronounce upon it. Therefore, the question of compensation is at the moment sub judice, and it would be incorrect for me to comment upon it.
My noble friend Lord Renton asked how quickly these applications would be dealt with. It is always difficult to give a precise figure. I would have anticipated that they will be dealt with in a few months of the application being received.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): Does the noble Viscount wish the amendment to be put, or does he wish to withdraw it?
Viscount De L'Isle: Withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.23 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 23, line 33, leave out ("may, if he thinks fit") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: This is the last amendment we intend to move before we come to the clause stand part debate. It is really again making the point, about the discretionary elements in this clause and the extent to which everything is left to the Secretary of State. Because I am moving No. 10 I do not propose to move Amendments Nos. 11 and 13, and Amendment No. 12 has already been talked about. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to drag the arguments together for all these amendments, because in these amendments essentially we are making a point which we are making in the clearest possible way in Amendment No. 10.
Amendment No. 10 draws the attention of the Committee to the fact that at the moment, as the clause stands, the Secretary of State can completely ignore any recommendations or proposals, if he thinks fit, of his self-appointed person. In Amendment No. 11 we are trying to restrict the sense in which he can make any payment other than that of his appointed person. In Amendment No. 13 we are seeking to show some way in which one might try to modify the extent to which he was bound by the findings of fact in such
710
proceedings or in a report issued by the appointed person.
The situation now under the clause—and none of our amendments has found favour with the Government tonight and so the clause remains exactly as it was—is that the Secretary of State, it is true, set up, we suppose, this quasi-judicial authority of the appointed person, but that this appointed person does not necessarily consider all cases because the Secretary of State does not have to refer them all to him. Even if the Secretary of State does refer a case, he does not have to take any notice of what the appointed person says; and even if he makes a report the Secretary of State does not have to publish that report. Then, even if the appointed person says that the complainant before him should have no compensation or a very low level of compensation, the Secretary of State is free to tell us, if we ask him, whether he has decided not to abide by the report, but not to tell us what it was. He is free to decide for himself what level of compensation he wants to give.
We say that this is a monstrous procedure. Going back to an argument we had earlier with the Government Front Bench, we say that this is essentially a tribunal affair. One is trying to decide whether what one man says is so. Other men are entitled, in fairness and in natural justice, to come and say whether they agree or not. At the end of the day, justice should be done and should be seen to be done. If the Government go so far as to set up an appointed person, if not a tribunal, then they should be bound by what that appointed person says. They should tell us what is said, and they should not be free to give compensation which is totally at variance with, and might be totally opposed to, any report which their own selected, appointed person makes. I beg to move.
The Earl of Gowrie: As I understand them, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, would require the Secretary of State to refer any applications to an appointed person in place of the provisions of the Bill, which merely enable him to do so if he thinks fit. Surely it would be inappropriate and wasteful to be required to refer all cases to the appointed person, because commonsense suggests that inevitably there will be cases where the applicant is quite clearly ineligible for compensation. He might, for example, have ruled himself out. This point arose at Committee stage in another place. I can do no better than repeat what my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said then:
" The Secretary of State would not refer a case to an assessor when, for example, the person applying for compensation had filled in the initial form and declared that he was dismissed in 1971. In such circumstances it would be a complete waste of everyone's time if the case went to an assessor because the applicant would have disqualified himself from compensation by his initial statement. I can assure the Opposition that if a prima facie case is advanced by the applicant in his initial application, that case and every other case will go to an assessor for him to help the Secretary of State."
I can assure the Committee that applicants whose cases are not referred to the appointed person will be told the reason why.
Again, an assurance to this effect was given by my honourable friend. Having been given the reason why presumably a person could go back and find out

711
whether there were other good reasons why he should apply. With those assurances, I hope that the Committee will agree to reject the amendment which, if we passed it, would cause an enormous amount of niggling, time wasting and bureaucratic procedure—and I am surprised that the noble Lord has put it forward.
Lord Kilmarnock: If the noble Earl will forgive me, I am not sure we can accept his argument that this would cause a great deal of administrative delay of an expensive nature. If an assessor has to exist in any case, is there any reason why all the potential cases should not he sifted through to him? Obviously, all those which do not require his attention could be put on one side. This happens perfectly normally in your Lordships' own committees, when documents from the EEC are put into a sift, some marked A, some marked B, some marked C. I see no reason whatsoever why this should not happen in this case.
The Earl of Gowrie: Again the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, is edging towards an interpretation of the role of assessor as a kind of independent quasi-judicial, quango-like being. He is not. He is there to help the Secretary of State. The important figure in all this is the Secretary of State. That is, of course, a difference of view between us and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. The reason for this, as I rehearsed at an earlier period of time, is that we are not in territory here where we are trying to establish the rights of individuals or the wrongs of their case, but to correct injustices created at a particular period of time for particular individuals, which has now been corrected in terms of the broad judicial principle by the 1980 Employment Act.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord does not help me; he makes me despair. I do not see how he can say that he is not trying to establish the rights of individuals. On exactly this basis, the Government tell us, the rights of individuals will be established by industrial tribunals under the 1980 Act. The 1980 Act will decide in precisely the same circumstances, the Government tell us, whether or not there has been an unfair or a fair dismissal, and they will do it by the system of a tribunal, they will do it by a judge, they will do it by a quasi-judicial process; they will not do it by trusting the Secretary of State.
I really cannot see how the Government can have it both ways. On the one hand, the main stream of their legislation is to be administered through industrial tribunals. They have said in particular under what circumstances there will be fair and unfair dismissal from union membership agreement areas under the 1980 Act. They then seek to reconstruct in the 1982 Act a sort of shadow 1980 situation, so that the same thing applies as though there was a judicial system, as though there were tribunals, and they even say that the compensation method is the same. Yet the noble Earl comes along and tells us that he is not trying to ips divided: Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 102. DIVISIO establish the rights of individuals; he wants an assessor and he does not want a judge. We must press this amendment to a Division.
6.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordship divided: Contents, 61; Not Contents, 102.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Amherst, E.

McCarthy, L.

Ardwick, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Aylestone, L.

Mais, L.

Bacon, B.

Melchett, L.

Bernstein, L.

Mishcon, L.

Beswick, L.

Molloy, L.

Blyton, L.

Oram, L. [Teller.]

Boston of Faversham, L.

Peart, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Phillips, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Byers, L.

Plant, L.

Chitnis, L.

Rochester,L

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Seear, B.

Collison, L.

Simon, V.

Davies of Leek, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gaitskel I, B.

Stone, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Glenamara, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hall, V.

Underhill, L. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Whaddon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

White, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jacques, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

LIewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Glasgow, E.

Alport, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Avon, E.

Gormanston, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gowrie,E

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Greenway, L.

Beloff, L.

Gridley, L.

Belstead, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Bessborough, E.

Halsbury, E.

Boardman, L.

Hankey, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harvington L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Caldecote, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kilmany, L.

Cathcart, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Chelwood, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Colwyn, L.

Long, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Daventry,V

Lyell, L.

Davidson, V.

McFadzean,L

De Freyne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

De La Warr, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

De L'Isle, V.

Mancroft, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mansfield, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Merrivale, L.

Eccles, V.

Mersey, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Monson, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Morris, L.

Elton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Moyola, L.

Faithful, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Onslow, E.

Forester, L.

Orkney, E.

Fortescue, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gisborough, L.

Pender, L.

713

Portland, D.

Stradbroke, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Swansea, L.

Renton, L.

Swinfen, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Swinton, E.

St. Davids, V.

Terrington, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Tranmire, L.

Sandford, L.

Trenchard, V.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Sharpies, B.

Vaizey, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Spens, L.

Vivian, L.

Stamp, L.

Wise, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 1 shall be the first Schedule to the Bill?
6.41 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: We now come to the question of Schedule 1 and Clause 1 because they are, as all sides of the Committee have accepted, intimately related to each other. We come to a situation where, totally unamended, we have to decide whether we can support them or not. We have said—and the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, said in particular in opening the debate on the first amendment—why we find these two sets of provisions unacceptable. As he said, there was no consultation with the other interested parties. Every other part of the Bill, whatever one might think about it, was the subject of consultation with the CBI, the TUC the employers' associations, the Institute of Personnel Management and so on. Every part of it was, in a way, in the Green Paper and in the consultative document. That cannot be said of these provisions.
Secondly, these provisions have been opposed by many employers—I do not say by all employers, I do not say (because I do not know) by the majority of employers, but by a number of influential and important employers' associations; for example, the Engineering Employers' Federation, the British Institute of Management and the Institute of Personnel Management. Those three organisations, for example, have had considerable reservations about the practicality, about the sense and about the equity of introducing these provisions at this time.
Thirdly as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, also said and, indeed, as he quoted from the Secretary of State to show, there can be no doubt that what is provided here goes far beyond what the European Court suggested. I want to say something in this debate about my attitude towards the European Court decision and about the attitude that we take towards the European Court decision, because it is time that something was said. Let me say something negative. There was nothing in the European Court decision which covers the kind of matters which are being introduced in Clause 2, and there is nothing in the European Court decision which covers many of the provisions of Clause 1 and this schedule. The European Court decision, as we see it, essentially goes centrally to the question of existing employees.
Next, £2 million has been put aside. Based on the figures of Professor Gennard, it works out at
714
something like £5,000 or more for each one of those people if, in fact, they all come forward. It is a considerable sum of compensation—£2 million of public funds. No case has been make out for wide-spread abuse and no case has been made out, I suggest, in this Committee tonight for distributing that sum in that particular way.
I would remind the Committee of the series of amendments which we have put down in an attempt genuinely to improve the way in which this sum is distributed by moving back into the way in which unfair dismissal compensation is assessed in all other unfair dismissal cases, including unfair dismissal out of union membership agreements under the 1980 Act; by referring the matter to an industrial tribunal; by giving those involved a right of representation; by ensuring that the Secretary of State even if he had discretion had to have respect for tribunal criteria such as, for example, the assessment of compensation; and by saying that at least the Secretary of State should be bound by the report of the person he appointed. None of those amendments has found any acceptance on the other side. We have had instead, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, suggested, a series of assertions about victims working in open shops who would be victimised or would not make their peace with the union, with no attempt to sustain what has been said.
So there is only one case left for this schedule and this clause and I have to address myself to that before dividing the Committee on whether this particular Schedule 1 should be agreed to. There was something strange about the 1974–1979 period and that was said by the Secretary of State in another place. On 16th March at column 474 of Hansard in another place he said:
"1974–79 was the only period when public policy positively encouraged dismissal without remedy from closed shops even on grounds of conscientious objection to union membership".
I repeat:
"without remedy from closed shops even on grounds of conscientious objection to union membership".
I suggest that that is at best a statement of ignorance and at worse an intentional misrepresentation of the facts.
Public policy—if it be public policy to allow a legal position to perpetuate and continue—has encouraged dismissal without remedy at least since 1893, since the decision of the Mogul Steamship case. It is true that, of course, the consequences of that case, which concerned a cartel of shipowners, was not applied to the trade unions until somewhat later. But it is now universally accepted that it should have been applied at the time of the 1893 decision and if it was not applied immediately afterwards—and of course it subsequently was applied—and if it is difficult, for example, to reconcile the trilogy of cases decided at that time one with another, that is because the judges unfortunately were showing their partiality against trade union organisation. But by the 1900s they had recovered their impartiality and in the 1920s in a whole series of cases, the most famous being Reynolds v. Shipping Federation in 1924, they established absolutely clearly the legality of the closed shop at common law. There was no protection, no remedy for dismissal for anyone in this country until 1971. If that was not enough, if it was

715
just the common law, in 1906 Parliament enacted the Trade Disputes Act which quite specifically was designed, or one of its provisions was designed, to legalise what we now call union membership agreements.
The common law being what it was and what it is, there continued to be bumps. One of the famous bumps was the case of Rookes v. Barnard which required yet another piece of legislation in 1965. Nevertheless, the situation is that all that time until 1971 those well known supporters of trade unionism—Stanley Baldwin, Bonar Law, Neville Chamberlain, Winston Churchill and Harold Macmillan himself—all sat down in a situation in which the closed shop was perfectly, completely and utterly lawful and in which public policies positively encouraged dismissal without remedy from closed shops, even on grounds of conscience and objection to union membership!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: If the noble Lord would give way for a moment, with the greatest respect, I think that Reynolds v. The Shipping Federation was reported in 1924 Chancery Division and was a decision at first instance. So far as I remember, the whole legality of the closed shop was considered by the House of Lords in Bonser v. The Musicians' Union, which was before the Act to which the noble Lord referred. I may be wrong, but that is my recollection of the law.
Lord McCarthy: I think that the noble Lord is right, but it does not affect the point. I am saying that there was a whole series of cases in which in common law judges accepted what they came to call the "trading interest defence". Indeed, they were bound to do so if they were fair since the Mogul case, because the Mogul case presented that if you had a combination of people—whether it was a combination of trade unionists, employers or whoever—and in combination they harmed other people, if they could provide themselves with a trading interest defence and if they could show that they were not doing it on grounds of malice but were doing it to defend their trading interests, the courts would not interfere with the regulation of competition. In fact, in the leading cases they had a classical defence in terms of laissez faire; they said that it was not for the courts to intervene.
I am saying that Reynolds was a case in point. I could have quoted the most extreme case in 1944—the Crofter case—where it is arguable that the House of Lords in the Crofter case went further than the 1906 Trade Disputes Act lawfully to accept the provisions of a closed shop. Therefore, we go back to a situation in 1971. The present Secretary of State for Employment is quite wrong in saying that this is the only time we have allowed the closed shop to be lawful.
What happened in 1971 was that we created unfair dismissal rights. As I tried to say earlier this evening, once you create unfair dismissal rights, you have to face the question: shall these circumscribe or in any way constrain the already accepted common law on statute right to refuse to work with non-unionists and to make trade union membership a condition of employment? It is fair to say that under Mr. Heath
716
the Conservative Government—though it is not acceptable to the present Government to mention anything of this kind about Mr. Heath—actually went further than they have dared to go so far. He made the closed shop unlawful—utterly and completely. You could have agency shops if you were a registered union, but you could not make trade union membership a condition of employment.
Then we had a Labour Government who decided—I do not want to shorten this long discussion—that they wanted to allow genuine religious objection. The present Government, building on the European Court decision—though I must say that the present Secretary of State does not do this—seeks further to constrain the limits under which unfair dismissal is acceptable in a union membership agreement and to constrain the circumstances in which a fair dismissal was possible inside a union membership agreement. We are saying tonight that to all practical purposes they have made union membership agreements un-enforceable. We opposed that when they did it in the 1980 Act and, therefore, we oppose it when they want to do it backwards into the period of 1974–79.
Noble Lords may say: What about the European Court decision? We take the view that the European Court decision does not go to the issue of personal conviction. Any references to deeply held personal convictions in the Strasbourg decision are not germane to the central issue; they are what we in this country call obiter. The Strasbourg decision had nothing to do with ballots, pace the 1980 Act. It has to do with the existing employees. It is perfectly true that there are references in the Strasbourg decision to the need for a choice between unions. The Government are not proposing this, but we have an amendment on paper which will be discussed either tonight or at some other time, which deals with that issue. We shall define our position then.
However, the central question is whether one accepts the Strasbourg decision from the point of view of what it does to existing employees. I am bound to say that I do. I am in a fortunate position because in 1964 I published a book called The Closed Shop in Britain, and I actually have a copy, though no one else seems to have one. The main reason that I know so much about Professor Gennard is that he is going to make it out of date, curse him. However, in that book I suggested in 1964 what I then called a registration shop agreement, and I continue to believe that a registration shop agreement is the best way in which to solve the central problem of the existing members. It is the best way in which to reconcile existing legislation with the Strasbourg decision, and it will operate in a much more civilised way than anything which is being put forward by the present Government.
Therefore, as everyone else has done so, I intend to read from The Closed Shop in Britain. I said that there should be three conditions to be satisfied and that when those three conditions were satisfied, it would be unlawful for any union to proceed against an existing non-unionist on grounds that he refused to belong to the union. I said:
"all future labour engaged on certain types of work in certain areas must become and remain members of specified unions; (2) Existing members in those areas would not be permitted to lapse from the union, and if expelled lawfully would be liable to be discharged; (3) Existing non-unionists in these areas would be

717
'encouraged' to join the union, and if they refused reasonable 'efforts would be made to employ them in areas not covered by the registration shop."
But that if an employer was prepared to say to a union that he would sign conditions one, two and three—this was at a time when we did not have unfair dismissal legislation, at a time when the closed shop was perfectly lawful and the then Conservative Government were quite happy to see it continue—in those circumstances and under that condition any union which proceeded against an existing non-unionist could be unlawful. I believe that we could move to a situation in which a registration shop agreement was the proper, civilised way to deal with the very real problem of existing members. But this provision, this statute, these clauses and this schedule are not the way, and we wish to oppose them.
Lord Rochester: I simply want to say briefly from these Benches that throughout the period from 1974 to 1980 we have consistently argued that grounds for unfair dismissal should include, not, it is true, deeply held personal convictions, but conscientious grounds as well as grounds of religious conviction. It is for that reason that we shall vote for this clause standing part of the Bill.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Very briefly, as I know that we want to adjourn, my objections to Clause 1 and Schedule 1 are twofold. The first is contained in the words in Clause 1 "who in certain past cases". In other words, as has already been mentioned this afternoon, this is retroactive legislation which I, personally, think is bad and dislike, whichever party happens to be in government. But it was described by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, as retrospective justice. This seems to me to be very revealing. Why is it that the defence of the non-unionist or the lapsed unionist is retrospective justice, and why is it that the years 1974 to 1980 are so important? What about before that? Was it not retrospective justice to compensate those who were unfairly dismissed before 1971 when they had no right to any redress? That is my first point.
My second point is that this is a political Bill brought forward for political reasons with the eyes of its movers on the Conservative Conference in October, and has very little, if anything to do with the conduct of industry in this country or with those who work in industry. Of course the closed shop, a voluntary closed shop, has always been the objective of the trade union movement. That is what makes sense. When the working class were attempting to defend themselves against their masters, the nearer a union got to 100 per cent. Membership the stronger it was.
That is still the case. But I believe that that situation has now started to crack. Even when there have been full closed-shop agreements, two-thirds of them have always allowed the conscientious objector to union membership. But now this Government are determined that they are going to break the trade union movement, and they have selected this particular issue. I ask again why is it different to have a man or woman dismissed unfairly because of breaking a union agreement, of leaving the union, than it is to have a man or woman dismissed unfairly by an employer? And this still continues. Above all, may I ask the
718
spokesman for the Government, why is it more important to defend the non-unionist who is dismissed than it is to defend those who are dismissed, and are being dismissed, through sex or racial discrimination?
I understand that the average or the median figure for compensation at industrial tribunals for unfair dismissal is under £600. According to this Bill we have been told, and we were told from the other place, and told in the Standing Committee in the other place, some people can expect to get between £20,000 and £30,000. Why the difference? I suggest that the difference is to be found within the Conservative Party and not within the industrial field of this country.
Finally, as this attack on the trade union movement progresses it will become obvious that the Government—already it is being forecast that there will be another Bill next year—are determined to break the trade union movement of this country because they know that a strong, united trade union movement means a strong Labour Party and a strong Opposition. We have not been given answers to any of these questions either in the other place, or in the Standing Committee, or here.
Above all—I come back to the noble Earl—nobody is asking you to publish the Gennard Report; nobody has ever asked for that; all we have asked is that we be given the same material that is available to the Government in discussiing this Bill. That has not been done. All that was given even in the Standing Committee was a couple of sheets of paper. We have not had even those.
Why is it—and I suggest that there is a simple answer—that those who have read the Gennard Report, which apparently is not included in the night-time reading of the Secretary of State, apparently do not believe that it can be equated with this Bill? Therefore, the Government want to get this Bill through before the Gennard Report is published, or before the information that Gennard has produced is available to Members of Parliament.
I am sure that Members of the Front Bench opposite, as has happened frequently in the past, will accuse me of making a class-biased speech. Yes, that is what I am here for. But let me point out that the introduction of class bias came from the Government when they published this Bill. Nobody can read this Bill and consider for one moment that the Government are other than completely anti-trade union. They are not legislating for the employers. They are not legislating for the companies. They are legislating for trade unionists. I consider it blatant effrontery to suggest that those of us who are opposed to this Bill, with the whole weight of the trade union movement of 12 million people behind us, are introducing class into this discussion, because the class element of this Committee was introduced when this Bill was published, and it was introduced by the Government.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: I shall be brief. This is the kind of legislation which arouses strong passions. That is clear from speeches we have heard this afternoon, and that of my noble friend Lord Hatch who has just sat down. The reason why it arouses these passions is because ideologies are involved. It is because of these passions and the ideologies that I would ask the Government to pause even at this late date and consider

719
whether or not they are doing the right thing in Schedule 1.
The Government should really consider the nature of the legislative process. It is one thing to pass measures through Parliament, through both Houses. That can be done with the aid of majorities and with the co-operation of Members, and laws can be passed. But the passing of laws is only the beginning. Once a law is passed, it has to work. It is the working of a law which is important. That means that the kind of laws we pass here ought to be laws which are likely to work. Legislation of this kind has one powerful characteristic; namely, that in order to work it depends to a very large extent on the willing acceptance of the people to whom it is applied and on their co-operation in making the legislation work.
It seems to me, and I have said this before, that there are many parts of this Bill which are sensible and sound, but Clause 1 and Schedule 1 are not among them. Clause 1 and Schedule 1 have, from the Government's point of view, one overwhelming defect, and that is that they are held to be offensive by a great many honest and law-abiding trade unionists. Not agitators, not Trotskyists, but ordinary working folk. They believe that these clauses are wrong.
They believe that they are wrong for two reasons, both of which have been mentioned today. The first is that the compensation offered is out of key with the compensation offered for other kinds of unfair dismissal. That is not thought acceptable by ordinary honest folk, nor should it be. Secondly, the determination of the amount of compensation is seen to be in the hands of the Secretary of State, and his alone, despite the gloss which was put on the constitutional arrangements earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It is not thought acceptable that the compensation should be in the hands of the Secretary of State without it being open to the fullest scrutiny.
For those reasons, it is clear to me, and I hope to other noble Lords, that the schedule does not make the Bill acceptable to people generally, and because the schedule makes the Bill unlikely to be accepted, it makes the rest of the Bill unlikely to work, and that is why the Government should think carefully about the matter. There is little point in throwing away those elements of the Bill which they think are desirable and worthy—I agree with them on many of them—for the sake of the provisions which are seen to be ideological in content and which seem to be aimed at assuaging ideological appetities rather than doing anything else. I appeal to the Government to think again and not to throw away the whole Bill in order to gain a point at the beginning of it.
The Earl of Gowie: It rather grieves me to have to start by making remarks—I shall try to concertina them because I know we want to adjourn—by way of disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Howie, because his is the kind of philosophy in relation to industrial relations that I very much share and, if I may borrow the clothing of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy—
Lord McCarthy: It will not fit the noble Earl.
The Earl of Gowie:—and use the schedule stand part as an excuse for some self-promotional literary material, I also wrote an essay on industrial relations in which I argued rather as the noble Lord, Lord Howie, does. However, I think that in this case the noble Lord, Lord Howie, is wrong. We are not dealing with ideology in this clause. Obviously there are ideologies and they differ. But here is an attempt to redress a wrong and compensate the individuals who suffered that wrong. Far from thinking that unacceptable to the vast majority of ordinary hard-working people, it would be quite unacceptable if we did not seek to do this.
It is in the nature of modern societies and modern economies that institutions get big. We understand the forces which make unions, banks, commercial organisations, insurance companies, even government itself grow so big. And as institutions grow in scale, it is necessary for individuals to be protected as they get caught in the grinding institutional machinery. This part of the Bill is clearly a piece of liberal legislation, designed to protect the freedom of individuals and compensate them where they find themselves caught up in the machinations of the big battalions.
It is for that reason that I wholly reject the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, about this being a piece of class legislation. It seems an astonishing claim, when you think of the Walsall dinner ladies, Joanna Harris or the British Rail workers who were dismissed, to consider this as class-based legislation. I regret his charge utterly.
To return to the much more reasoned exposition of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, as the outline of the law up to 1980 indicates, the period of time during which the TULRA, the 1974 and 1976 Acts, were in force, and particularly the period between the introduction of the 1976 Act and the coming into force of our own 1980 Act, was the only period since unfair dismissal law was first introduced when employees have been able to be dismissed without remedy for non-membership of a union in a closed shop, despite their having conscientious objections to union membership or despite their being existing non-union employees at the time when the closed shop was introduced.
As the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, himself appeared to acknowledge, the period of the TULRA stands out as even more startling against the back-ground of the fact that before 1971 the law had nothing to say about the fairness of closed shop or any other dismissals, and thus it can be inferred that there was no public policy on the issue before 1971. But the 1974 and 1976 legislation created a sutiation in which, after the 1976 amendments, closed shop dismissals were specifically stated to be fair, save only in the case of religious objections to union membership.
This answers a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. It was therefore the only period in modern times when public policy positively facilitated the dismissal from closed shops, without any remedy, of conscientious objectors to union membership and existing non-union employees. That is the main motivation for our attempts to repeal the law.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Earl really cannot have that because in 1906 the definition of a trade dispute

721
clearly included what we now call a union membership agreement. The Government at that time decided as a matter of public policy that there would by no redress at civil law in cases of closed shops.
The Earl of Gowrie: The noble Lord will be well aware that we went over this ground in detail together in Committee during the passage of the 1980 Act. Without getting into an argument about the nature of the 1906 legislation—and it is not open and shut; it has been subject to considerable dispute over the years—I think we would all acknowledge that the Asquith Government passed that legislation to deal with a set of circumstances which has changed. The situation has changed over the years and Lord McCarthy, or even I myself, might have little enough employment if there had not been development in industrial relations law during all this time.
Our view is that the legislation of 1974 and 1976 was morally indefensible. That view was not restricted to the Conservative Party, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, appeared to imply. It was very widely held and can be seen from all tests of opinion in the country and was indeed shared by the Liberals and the new opposition parties. The TULRA legislation had the effect of denying basic individual freedoms and grounds of conscience I mentioned earlier. It had the effect of enabling there to be imposed on existing employees who had freely chosen to work for an employer on a given set of terms and conditions of employment, a wholly new condition of employment, with which they either had to comply of lose their jobs, despite the fact that they might have served that employer loyally for most of their working lives. We acted as quickly as possible after taking office to repeal those unjust laws. We did that in the Employment Act 1980.
The provisions of this clause and schedule reflect the sad fact that that repeal was not in itself enough to remedy the injustices suffered by individuals under the 1974 and 1976 legislation. That is why this Bill contains provision to compensate existing empolyees and employees with conscientious objections to union membership who were dismissed from closed shops without remedy under that previous legislation.
Why then, did we feel that we needed to take a step further? It was certainly our view that the indefensibility of the 1974 and 1976 legislation has been very heavily reinforced by the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the British Rail case. But I want to emphasise that the court's judgment is not the reason that Clause 1 and Schedule 1 are in the Bill. The Government introduced the provisions because we have always believed that the legislation I mentioned was unjust and because we believe that individuals who suffered should be compensated. But I must say very firmly that the European Court's ruling, which clearly established that the previous Government's legislation was in violation of the Convention on Human Rights, is only a vindication of our own position on the issue. Again, it could not faintly be held to be an internal Conservative party matter.
I was very interested to note that a few moments ago during his speech the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, appeared wholly to accept the legitimacy of the European Court ruling, and I hope that acceptance will be
722
shared by other members of his party in another place. Certainly when we have tried in another place to draw them as to their view on whether they would try to change the position again, they have always declined to answer.
As the Committee may recall, when I was an employment Minister I played some part in guiding the Employment Act 1980 through your Lordships' House, and that Act restored the minimum safeguards for individual freedoms in a closed shop, which in our view should never have been absent. But the reason that we have felt it necessary to go further now is that our reform in 1980 was seen not to have been fully effective. Within six months of the legislation reaching the statute book two local authorities, Sandwell and Walsall, defied the law and sacked some of their own employees in violation of the rights conferred on them by the 1980 Act. In addition, one of the councils, Sandwell, totally ignored a ballot in which the vast majority of its employees demanded that the closed shop be brought to an end. That is why we have taken this next step and why the Bill extends the protection that the 1980 Act provided against the tyranny of the closed shop.
It extends the protection in two ways. The Bill increases compensation to deterrent levels—and here I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. I make no bones about it, nor do I make any apology that there is a strong element of deterrence in the levels of compensation. I hope that those who oppose the closed shop, but are ready to argue that the new levels of compensation are too high, will remember that. We have seen how ruthlessly the closed shop can be abused, and therefore we must not flinch from measures that are needed to bring abuses to an end.
The second main safeguard which the present Bill introduces is to review ballots for existing closed shops, and we shall be coming to that matter. For the moment I can only ask the Committee, how can it be wrong to ask people whether they want to go on working in a closed shop, or how can it be bad for industrial relations to let working people decide these matters for themselves? As I have said, these arguments lie ahead of us, but for the present we believe that some redress must be provided for those individuals who have already suffered specific, and gross injustice at the hands of previous law, including injustice suffered during the period of time in which our own legislation was in operation. That is what Clause 1 and Schedule 1 seek to provide. They are not retrospective legislation. As my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, they provide retrospective justice for individuals. They go some way—not the whole way—towards restoring a wrong that was done, and I commend the schedule to the Committee.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Before the noble Earl sits down, will he please answer the question which both the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and I asked him? Why is there a difference in compensation between unfair dismissal on the grounds that we have been considering and other forms of unfair dismissal Is that not an invitation to members of unions to leave their unions?
The Earl of Gowrie: I do not see it that way, and I answered the point when I said that I made no apology for the strong element of deterrence in this legislation.
Lord McCarthy: I do not want to detain the Committee. The noble Earl has started talking about Clauses 3, 4 and 5, but we shall go on to do that after dinner. On the single point about the 1906 Act, I would refer to the provisions of Section 29 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 so far as the closed shop is concerned. Subsection (1)(b), which refers to engagement or non-engagement is fundamentally the same as the provisions relating to the definition of a trade dispute in the Trade Disputes Act 1906. That Act, not the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, removed the threat of civil conspiracy from the prosecution of a closed shop. That was an act of public policy, and it was decided all those years ago. I do not suggest that this is class legislation. Trade unionists are in all classes. This is anti-trade union legislation, and we oppose it.
7.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said schedule (Schedule 1) shall be the first schedule to the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 44.

DIVISION NO.3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Allerton, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Alport, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Amherst, E.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Avon, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Aylestone, L.

Kilmany, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Beloff, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Belstead, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Boardman, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Byers, L.

Lyell, L.

Caldecote, V.

McFadzean, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Chelwood, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mais, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mancroft, L.

Davidson, V.

Mansfield, E.

De L'Isle, V.

Merrivale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Mottistone, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Moyne, L.

Elton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Onslow, E.

Faithfull, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ferrers, E.

Pender, L.

Forester, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Fortescue, E.

Renton, L.

Geddes, L.

Rochester, L.

Gisborough, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Glasgow, E.

St. Davids, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Gormanston, V.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Gowrie, E.

Seear, B.

Greenway, L.

Sharpies, B.

Gridley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Spens, L.

Halsbury, E.

Stamp, L.

Hankey, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

724

Stradbroke, E.

Vivian, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wigoder, L.

Swinton, E.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Tranmire, L.

Windlesham, L.

Trenchard, V.

Winstanley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wise, L.

Vaizey, L.

Young, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Lovell-Davies, L.

Ardwick, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bacon, B.

Melchett, L.

Bernstein, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Beswick, L.

Mishcon, L.

Blyton, L.

Molloy, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Oram, L.

Brockway, L.

Peart, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Phillips, B.

Collison, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Plant, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]

Gaitskell, B.

George-Brown, L.

Rhodes, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stone, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jacques, L.

Underhill, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

White, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and schedule agreed to accordingly.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: This seems an appropriate moment for your Lordships to move on to other business, but before moving that the House be resumed I should tell your Lordships that it has been agreed through the usual channels that we shall not be continuing with our current business, the Employment Bill, until 8.20. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill
7.35 p.m.
Read a third time, with the amendments.
Clause 2 [Exclusion of exhibitions promoted for private gain from certain exemptions under the 1909 and 1952 Acts]:
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 1, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 is quite apparently a paving amendment, and I think it would be to the convenience of the House if I were in fact to speak to Amendment No. 3, and with it to fit in the effect of Amendment No. 4 as well, so that we may see the whole matter in what is, I hope, a proper perspective. I would by way of introduction

725
say that I hope that those who participated in the debate last Thursday—and I see that all the protagonists are here again tonight—will appreciate that what they said then has indeed led to a very substantial amount of re-thinking of the points that they made. Whether or not it be in order or fashionable, I propose to say that there are, I know, two persons who have been advising Members of this House of all parties—I think literally all parties—who have worked virtually through-out the weekend in order to try to achieve an acceptable compromise upon this matter. I do not think it would he right if we did not acknowledge the hard work that they have done and the enormous number of telephone calls and other communications they have made and consultations that they have carried out.
In a nutshell, the trouble has been that we tried under Clause 2 to stop the bogus club-cinema which was showing pornographic and other material. It was operating under a loophole in the cinematograph licensing legislation. The first problem that arose was that the way in which the Bill was drafted in order to do that led to some doubts whether, in the process, it was not going to lead to the requirement for local authorities to license things like the ordinary retail outlet in the high street which sells and hires video tapes—and I remind your Lordships that I have to declare an interest in this in being involved in a company which has a number of those shops—and, indeed, a number of other perfectly harmless forms of exhibition of either video or film, which nobody wished to have subjected to the licensing system at all. That was one end of the spectrum.
Then there were others who said, and I think justifiably said—I never denied that this was a problem—that there was, by contrast, the possibility that if a number of persons, for instance in a perfectly ordinary public-house, not one which made a speciality of this, chose to exploit, as has been done before, the interstices of this legislation—a bogus club or a bogus pub or a bogus restaurant—we would have a situation where we were in effect back to unlicensed exhibitions of film and tape but under a different form from that which had been previously so much attacked.
What, therefore, we now have is, I am afraid, a very complicated Clause 2, but the effect of the two substantive amendments, which are Nos. 3 and 4, is this. If I may take the House very briefly through the way in which it will go, we shall have a proposition which says that no longer will an exhibition promoted for private gain be excluded from licensing—and that means both safety and censorship licensing. That is the first proposition. Then, if one looks at Amendment No. 3 one finds that that particular proposition does not apply to the harmless outlets which, in this amendment, have been identified: the high street shop and attempts to advertise goods or services, which are probably also the high street shop, or to provide information, education or instruction, which is a matter, particularly in the world of training, which I know is very close to the heart of my honourable friend the Member for Fareham, whose Bill this was in another place and to whom it will return, I hope, very soon. Therefore, we have to some extent adopted a list system but on a generalised basis in order to make it clear that the things everybody agreed did not need licensing will not be considered to be a matter of private gain at all.
Then we come to what is now subsection (2) in the clause as printed where we have a definition of what is to be private gain for the purposes of this licensing; and we are to add to it, in Amendment No. 4, the new concept of an exhibition which is advertised. The distinction here, I think, very simply is that if the public (to take the case we were discussing last week) makes a point of saying that on Tuesdays and Thursdays one is going to have full-length feature films and advertises this either in general or in some rather more limited way—and the same would apply to any other sort of club—then one will fall within the provisions of promoting an exhibition for private gain and therefore will have to have the necessary licensing provisions applied.
The breakthrough has been really in the picking up of the point about advertising. It means therefore—and this is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and I were discussing last week—that if the television screen behind the bar is purely incidental and does not form part of any promotion for the clients of that public house but is simply there to show what happened in the World Cup forum, even if that is shown a few hours later, because otherwise it would be exempted anyway, that would not be caught. Therefore we have in subsection (2) a number of things which are considered to be exhibitions promoted for private gain.
In subsection (3), as now printed, there will be the rather more borderline cases where it will be for the prosecution to show that those particular activities were taking place but that will not be necessarily conclusive because it will be possible for the defence to show that, despite the apparent facts, these did not lead to the promotion of an exhibition for private gain. There will be, therefore, a third category where the defence has a list of criteria which it is able to deny and whereby the prosecution will fail to succeed.
As your Lordships will see, it has turned into a fairly difficult series of subsections and I have been concerned overall, considering that this is largely going to come before lay magistrates in magistrates' courts, to see whether there is a comprehensible balance of factors. But I think that, if it is looked at in the way that I attempted to describe it, it is something which it is not impossible to pick one's way through; and, in the process, I believe that we have picked up the points that noble Lords have made from various parts of the House. I think we have, as I would remind the House, safeguards for any dubious areas that may still be a matter of doubt in the other legislation on which I have always relied as being a standby when the cine-matograph licensing legislation on its own will not do; and, therefore, perhaps we have now reached a point where those who were good enough not to divide the House last Thursday against the amendments that I put down will see their faith fulfilled and something that is now acceptable to put forward to your Lordships. At this stage, I beg to move Amendment No. 1 which is a paving amendment to Amendment No. 3.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount on bringing his legislation to this stage. I have never been very keen on restrictive legislation and I am no great

727
enthusiast for the cinematographic legislation of this country. Even with the addition of this Bill as amended, it seems to me still to be something of a dog's dinner, as I think many people who look at it will agree. I was among those who joined in the abolition of the pre-censorship which used to exist on the theatre under the aegis of the Lord Chamberlain, who enthusiastically abolished himself a few years ago and, therefore, I have always been something of a minimalist in this area.
I believe that whatever legislation exists should be the same for all people who operate in the same area. This is what this Bill will do. This is what this amendment finally does because we have had two sorts of commercial operator—the commercial operator who freely says he is a commercial operator in the business for legitimate private gain, and the commercial operator who has masqueraded as a club but has been even more commercial than the most commercial of operators. Therefore, we have done something here which rectifies that injustice between one type of operator and another.
Also I think we are doing something which is even more necessary, and that is we shall equalise the safety precautions in the same areas so that the same considerations will begin to apply over a period to the commercial club as to the ordinary commercial operator. With great ingenuity—and this he was kind enough to recognise with some assistance—the noble Viscount has dealt with and answered the objections raised at an earlier stage in the Bill. He has provided that those things which ought to be caught by the Bill will now be caught whereas those which ought not to be caught will, I think, as far as human ingenuity can make it so, not be caught. This is what the amendment which the noble Viscount has moved will do, and for that reason, for myself, I welcome it and commend it to the House.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, at the Report stage last Thursday, as I understood it, there never was disagreement about the intention of the Bill or what it was to do. The argument was about loopholes. I believe that these amendments very successfully have brought all parties together and I rise only to echo the noble Viscount's tribute to those officers who worked so untiringly to get it together; to say that I support all his amendments because I believe the cinema industry in particular and the public in general will have cause to be grateful for them; and also to congratulate him and to say that we are immensely obliged to him.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, there appears a seemly unanimity in the House at this moment. I have not risen to break that spirit but to add my voice on behalf of my noble friends and myself in saying that this is a very sensible amendment. I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount and, if I may say so, add my thanks to the Minister whose officials also have helped in the intervening period to see that acceptable wording is now in the Bill.
It was an example of tolerance from the point of view of the noble Viscount, of understanding from the point of view of those who moved an amendment last time, and of a spirit of reconciliation which almost
728
took on the form of ACAS so far as the Home Office was concerned. A very desirable result has been achieved in regard to the amendments which the noble Viscount explained so eloquently to the House.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not want to protract this series of encomiums heaped on the head of my noble friend, but I should like to add my congratulations on what is a happy outcome and one which has shown this House and the functions of Government probably at their best in bringing legislation in very quick order into line with the interests of those most closely affected by it. It is not necessary for me to read out my brief explaining what the noble Viscount has done by these amendments because he has done it so exceedingly well himself. In adding my thanks to those who have contributed to this, both inside and outside the House, I should like particularly to say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, that tonight, as a result of every-body's efforts, the dog has got a very much better dinner than usual.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, this is indeed a very happy outcome. I forgot to say one thing to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and that was that we did look very carefully at the approach which was embodied in his amendment to see whether that might be the better way in which to do this. I am glad to find him not insisting on that any longer but happy with the way we have done it. I am grateful to all those who have spoken, and may I just say in this particular connection that, although historically I undoubtedly was a "Vice-count", I think that perhaps just at the moment I had better stick to my modern pronunciation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 3, leave out from ("which") to ("and") in line 5 and insert ("section 7(4) of the 1909 Act (exhibitions in private dwelling-houses) applies").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert—
("(IA) Subsection (1) above does not apply to an exhibition the sole or main purpose of which is to demonstrate any product, to advertise any goods or services or to provide information, education or instruction.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment and it has already been approved. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert ("or
(c) where the exhibition is advertised (whether to the public or otherwise), any sums not falling within paragraph (b) above which are paid for facilities or services provided for persons admitted to the exhibition,").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, similarly, I explained this earlier and it met with the approval of those who have spoken. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("payment was required") and insert ("any sums were paid").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment is consequential, my Lords, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, leave out lines 23 to 25 and insert—
("(b) that any sums were paid for facilities or services provided for persons admitted to the exhibition and that the exhibition was advertised (whether to the public or otherwise); or").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I want only to add one more word, and that is that I hope this Bill, in view of the Motion now before the House, will go to another place, will be considered very speedily and will very soon pass into law. The capital city possibly needs this legislation more than most cities, but there are many cities and rural areas in the United Kingdom which will undoubtedly benefit from the passing of this legislation, and I congratulate the noble Viscount on steering it through the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.20 P.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.55 until 8.20 p.m.]

Employment Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 2 [Dismissal for non-membership of union]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 13, leave out ("or of a particular trade union, or of one of a number of particular trade unions,").
The noble Lord said: So far in Committee, your Lordships have been discussing the past. Clause 1 and Schedule 1 enshrine the rather peculiar provisions
the Government wish to make about events that
730
lie in the past; events which we have suggested would look very different if they could be seen in the light of the evidence which exists, which, unhappily, is not yet available from the Government commissioned research. But now, in Clause 2, your Lordships are asked to look to the future with the Government—to see what they want to do with trade unionism in the future.
In many ways, Clause 2 is one of the most important provisions in the Bill. If I may quote the Secretary of State, Mr. Tebbit, on Second Reading in another place on 8th February this year, at col. 742 of the Official Report, he summed up—in a way that, I think, will not be in dispute between these Benches and the Government—the effects of the clause and, indeed, of this part and some other Parts of the Bill. He spoke of Clause 2 providing wide-ranging rights against unfair dismissal for the non-union employee in a closed shop and summed it up as follows:
"It"—
that is, the clause—
" considerably extends the right not to be unfairly dismissed for non-union membership.
I have no hesitation in saying that when the Bill reaches the statute book it will provide the most comprehensive and the most effective statutory protection for non-union employees that we have ever had in this country."
In a sense, that sums up the case that we have from these Benches against this Part of the Bill. It is not a question of injustice done to individuals and I, at least—and I am sure that my noble friends will be with me in this—say that, if in justice is shown in an individual case, then it should be remedied. Again, I declare an interest as chairman of the Independent Review Committee of the TUC, in which we have tried to do that in such cases as have come to us—and there have been many.
But if you base your policy upon the promotion of non-unionism—that is what this clause begins to do—then you put at risk all the advantages which employers, Government and workers in the past have found to come from the system of trade unionism, and of collective bargaining as a whole. It is that risk which this Bill now clearly enshrines—more clearly than the Act of 1980.
Coming to the amendment, it relates to Clause 2 which re-enacts Section 58 of the 1978 Act. The 1978 Act provided that it should be automatically unfair to dismiss an employee on the ground that he was a member of an independent union, or that he had taken part in its activities, or that he refused to become a member of a union that was not independent. The first part—dismissal for trade unionism—is retained in, more or less, the same way and it is necessary to say a word about that. It is the second part which is changed, where the last proposition is replaced by a proposal that it should be automatically wholly unfair, whether or not there is a closed shop, or in any situation whatever, to dismiss a worker on the ground, and for the principal reason, that he is not a member of a union, or of a particular union, or of one of a number of unions, as the new Section 58(1)(c) would provide.
Taking these points in order, every modern system of labour law in comparable societies in, for example, Western Europe, provides for protection against

731
dismissal by those who organise trade union activities. It is true in France, it is true in Italy, it is true in Germany and it is true in Sweden. If I may quote, as a very simple rationale of this position, the work of Professor Schmidt on Law and Industrial Relations in Sweden, he wrote at page 74:
"As the representative of the workforce, these representatives have been considered in need of stronger protection than the rest of the employees."
That is common throughout Western Europe—it is not special to us, and we were rather late in getting there—because if you allow a union representative to be picked on, whether the employer is sympathetic or not (harking back to a previous debate) then no one will get on with the business of collective bargaining as a representative of the workforce.
We enacted a somewhat wider provision in 1975, that anyone taking part in the activities of an independent trade union should be so protected, and the reason we did that, and did not enact what the Government now wish to enact, may be gathered from the Donovan Report in 1968 at paragraph 599—and I quote the Donovan Report as something which all administrations so far have accepted—which stated:
"It might be argued that the closed shop should be prohibited. As part of the argument for prohibition, it might be said that, since we suggest that any condition in a contract of employment that an employee shall not join a union should be void, it would be right to treat in the same way a condition that a worker shall join a union. However, the two are not truly comparable. The former condition is designed to frustrate the development of collective bargaining which it is public policy to promote, whereas no such objection applies to the latter."
That is a fundamental proposition from which the Government are now departing; that is to say, the Government are now being guided not by the principle of the Donovan Commission's report, not by the principle that applies in most other systems of Western European law—although I shall have a word to say on that in a moment—but by the new principle, which was propounded by the Under-Secretary of State in the other place on 23rd March 1982, at col. 653 of the Official Report, when he spoke about the refusal of the Government
"to derogate from the absolute right not to be a union member even when there is a closed shop"
He used the phrase "absolute right not to be a union member" on many occasions.
The Government are wedded to the principle of an absolute right not to be a member of a trade union, which, of course, goes far beyond the Strasbourg judgment and far beyond any of the other sources upon which they rely in this respect. Indeed it goes very much further than the Secretary of State himself adhered to in 1975 when, in the debates on what became the 1976 Act, he said on 9th December 1975 at col. 330 of the Official Report:
"As for free riders, I do not like them in any place. I would welcome any arrangement under which those who did not wish to belong to a union still paid subscriptions to the union—not even to a charity—for the work the union carried out on behalf of its members and others."
This change of tack by the Government is new. The new Section 58(1)(c) in Clause 2 is the one to which this amendment is directed. It is an amendment moved in the knowledge that we are unlikely at this
732
late stage to turn the Government's head from the head-long path that they pursue in pursuit of the absolute right of a worker not to be a member of a union. It is an amendment which asks them to think again in one particular respect.
Your Lordships will see that if the principal reason for dismissal is that an employee is not a member of a union, it is automatically unfair. But it is also automatically unfair if he refuses to be a member of a particular union, or refuses, or proposes to refuse, to become or remain such a member. Those words in lines 14 to 17 on page 2 of the Bill immediately interact with the question of multi-unionism in Britain.
The Government have taken due account of the fact that multi-unionism exists in Britain. In Clause 15 of the Bill they finally polish off, as trade disputes that allow for industrial action, disputes between workers and workers. One of the reasons given is that they do not think that inter-union disputes should be allowable as trade disputes. We shall come to that clause. If that point be right, is it not the case that this clause necessarily encourages breakaway unions and increases multi-unionism—at any rate, in prospect?
To take the case of an inter-union dispute, the fact that somebody is in no circumstances whatever allowed to be dismissed because he refuses to join a particular union, or insists on remaining in a particular union, in all circumstances whatever, gives management no part, or very little part, to play in the enforcement of arrangements to avoid the disadvantages of multi-unionism. I say immediately that the amendment which I move relates also to Clause 9 where a similar point arises. The Government are quite logical in denying the employer the right to take not only dismissal action but any action short of dismissal which has the same effect. That is the effect of Section 23 of their 1980 statute and of Clause 9 of the Bill.
Let us take a concrete case which came recently before the Employment Appeal Tribunal. In the case of Rath v. Cruden Construction Limited in 1982, reported in the Industrial Relations Law Reports, page 9, there was a worker who was a member of the United Construction and Allied Trades trade union. He alleged that the reason for his dismissal was that he had insisted on remaining within UCAT. Pressure had been put on him to move to the Transport and General Workers' Union. The law report is not clear exactly why; we shall come to that in a moment. His complaint was that he had been dismissed contrary to paragraph (a) of Section 58(1), as printed in the Bill. On this occasion the Government have had the kindness to reprint the whole section on pages 2 and 3 of the Bill, for which I am sure all noble Lords are very grateful.
Section 58(1)(a) deals with dismissal on grounds of trade unionism. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that he was not dismissed in breach of Section 58(1) (a); the reason why he had been dismissed was that he would not move—not that he stayed where he was. This is a lawyer's point. The further we go with the Bill we shall see that if anybody thinks that this Bill, like the previous one, will not give a great deal of employment to lawyers, they are much mistaken—if, of course, we get the recession out of the way and a

733
bit of an upturn so that people will have some money to pay legal costs. However, that was the decision in that case. It is an arguable case. It would go the other way if the Bill is passed in this form.
Let us test that in relation to the Trades Union Congress disputes principles and procedures. Suppose, in the Rath case—I admit that the law report does not make it clear that this was the case but it would be rather surprising if it was not— that there was an inter-union agreement, perhaps also an agreement with the employer, and perhaps an agreement to observe the Bridlington principles, that workers in a particular area, job, craft or grade should belong to the one union rather than the other. If the Bill is passed, Mr. Rath will have a remedy. Is that what the Government want? Do the Government want to give a remedy to a worker, no matter the other considerations, even if the employer says, "Thank heaven for the TUC disputes principles and procedures, because he says, No, I won't move"? So if he is dismissed, or if—I take the point now because it is logical to do so— he is not dismissed but if in the short term action short of dismissal is taken against him— he is suspended or he is put on another site— he may be dismissed if he complains about that. Is that the kind of structure which the Government are putting to the country at this point?
Whatever other defects the trade unions of Britain have, I say that the unions affiliated to the TUC are the only bodies which have done anything effective during the last 30 years about multi-unionism in this country. If there is any evidence of any other body, other than a few employers' associations and employers, who have co-operated in that process, let it be put on the table. This is the kind of procedure which would ruin the TUC disputes principles and procedures.
Let me take Principle 5—one which sometimes causes a bit of aggravation between one affiliated union and another—of the TUC disputes principles and procedures, though it is sometimes called the Bridlington principles from the Bridlington Congress of 1939:
"No union shall commence organising activities at any establishment or undertaking in respect of any grade or grades of workers in which another union has the majority of workers employed and negotiate wages and conditions, unless by arrangement with that union".
That seems to be a very sensible thing to try to operate. It is run much better by the voluntary procedures of the TUC than it would be by a statute. One would have thought that the Government might at least, however much they approve of non-unionism, have given some support to that situation in an inter-union context. But so blinded are they by their pursuit of the idea of the individual necessarily having a choice, that they put before your Lordships a statute which can mean nothing other than an increase in trade unionism — at any rate, so far as management is concerned, because management will go to the unions concerned and say, "We are very sorry; we should like to see that put into effect but we can't help you".
The events of the last few weeks have made that doubly important because management now has a much more serious role than it had two weeks ago. On 19th June 1982 the majority of the Court of Appeal held that the whole Bridlington arrangement was void and contrary to public policy. That case is going to
734
the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House. I do not know what will come about, but one must discuss it now on the basis of the law as it is; and the law as it is today, by two to one in the Court of Appeal, is that the Bridlington procedures are contrary to public policy. The TUC, no doubt within the law, will try to get the same result by other means— in other words, will try to get common sense round the bargaining table.
Is this a clause which supports the judgment of the Master of the Rolls: that it was said that the trade union rule was necessary to keep order in industrial relations and that if it were not for the Bridlington principles there would be chaos? Then the Master of the Rolls went on:
" Even though it should result in industrial chaos, nevertheless the freedom of each man should prevail over it".
I cannot believe that the Government wish to enact a clause that enshrines that very principle. There are limits on individual choice and one would have thought that industrial chaos was something the Government should not pursue, even in the pursuit of individual choice. Yet this section as it stands is very much in that same genre.
It is with great difficulty that one tries to imagine the Government really meaning what they say in the words which this amendment moves to leave out of the clause. We want to move out only the part, not about non-unionism as such, because we understand that they are wedded to that— mistakenly we think, but we will debate it later— which must face a management that has 17 unions to negotiate with today (hopefully, in a joint negotiating committee) and 23 unions tomorrow. One would have thought that that was absurd.
A final point about the nature of the clause, and therefore the nature of the amendment: the clause says that a dismissal on the grounds of refusal to move from one union to another or anything connected with that is automatically unfair. Thereby, it pre-empts two points, not one. In an unfair dismissal case, the employer is faced with two points to win. The first point is that he has a substantial reason for the dismissal, such as conduct or lack of capability. The second point is that he is being reasonable in adopting dismissal as the appropriate sanction. It' the Government had put forward a clause which said that refusal to move from one union to another or that, as a principal reason, a worker not being a member of one of a number of particular trade unions was OK for the first point, but that it was still left to the employer to show he was being reasonable, I would not have agreed with it but I think I could have understood it. In other words, that would have got the employer half-way. Then he would have to show that it was reasonable and then the tribunal, as tribunals do, might take account of the inter-union position. But the nature of the clause is that the tribunal is shut out from looking at the inter-union relationship. It can take account of the compensation it awards because of the conduct of the employee if he contributes to his own dismissal, and we shall hear a lot of that throughout this clause. But that is not the point; it goes only to quantum of damage.
It is extraordinary if the Government will not accept this small amendment, think again at least

735
about the inter-union problems which are involved in the present situation of multi-unions, and take out of Clause 58(1)(c) the part that relates especially to that inter-union difficulty with which trade unions have been struggling, in many ways successfully, for a number of years. Many managers on the shop floor, I am quite sure, will see the provision as putting the clock back in many respects as far as their day-to-day working is concerned, both in regard to dismissal and, perhaps even more important, in regard to action short of dismissal. I beg to move.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: I have listened with great interest to the extraordinarily long speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton. I have found it so difficult because many of the matters to which he made passing reference were real problems that one has experienced and recognised, and I tried terribly hard to relate what he said back to what the amendment and this particular part of the Bill are all about, but I just could not do it.
We listened for 22 minutes and I found myself unconvinced. This shows that I am terribly dumb and frightfully inexperienced, despite the fact that I have spent much of my life dealing with questions of this sort; but that really does not matter in the modern world of industrial law because it is obviously in that area that one ought to have experience. I hate to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, because he was trying so hard, but the net result of his efforts was totally unconvincing. I am very sorry about that. If he could have said it all more simply for simple folk, as many of us Lords are, maybe we should have understood; and if the noble Lord had spoken more slowly and carefully, and had not shouted at us, that might have helped too.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I to some degree come to the rescue of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: He needs it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I understand his concern about the absence of recognition machinery for inter-union disputes. It is a serious matter. It is, in submission, a serious defect under our present structure of law, and it is something to which I adverted on 15th June, I think it was, on Second Reading. So it is not something that I have dreamt up as a salvage operation. But this is where we part company. The noble Lord is confusing the absence of recognition procedure with the subject matter of this amendment and this has made the whole presentation very difficult to understand.
On the recognition aspect, never mind what the Court of Appeal said the other day. Bridlington has been as dead as a dodo for decades and everybody knows that. What we need is a proper recognition procedure under the Act of 1971, which, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, would agree, was one of the parts of the Act that worked reasonably well and to reasonable satisfaction; it was one of the few parts of
736
the Act that was generally acceped to have worked well.
Coming to this amendment, all this dissertation on recognistion procedure is a red herring. The spirit that moves the Government here is not open to criticism. It is the spirit of the majority decision in the railways case, if not the letter of that decision according to a reasonable interpretation of Article 11 of the Convention on Human Rights. That is applicable throughout the European Community and which, being supranational law, obliges each member state in due course to conform to the international principles.
Who could care more or less about what happens in Sweden, if I may put it that way? What matters is what happens within the remit of our own national and international law assumed by treaty obligations. Within that, this Government have faithfully sought to follow the right principles.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I put individual liberty very high indeed in the free society, but, as I said earlier, the right of the individual may reach a point where he must have regard to the rights of other individuals. In other words, he must come to terms with his environment, especially when he chooses that environment for himself. I find myself in sympathy with the case made out by my noble friend on this amendment. We must bear in mind that throughout the piece the right of the worker with a conscience or a deeply-held personal conviction is upheld. That is in this clause. So we do provide for the strong personal reason for not wanting to belong to a trade union or a particular trade union.
But apart from that and short of that, we have to look at the position of the individual who may exercise his absolute right in any circumstances not to belong to a union. We have to have regard to that in relation to the harmony of the undertaking, the rights of other individuals, the employer who wishes to conduct his business in an acceptable way. All that has to be taken into account. I must say from personal experience how bitter the rivalries between unions can become, and how strongly they feel about poaching, or members being in a union which is seeking a bridgehead in a particular organisation from which to expand their probably disruptive influence over the workforce. These are very important matters indeed. So I would not concede to the individual the absolute right in any circumstances not to belong to a union, and that is the principle which the Minister in another place defined as the purpose of this clause.
We come a little later to the question of ballots on closed shops and so forth. But this amendment relates to a very important principle. I am glad, if I may say so, that we are now on the future and have done with the past. I think that up to a point one should let the past bury their own dead— that is not the absolutely correct quotation but, still, it will do. We are now on the future. We have to lay the foundations soundly.
It has not really been mentioned in this context, but in present circumstances we are in the most inappropriate time to be discussing matters which arouse deep feelings among the trade union movement. It would have been so much better had we had more tranquil conditions in which to discuss these matters

737
more objectively and without the emotional undertones that are now running right throughout the trade union movement. The trouble is that even moderate trade unionists feel that the Government are attacking the trade union movement, that they are against it and are seeking to weaken it. I do not associate myself for a single moment with some of the more extreme denunciations of this Bill which have been made by trade union leaders; I think they are exaggerating. But they are an indication of the attitude of trade union members towards the Government's proposals.
So I think we do have to study very carefully indeed what we are doing in this clause. I support this amendment, which I hope will not give my noble friend too much of a shock, because I think his reasoning in the matter and the arguments that he brought to the Committee were comprehensive and I thought very persuasive indeed. So that, for what it is worth. is my own opinion on this particular matter.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I do not like this Bill and I do not like this clause and I do not like this subsection of the clause. I think what my noble friend has sought to do is to make this subsection (1)(c) of the clause just a shade less objectionable than it would otherwise be. He has sought to create a position in which this Bill will not create dissent, discord between employer and employee— because that, I am afraid, is inevitable under the Bill as it stands and not much can be done about it— and he has sought to remove one of the causes which might create friction between one union and another. That this, apparently, is not understood on the other side of the Committee I find extraordinarily hard to understand. It seems to me that my noble friend in his exposition of what he was seeking to do was clarity itself. Why it was that noble Lords opposite were unable to grasp what he was about, I found difficult to understand. Indeed, when the noble Lord opposite came to his aid, I personally would rather not be assisted in that manner, if I may say so.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The noble Lord will not be.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, felt assisted by the noble Lord. I beg leave to doubt whether he did. I did not feel that he was being assisted, but I am trying to assist him a little hit now, if I may.
I think the object my noble friend seeks is a question of order. If one creates the position in which unions are going to be in effect in competition with each other, in an area in which hitherto one trade union has occupied the area, one creates a position in which conflict can occur. It seems to me that the simple object of this amendment, which I hope the Committee will decide to support, is to remove one area of conflict. That, surely, is something which ought to commend itself to the whole Committee.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard): The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, started by quoting from the remarks of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in terms of where this Bill would take legislation in this country,
738
which were words the noble Lord used. He went on to suggest that this represented the Government view, a determination to promote non-unionism. I cannot accept either of those two propositions. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear on a great many occasions that he is seeking in this country what we believe is a better balance. Certainly from my own experience I know that the balance in other countries in the closed shop respect is very different. Things have moved on since Donovan, which is a good many years ago, and we believe that changes are necessary.
To turn to the particular amendment which the noble Lord moved within the context of his general remarks, Section 58(1)(c) protects the right of an employee not to be a member of a trade union outside a closed shop situation. It protects his right inside a closed shop situation, but only as covered by the provisions of subsection (3). In this respect the Government believe that the nature of Section 58(1) (a), (b) and (c) is entirely neutral. There is an absolute protection for any employee to join an independent trade union, to take part in the activities of an independent trade union, to take part in the activities of an independent trade union, or not to belong to one, including situations outside closed shop.
The noble Lord made a point about the Under-Secretary of State's remarks in Committee when discussing this particular clause. But there is of course the right contained in Clause 3 for a proper closed shop agreement to be negotiated, and we shall no doubt move on to that at a later date. The reason for these words which the amendment seeks to remove is that it is not considered that it would be automatically unfair, for instance, even in a non-closed shop situation, for an employee to be allowed to leave a trade union. This covers only his right not to be a trade unionist in general. It does not cover his right to decide not to belong to a particular union or one of a group of trade unions. We believe that an employee should not lose his job, without remedy, for refusal to belong to any union, including a particular trade union.
The noble Lord made a great point of the multi-union problem in this country. That is a problem about which, from a longish industrial experience, I know something. But to suggest that these words will necessarily push towards a more multi-union situation is, I believe, to go too far. The position in this country, where he admitted there are 17 union situations at present, is of course a lot worse than that in other countries, in spite of the fact that, until the Bill becomes law, the law has not carried this protection. I do not see that this will produce a particular pressure for employees to move from one union to another. It is certainly not the intention that it should do so. The noble Lord mentioned in the case that he quoted that this was a lawyer's point. While I have a note upon it, I do not think that I should detain the Committee by going through it in detail.
There is a constant management interest— this remark is directed to tie noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby— to avoid a complex multi-union structure. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that there is nothing in the provisions of the Bill and in subsection (3) which would actually prevent in an extreme situation a management and a union negotiating

739
a closed shop agreement in relation to one union alone, provided it was the will of the vast majority of employees. So I believe that when we are accused of being blinded by intentions which we do not possess—our intention is to be fair and even-handed and to have a situation in trade union law more like that in other countries who have outpaced us competitively—I say that it is they who are blinded and that there is plenty of scope for regulated closed shops in this Bill which I trust we shall move on to in a moment, much more scope than there is in a number of other countries including those where the closed shop is totally illegal.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, suggested that this was an inappropriate time for change. I believe that we on this side of the Committee would take the view that certain experiences which are continuing, together with the evidence, such as we see it, of the view of public opinion as a whole, make it a very appropriate time to introduce changes to produce a situation which combines individual liberty with the continued absolute right of individuals to join independent trade unions and to bargain through them.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friends and I are very disappointed with the Government's response to this matter. I should like to make two points. First, it really does seem that, despite the understanding of management's interest to avoid multi-unionism, which the noble Viscount has displayed and which we understand, nevertheless in pursuit of their general policy on non-unionism, the Government have acquired a blind spot, because they believe that the protection of non-unionism to the point of promoting industrial chaos, is a policy which is defensible on the ground that it is even-handed. We do not think that that is good enough in a modern society.
Secondly, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, let me say that of course it is not about recognition; and I say to the noble Viscount that it is not even about closed shops, because Clause 58(1)(c) is not about closed shops and not about recognition: it is about organisation. It is about poaching, as my noble friend Lord Houghton said. It is about the poaching of and the competition for members. If the Government want to put a section on the Statute Book that will assist that, then so be it, but we shall oppose it and on that ground we shall divide on this amendment.
9.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 75.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Ardwick, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Beswick, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Bishopston, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Brockway, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Collison, L.

Jacques, L.

740

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

McCarthy, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stone, L.

Oram, L.

Underhill, L.

Peart, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Phillips, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

White, B.

Plant, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Avon, E.

Long, V.

Aylestone, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lyell, L.

Beloff, L.

McFadzean, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mansfield, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Caldecote, V.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mountevans, L.

Chelwood, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Coleraine, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Craigavon, V.

Renton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Rochester, L.

Davidson, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Denham, L. [Teller]

St. Davids, V.

Digby, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Saltoun, Ly.

Elton, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Seear, B.

Faithful, B.

Sharples, B.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Spens, L.

Gisborough, L.

Stamp, L.

Glasgow, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Swinton, E.

Gowrie, E.

Teynham, L.

Greenway, L.

Trenchard, V.

Gridley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Vaizey, L.

Halsbury, E.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Windlesham, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Kilmany, L.

Wise, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Young, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 17, at end insert—
("Provided that at the time of the dismissal he was not and did not propose to become a member of a trade union which was not independent").
The noble Lord said: I rise in fear and trembling to move Amendment No. 15 in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said. He said that I took too long in moving the last amendment at 22 minutes, but I spoke too fast for him to understand what I was saying. I will avoid taking 44 and try to do this in 2.2
This relates to the question of unions which are not independent. In the legislation which this Bill amends there were various inhibitions upon employers edging workers into unions that are not independent. One of them was the refusal to an employer of any right by way of dismissal, or action short of dismissal, to induce an employee to have dealings with a non-independent trade union. The concept of independence being

741
defined in Section 30 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 which effectively, without quoting it, comes to this: a union is not independent if it is under the domination or control of an employer, or is liable to interference by way of financial or material support or any other means whatsoever tending towards control by the employer.
What has been done in this measure is to omit the non-independent union in any specific words. This amendment would deny the rights afforded by the new Section 58(1)(c), which the Government have now pressed upon your Lordships, to someone who was intending to take part in an organisation of any kind which was not independent, be it with that employer or indeed any other.
It has been said that non-independent unions are a thing of the past. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said that the Bridlington principles were as dead as the dodo in the last debate. That is not only untrue but it is highly undesirable. It is also untrue to suggest that house unions, as they are known, or yellow dog unions, are a thing of the past in Britain. In the last annual report of the certification officer there were some 49 unions which had been refused certificates of independence under the 1974 and 1975 legislation. That is to say, they asked to be registered as not being under the control of an employer and they had been refused on the certification officer's investigation.
They include a remarkable list of white collar staff associations. The Commercial Bank of Australia; the Derbyshire Building Society; the Federation of Cadbury Schweppes Representatives' Association; the Playboy Staff Association— you would not expect that to be independent; the Rank Hotels Staff Association; and the staff associations of various other companies. They are nearly all staff associations. Of course, many have never even applied. The Laker Airways Cabin Attendants' Association never even applied for independent certification. Nor did Johnson Matthey's Staff Association. Not did the Dexion Staff Association. If there is to be employment— and with this Government that is a condition that one cannot promise will he fulfilled—then the white collar sector of the workforce will increase. Whatever employment there is, the white collar sector is likely to increase.
It is the continued practice of employers over that wide range of industries, of which the list could be extended considerably if one likes to look at the last certification officers' annual report, where non-independent unionism is still of some importance. Indeed, it is more important today than it was at the time when the 1975 legislation was enacted for the simple reason that in Britain now there is the first platoon of the army of employment benefit consultants, as they are called in the Southern States, who are coming across from the United States of America, where the new technologies have been organised to a very great extent without independent trade union organisation. I think I hear the noble Viscount say he does not care what happens in other countries, that he cares only what happens here. I not only care what happens in other countries, but I suggest we can at least look at other countries and see whether we can learn any lessons.
Viscount Trenchard: I was about to interrupt the noble Lord on that, but I will reply shortly.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: What has happened in the Southern States of America is something on which we should consult seriously in terms of how we want the workforce for the new technologies to be organised. If you do not care whether the unions are independent, then of course you do not care about the amendment. It is because we still care about the whole question of house unions and unions being truly autonomous and independent, and because we believe that industrial relations and society will best be organised on the basis of the autonomous and independent organisation of workpeople, that we have moved the amendment, at any rate to express the spirit which the Government have taken out of the previous legislation by what is now in the new Section 58 and Clause 2. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I rise hastily to say that I understood that very well, and accordingly I thank the noble Lord.
Viscount Trenchard: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, for the briefness of his exposition of the amendment. He is too suspicious in looking for Government motives. The last time he suggested we were going to increase to a major degree multi-unionism, which I do not think followed from the words we wished to include. This time he draws the conclusion that we are trying to promote the interests of non-independent trade unions. I do not know how he squares that with the fact that Section 58(1)(c) in fact protects the individual from a threat of dismissal if he refuses to join a house union. It gives him protection against the staff associations which the noble Lord appears to dislike so much. Section 58(1)(a) and (b) give him an absolute right, whether or not a member of a staff association, to join an independent union. Again, I do not feel that the motive he suggested to us, or the effect he feels might stem from the Bill as drafted, is correct. The Government believe that membership of staff associations is a totally separate question. Individuals are protected so there can be no false pressure on them to join. But otherwise it is entirely up to the individual and it in no way cuts across his right to be a member of an independent trade union.
The only other comment I would make is that there was some muddle in the noble Lord's mind as to whether I cared about other countries. I do care about our competitors, and having at times spent a long time being responsible for the management of factories in six or seven other countries. I care very much, and I support my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in this further contribution to making our industry more competitive with those countries.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: That was rather disappointing and perhaps I might briefly point out why. The previous legislation dealt with non-independent unions in a comprehensive way, and this is a replacement for that. The scenario which the noble Viscount put to me would fall within Section 58(1)(c) as the Government wish it to be. I see the noble

743
Viscount frowning; I will try to speak a little more slowly. What he says is right. The example that he gave is one where the worker is protected. But what the Government do not seem to understand is that the new wording of Section 58(I)(c) protects the man who wants to organise the non-independent trade union in a different respect, because of its very broad—the noble Viscount shakes his head. Perhaps he will take the scenario involving someone who refuses to join an independent trade union because he is out to organise a non-independent union. If he is dismissed — the noble Viscount frowns, but those who go along with the employer in organising the house union frequently get into a posture where a great number of conflicts arise.
Many complex situations can arise in which someone could be protected where his ultimate objective is to organise a non-independent union in one workplace or another one. The amendment would entirely dispose of that situation, whereas the Government's words in Section 58(I)(e) leave at risk a number of possible alternatives where that is not covered as it was in the preceding legislation. However, my noble friends and I do not propose to divide on the amendment, nor will we withdraw it, and no doubt it will be negatived.
On Question, amendment negatived.
9.26 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 30, at end insert—
("() When subsection (1) is being invoked in proceedings before an industrial tribunal, it shall be a defence for the employer to show—

(a) that it is to the advantage of the employee to be unfairly dismissed; and

(b) that the employer's business will suffer immediate and appreciable financial loss form such dismissal.").

The noble Lord said: On this amendment I am advised by the General Council of British Shipping. As I am sure many of your Lordships know, shipping has a problem regarding in general its workforce and in particular the operation and organisation of the members of the National Union of Seamen. I am advised that on the whole the support for the union is extremely strong throughout the Merchant Navy, but on the other hand the balloting that the union has already carried out and the balloting that the Bill will encourage it to do may well be beyond its practical resources. For example, only about 30 per cent. of the National Union of Seamen's membership voted in a ballot on this year's pay settlement—only 30 per cent.!— and therefore it seems very unlikely that there will be an 80 per cent. poll, and there would also be difficulty with regard to an 85 per cent. majority of those voting.
So as and when the union management agreement comes to an end by the process that the Bill will encourage, there will be some difficulties A particular difficulty that my amendment is designed to offset is very similar to the one which the noble Lord, Lord Oram, raised under Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. It relates to those clever chaps who might be a little greedy—I am not sure whether they are the people whom the noble Lord meant were the goats. In the
744
event of there not being a closed shop, these clever and greedy people would be tempted, by the potentially extremely high levels of the special awards in Clause 3 of the Bill—which I understand can go up to £30,000; that was mentioned by a noble Lord earlier, on the basis of what has been said in another place—to relinquish their union membership and endeavour to secure their dismissal from their ship on that account. By comparison if they were to be made redundant, the comparative redundancy payment would be in the order of £ 2,250, which is one-tenth of the kind of sum that they might expect under the special awards.
The way in which they might engineer this situation is to take advantage of the current degree of support for the National Union of Seamen— and there is every reason to suppose this is likely to remain in existence — and of the fact that, regardless of any union instruction, other crew members in a particular ship would be likely to refuse to sail with a rating who had blatantly relinquished union membership. He might, indeed, have encouraged them to take that view. Your Lordships can imagine a situation in which a seaman is flown out to, say, Singapore to join a ship; he has recently married, or his wife has recently had a baby; his wife says, "You must come ashore, Joe", and he sees this as a way to get that extra bit of cash. So he rather ostentatiously leaves the union, he arrives out at Singapore, and the other crew members say, "We don't want that so-and-so on board".
In such a case, two things can happen. The first is that the management may be forced to sack him, and he can then claim unfair dismissal under the earlier part of Clause 2. The other factor, which applies particularly and uniquely, I think, to the seafaring merchant navy, is that there is a minimum number of crew members who have to be on board by Department of Trade regulations for a ship to be able to sail at all. So the company might well he put in the position that they have sacked this man because the rest of the crew will not have him— whether or not that situation has been engineered is another matter, but one is talking about the case where it would be— and, having done so, they then cannot sail the ship until another crew member is flown out from the United Kingdom to replace him.
It is for that reason that I put in both the subsections of my amendment: the first, as it were, to take care of the conditions under which the company might be able to present the case that the person had done it to his own advantage; and the second, which I deliberately linked with an "and", to make it peculiar to the circumstances I am talking about— namely, that if the ship was not able to sail until a relief flew out it could genuinely be said that the company was going to lose a lot of money.
So this is a particularly tailored amendment, and I particularly tailored it because there are special problems about British shipping. My amendments Nos. 154 and 155, right at the end, will take care of the other problems—I am not touching on them now— and I wanted specifically to pinpoint these amendments to deal with their particular problems. I shall be most interested to hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say. I beg to move.
The Earl of Gowrie: I understand and sympathise with the anxieties which my noble friend has expressed in relation to the kind of situation that the shipping industry might, in his scenario, get into, even though I must say that I find it a rather hair-raising, too exciting and slightly far fetched scenario. But all things can happen, and one must try to take steps to protect industries as well as people from unfair practices.
The only point on which I part company with my noble friend is that I do not think this is in any way necessary because the protections already exist quite firmly. My noble friend argued that employers— and he cited the shipping industry particularly—may find themselves caught between union pressure to dismiss, on the one hand, and the cost of giving in to that pressure on the other. If employers are forced by threats or by real industrial action to dismiss an employee for non-membership of a union, then the employer will be able to join the union concerned in any unfair dismissal proceedings and, if the tribunal finds that the union has exerted pressure on the employer to dismiss, it can order the union rather than the employer to pay part of the compensation or all of the compensation award.
But supposing this was, in ordinary language, a put-up job. My noble friend argued that the employer might be at risk from the rogue employee seeking to engineer his own dismissal in order to get the money. But the law adequately protects the employer in any such case. If the employee seeks to disrupt the employer's business so as to be dismissed, the employer may be able to dismiss him fairly for that reason. In any case, tribunals would be able to reduce any awards of compensation to zero if need he if any action of an employee before dismissal should justify this. It should be only where the employer is responsible himself for unfair dismissal that he will face having to pay the whole of the compensation awarded. I think that any industrial tribunal worth its salt would quickly rumble the kind of fraud being suggested by my noble friend, and I hope that with my iteration of the existing law, that will give some comfort to my noble friend and he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McCarthy: I do not want to hold up the Committee but I should like to contribute to this. It has been a very interesting discussion and I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on raising an issue of which, in general, one was aware, but not in the specific terms in which he put it. I think that he put it extremely well. It is no accident that he makes his point advised, as he says, by the General Council of British Shipping, because they, with the National Union of Seamen, have the heart and guts of this problem. It is a very serious problem for them. We have some amendments down on this issue, but I am bound to say that I think that the way the noble Lord has put it is the best way to put it and the narrowest way, and it may provide the right solution.
It is true that the problem arises not because of conscientious objection or deeply-held personal convictions. I think a large part of what the noble Earl has said in reply seems to some extent to be based on that assumption. It arises entirely because of the
746
Government's commitment to the 85 per cent ballot provision That is the point. For all kinds of reasons, it is impossible for the National Union of Seamen and the General Council of British Shipping to get to the kind of figures that the Government insist upon. If 100 per cent. of the people employed by the General Council of British Shipping wished to participate in a ballot to produce an 85 per cent majority, it could not be done—because of movement between ships, because of the number of ships outside the country and because the number of people signing off. It could not be done. Therefore, there is the problem, of the, as he puts it, "clever chap tempted by the special award which, at its maximum (the Minister said this in another place), could be £ 31,000 to the clever chap. He may say that he is greedy; but let us not use pejorative terms. A man is entitled to maximise his benefit and opportunities. It is £ 31,000 or the maximum available for redundancy. The maximum available for redundancy is, I am told, £ 4,080. None of us can put our hands on our heart and say that, offered the one, we would not choose the other.
It is £ 31,000 versus £4,000, and the clever chap decides to throw in his union card. There is no contributory thought involved. He is perfectly entitled to do it because he does not have a valid union membership agreement. It has not had the 85 per cent. ballot and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, says, it cannot have the 85 per cent. ballot because of the peculiar circumstances of the shipping industry. Therefore he is the bounty hunter— the intelligent man who wants to maximise his opportunities has this available to him.
There is no answer from the noble Earl; he says he sympathises with the shipping industry, but what is he prepared to do for it? He says he regards it as farfetched. I do not regard it as far-fetched; if anything, I think the noble Lord has outlined it almost too simply and too clearly. It is not far-fetched at all; it is most plausible. He says that we must protect industries as well as people, but what is he prepared to do to protect the General Council of the British shipping industry? He says that if they are forced by threat to discharge this person they can, as it were, go into the joinder procedure. But nobody is suggesting necessarily that the trade union is in some kind of conspiracy. In the example put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, as he rightly said, it was the fellow members on the ship who felt like this, all of whom may have voted in the ballot but for technical reasons could not reach 85 per cent. What is the point of the joinder in that situation? It does not solve the problem; they cannot get back the cost of an interruption of supply; they cannot get back the cost of flying further people out to fill up the ship, if indeed they can find them, to sail it on time or after time by joinder.
These things will not solve their problems for them. No, but the amendment will. Again, I do not think that the noble Lord is insisting necessarily on precisely his words. Let the Government come to us and say they do not like these words. Let them bring other words. Let them try to meet us in some way. Nevertheless, the paragraph as we see it seems to be very modest and very moderate. The noble Lord is making two provisions. He is saying:
" (a) that it is to the advantage of the employee to be unfairly dismissed"—

747
in other words, it is perfectly clear to an industrial tribunal that it is £31,000 versus £4,000. The noble Lord suggests, secondly, what the employer should be able to show— and after all this is a very significant and difficult thing for him to show; it could not be shown by every employer and perhaps not very much by most employers, but it almost certainly could be shown in the circumstances the noble Lord talks about in connection with the General Council of British Shipping—
" (b) that the employer's business will suffer immediate and appreciable financial loss from such dismissal.'
If they cannot show that then they cannot sustain the case, but if they can show that then I would say we should support this amendment and they will be entitled to be able to invoke it.
The Earl of Gowrie: I am most grateful to my noble friend. I should like to answer just one of the points put to me by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, while it is fresh in the mind of the Committee because it may reassure my noble friend Lord Mottistone, and I rather suspect the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, of trying to come between me and my noble friend. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked what I was prepared to do to help British shipping to get their ballot and the answer is that the Government are proposing to put down an amendment which will in fact ease their situation in this respect. We are seized of the point that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has made and that my noble friend has made. My noble friend Lord Ferrers will be moving amendments on this to make it clear that ballots can be held over more than one day. That will help the communications problems of the shipping industry, in order to get the full and appropriate turnout. I really think that will meet most of the anxieties of the shipping case. No industrial tribunal worth its salt, it seems to me, would sustain fraud of that kind for a minute.
Lord Mottistone: I am grateful to my noble friend for saying that the ballot can be held over several days. That will be a very useful answer when we come to Amendments Nos. 154 and 155, right at the end of the whole picture. I hope that that answer will be repeated then. I was hoping that my noble friend would say that the Government are aware of the main issue, which I am now trying to explain. I am not expecting the Government to come up with an immediate answer. I hate to say it, but the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, so well supplemented what I had to say that I hope that the Government will read very carefully what he said.
It would have been much nicer if my noble friend could have said that the Government would take this away and look at it, because it is quite a serious problem in its own right. I presented it in shipping terms. But all I am asking for and suggesting in my amendment is that it shall be a defence, which puts that in the mind of the tribunals beforehand. I am not saying that it shall be an absolute right. This is frequently used as a guideline in legislation, and I should have thought that it deserved rather more of a look from the Government. I admit that the phraseology could well be improved, but I should have liked to think that the Government could have treated me a
748
little better on this amendment, for the reasons that I gave. I wonder whether my noble friend could be a little more forthcoming on that.
Baroness Seear: We on these Benches should like very much to support what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has said. We believe that this is dealing with a very real point—I do not want to enlarge what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has said— and that it meets a problem. I very much hope that the Government will take it away and think about it.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: It is a good idea that we are talking about this rather late in the evening; otherwise, the public would get the mistaken impression that the debate has taken such a bizarre turn that we are now trying to prevent people from wanting to be unfairly dismissed. I think that members of the public will think that we have gone barmy, and that this Bill is not to protect people from unfair dismissal, but is to facilitate unfair dismissal with considerable rewards at the end of the day. Do not let us leave the mistaken impression that there is a lot of money in this for people who want it. The money in this is for people who do not want it; that is the whole purpose of the Bill. Surely the seamen's union and the maritime industry can find a way of dealing with people who want to be unfairly dismissed. What about walking the plank?
The Earl of Gowrie: Not for the first time in debates of this kind, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has come to my rescue very effectively. I think it was two years ago that I had a splendid speech, as I thought, on secondary picketing, which I did not deliver because he had just given a much better one from the opposite side of the House, think that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has really answered the anxieties of my noble friend. Perhaps he will take that answer in conjunction with the rather specialised amendments which we are proposing at a later stage, to try to deal with the special difficulty that he has outlined, and which particularly, but not uniquely, affects the shipping industry.
I urge the Committee to recognise that this is a measure, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said, to protect people from unfair dismissal. It would be quite wrong to whet any expectations that there is some easy money to be got in this way. Employers do not have to dismiss people, and there is no compensation if they do not take that course. I should have thought that the idea of an entire union being, as it were, party to a fraud of that kind would also be rather insulting to the union concerned. So while I will look again very carefully at what my noble friend has said, I do so without commitment, because I do not think, given the assurances that I have made, that this is a reasonable anxiety. I do not think it is an anxiety which is liable, in practice. to be fulfilled, but I will undertake to look at it and perhaps write to my noble friend on the subject.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend very much for that generous end to his reply. I would make

749
only one further point. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said that this small pocket of union members surely cannot be expected to commit the union to some undertaking which would then make the union liable. I hope that that is not the case. No doubt we
750
shall return to that point later in the Bill, so I will not pursue it further now because it is getting late. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord WellsPestell): I have to inform your Lordships that, in the event of Amendment No. 17 being agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 18.
9.51 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, leave out lines 4 and 5.
The noble Lord said: Perhaps that is a rather remote possibility! Nevertheless, I rise to move Amendment No. 17, because we come now to ballots. I should not say that now we come to ballots, because the very interesting amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has raised the problem of the ballot in a specific area. I would not wish to suggest that anything I say now detracts from the very special problems which he put forward and which the British Council of Shipping has sent to very many Members of both this House and another place. Nevertheless, it is a problem in relation to the ballot and the continual balloting in particular areas of employment to which this amendment is directed. The Bill as it stands adds to the hurdles which the employer, and now the union or shop steward, if they are joined, need to show in an unfair dismissal case in order to prove that the dismissal was fair. It adds to the hurdles that they need to show that there has been a ballot within the five-year period, in accordance with the many provisions of the new Section 58A. This amendment would cut out the two lines which require a ballot in every case and in every area of employment within five years.
In moving these amendments, I must make it clear once again that we on these Benches are not in any way subtracting from our opposition to the whole structure of the Bill which incorporates the balloting principle in relation to union membership arrangements and especially, of course, in relation to ballots which require totally undemocratic majorities of 80 per cent. of the electorate or 85 per cent. of those voting—which is totally indefensible on any grounds whatever. But, if we are to have such things thrust into industrial relations, at least it might be a slight improvement if we did not have to have such a ballot every five years.
I shall not try to match the problems which have been put forward so eloquently on behalf of the shipping industry with examples from other areas of industry, but noble Lords will know that there are groups who have, if not precisely parallel, at any rate analogous questions and problems in this respect. One with which I am acquainted and about which I declare an interest relates to the British Actors Equity Association, which organises actors, stage managers and other workers in the theatre. I am chairman of the London Theatre Council and the Provincial Theatre Councils and have some knowledge of the way in which management and the union have, for very many years since the time Lord Esher drafted the first standard contract for the industry, worked through union membership arrangements and security arrangements, which both sides of the industry find is the only possible basis for the acting profession, especially, to adopt. It would be particularly difficult for them to reach the sort of majorities required, or even any majority, in view of the
752
shifting nature of a large number of members of the acting profession. Surely it is no accident that in the Industrial Relations Act 1971 the Government found at the very last moment that it was necessary to invent a new category of approved closed shops which applied to both the shipping industry and Equity, and possibly to other unions, although plainly it was adapted to the needs of those two groups of workers and employers.
Representations have been made by other bodies Fears have been addressed to the Government by the Engineering Employers' Federation, the Institute of Personnel Management, and the Industrial Society all of whom fear that in some parts of the industries of which they have knowledge, those who might adopt a parallel course to that described in the last debate, and in particular someone who did not like his redundancy pay— as my noble friend has suggested— might in all honesty, in a sense, say, "I don't want to be in the union, anyway. If I get out I shall be dismissed. If I am dismissed I can have a special award. I am not contributing to anything". If the Government think that they are going to escape from these problems by putting upon the industrial tribunals of this country the burden of finding contributory fault every time the Government's drafting is defective, then they had better think again, because there are a number of industries where this problem is going to arise.
The point of this amendment is a very much more limited one than that of the previous amendment. The previous amendment was to try to give a specific defence to a particular type of employer. All I say about that is that it may well be that when the Government consider the position of the shipping industry, they will consider that of the theatre as well. But once one has had a ballot and has a majority of 99 per cent., or whatever it is that the Government insist upon, why is it necessary—especially with a shifting workforce— to have a ballot within five years? If one has a shifting workforce, especially seamen and actors— who are sometimes paid by the voyage, or by the week or by the month— are they to be bound for five years by a ballot that has taken place the previous week? There is no particular logic in having a ballot every five years rather than every week. That would apply to mobile workforces on construction sites and so on.
What this amendment suggests is that, because of the problems rehearsed in the particular context of the last amendment, and because of the rather more general problem which that illuminates, when one looks at the need for ballots— and I have in mind the notable speech made by my noble friend Lord McCarthy on the 1980 Bill in relation to ballots, when he said that everyone was turning to ballots and that ballots were the answer to everything!— I do not believe they are the answer, and indeed it is on the record of many employers' federations that managers think that ballots are not always the answer, to industrial relations problems. Or at any rate, if they have had a ballot, they probably think it is quite a sensible idea to let them get on and negotiate with the union or with whatever association they have, even if they are house unions, and decide when to have a ballot again. That seems a much more sensible procedure; the straitjacket of every five years is likely to give rise to a very great deal of bad feeling.
I include in that the case where the workforce changes completely and wants a ballot more quickly, and then the employer says, "I do not have to hold one for another four years." It may well be that one should be held sooner. There is nothing in the legislation to stop it. If the Government do not mind when it is held, then, in our submission, it would be more sensible to leave it to negotiation. That does, of course, illustrate our preference for negotiation on the shop floor compared with statutory rules. If that is the basis of this amendment then it is a very good one. This is only another illustration where the demand for a five-year period is a straitjacket which in many cases will lead to quite unnecessary argument. I hope that the Government will think about the other industries which have particular problems in regard to a particular period being imposed upon them, and will think again in relation to these two lines in Clause 3, of which I beg to move the deletion.
Lord Renton: As I have understood the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, he is not complaining of the holding of ballots, but of the holding of them every five years. This is a matter of judgment to be exercised in the light of experience. I do not claim industrial experience but I do remember this, that in the best of industries the annual turnover of the workforce is at least 15 per cent.; and if we take 15 per cent. turning over each of five years it brings us very nearly to a complete turnover of the workforce in five years. In those circumstances, surely we must acknowledge that a very considerable change of attitude may have taken place. Therefore, in the judgment which we have to exercise in deciding how often ballots should be held, five years does not seem to be unreasonable. I hope that my noble friend Lord Trenchard, replying for the Government, will indeed be able to assure us that that is about right.
Lord Oram: I should like briefly to support this amendment since it relates to a point which I made during the course of the Second Reading debate. We have been reminded by my noble friend's opening speech, and indeed in the discussion on the amendment that preceded this, that the closed shop is not, as some people seem to think, an instrument that suits trade unions only; it suits many employers as well. And why is that? Well, it is because once an employer has negotiated a working arrangement with a trade union he knows where he stands. He can get on with running his business, and he can leave perhaps his personnel manager to operate what have become known and acceptable procedures. But if those procedures are to be subject to reaffirmation every five years that smooth running system, which he will have achieved in his negotiations with the trade union, will, I suggest, be replaced by a situation of constant questioning and potential disruption. A small minority of dissidents within his workforce may be constantly campaigning to get the original decision changed. I think that that cannot but create an atmosphere of doubt all the time and therefore of generally bad industrial relations, replacing a situation which may well have been a smooth and amicable state of relationships. Therefore, I
754
believe that my noble friend's suggestion that we leave out these two lines would improve the Bill considerably.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I support the way in which my noble friend Lord Renton put his observations. But there is one other point I would wish to make. Surely the gravamen of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, was really that there was an absence of any form of machinery to grant derogations from the closed shop where both the employer and the employed wished to operate a closed shop, and there was no reason in the national interest why it should not be operated. I mentioned this on a previous occasion and gave the example of Equity; there is also the problem of the seamen. If at some time the Government, not necessarily in this Bill, were to introduce some form of arbitral or quasi-judicial machinery so that the closed shop could be operated where it was in the national interest, or where both parties wished to operate it, then surely the substance of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn's observations would dissolve. Therefore, his amendment in those circumstances would have no sound basis.
Lord Howie of Troon: I rise to support this amendment in a condition of some excitement because noble Lords will notice that my name appears on the Marshalled List in addition to those of my noble friends on the Front Bench. A situation in which I and my Front Bench on this Bill achieve almost complete identity of view is sufficiently unique not to pass unremarked.
I think that my noble friends are absolutely correct. The amendment will have the effect of removing a quite unnecessary element of compulsion from the Bill. We all know that some closed shops are objectionable, but by no means all closed shops are objectionable. Some of them are desirable, and are desired by those who are involved in them, and have been so desired for a very long time and are not under question.
It seems reasonable that, where closed shops are working properly and where they are accepted by their employees who are involved in them, there should be no compulsion placed upon them to be involved in balloting every five years or at any interval of time at all. What is correct is that there should be some triggering mechanism and there are amendments later in the Bill which would produce a mechanism of that nature. However, this compulsion is not necessary. The amendment removes it and ought to be supported.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I feel that the oble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has ignored a little the basis of this part of the Bill. My understanding is that it involves a compromise between those who hold the view, which I am inclined to hold, that the closed shop is an abomination and that we should proceed— as many of our friends in Europe have done— to outlaw it, and those who, like noble Lords opposite, regard it as a very important accessory to trade union power. I quoted on Second Reading the very significant revealing words which the noble Lord, Lord

755
McCarthy, put in his book, to the effect that the closed shop was the basis of trade union power.
As I understand the spirit of the Bill, it has been to indicate that although the closed shop is in many ways an oppressive institution, nonetheless it should be accepted where the overwhelming majority of those who work in that particular industry want it— hence the high majority figure to which reference has already been made. However, as my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out, in most industries and most jobs there is a very considerable changeover in personnel over the years. That must be particularly so in the area to which the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, referred, of actors on the London stage.
I should like to say in parenthesis that I have always thought that, acting being an art— and a very fine and impressive art— was a peculiarly inappropriate area for a closed shop situation and that theatre managements should be free to employ people with the personal qualifications and artistic abilities that they wanted, regardless of their union membership. However, that is in parenthesis.
The point that I am seeking to make-it is the only one— is that the Bill embodies a compromise— to say that you shall have the closed shop if the overwhelming majority want it, but not otherwise. That by itself is nugatory unless there is some such provision as a five-year one, to ensure that a view once expressed is still the view of the overwhelming majority. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will resist the amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: The first question is whether the period of five years for the review of the existing closed shop is the right period. It is, as the noble Lord opposite has said, a matter of judgment. Years ago when I was negotiating the introduction of equal pay in the Civil Service and I suggested to the then Chancellor, Rab Butler, that five years for an instalment plan was the right kind of period, he said that he thought it should be seven years, because there was a good biblical precedent for it. Probably seven is the right interval here because there is a good biblical precedent for it.
But the more important point is this. My noble friend referred to the criticisms of the Engineering Employers' Federation of the review of the existing closed shop clause. They had all sorts of worries about it. The Director-General, Dr. James MacFarlane, said in the May issue of the Federation News:
" We do believe the Government would do well to defer bringing in the provision for the review of the existing closed shops until after the next General Election so as to reduce the incentive for unions to make general political capital out of existing cases."
I read in the June issue of the same Engineering Employers' Federation News:
" Equally welcome to us has been the Government indication that the balloting provision for existing closed shops will be deferred for one or two years after enactment to allow time for adjustments."
Can we hear something about this? Are we to have an Act of Parliament which provides for a review of existing closed shops? The Minister is to defer the operation of this provision for one or two years. If
756
it is two years, it will be after the next general election, Here we are, running into fresh difficulties about the authority of the House to carry on into the next Parliament. I do not suppose for a moment that the present Secretary of State will be there then. Would it not be better to have no provision for review at all than to make one and defer the operation? I prefer the deferment of the operation of the whole Bill— and I said so during the Second Reading debate— if this is how the Government could be reconciled to some change of policy at the present time. If they will go doggedly on, let them doggedly put it on the statute book and defer its operation; at least they have it in mind to do that on one of the most important clauses in the Bill.
I think that we are entitled to know a little more about the Government's intentions. They talk about adjustments. The truth of the matter is that this will have to be watched with great care in the run-up to the general election, because it will obviously be a matter of considerable political controversy. If they want to get rid of this until after the general election, they will postpone the operation until after the general election, when doubtless some other Government— whether the present one or the mixture of this and some other party —will come to power. So I hope the Minister will throw sonic more definite light on the Government's intentions.
Lord Rochester: Like the last two noble Lords, I should like to address myself to the principle involved here. At Second Reading I made it plain that as Liberals we find the whole concept of the closed shop objectionable in principle and we were, therefore, sympathetic to any practicable restriction on its operation. Indeed, speaking only for myself, I went on to say that experience in large-scale industry led me to think that statutory periodic reviews of closed shops at this juncture might prove ineffective. It was with that consideration in mind that I then suggested what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has just referred to; namely, that at the Committee stage it might be helpful if, instead of merely being reminded that the balloting provisions would not come into force for another one or two years, we could be assured that they would not operate until after the next general election.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, took me to task about this, so let me make it plain to him— for I see him in his place—and to the Committee, that I said what I did only because if this legislation on the closed shop is to prove effective, in my view it is essential that it should clearly command the support of such a large majority of the electorate that it proves workable in practice. However, judged by that test, even in the three weeks since our Second Reading debate the situation has moved on as a result particularly of the disruption of the railways that we are now experiencing.
From the arbitrary decisions of the rail union executives that have led to the disruption that there has been, I have to say that for my part I feel driven to the conclusion that I must now mention. This is that the time has now come to try to establish at periodic intervals—there may be room for discussion as to precisely how long—the degree of support that there is among the general body of trade unionists for

757
the monopolistic power that has too often recently been wielded irresponsibly in closed shop situations by certain trade union executives, particularly in the public sector, without prior consultation with their members and at the expense of the community at large.
The Committee should, however, be under no illusion— here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn— that, when this clause of the Bill is implemented, a number of practical problems will arise. Some of them are highly relevant to the amendment we are now discussing. Unions generally may indeed engage in electioneering tactics and possibly act irresponsibly in order to attract votes. There will be rivalry between different unions. People will want to switch from one union to another, and so on. Therefore, we have to face the real prospect that in order to gain a long-term benefit, if it is a long-term benefit that people feel that we shall gain, there may in the short term be effects on industrial relations that are disturbing. It is for that reason that we shall later be moving amendments aimed at seeing that the percentage of support required in ballots affecting closed shops is set at figures which are not so high as those now in the Bill. But, having said that, because of the overriding principle that is here involved as I have sought to state it, I feel that I must oppose this amendment.
10.18 p.m.
Earl De La Warr: It seems to me that this amendment, in the way it has been moved and followed up, apparently carries with it some misunderstanding. We talk about this statutory period. The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, talks about the compulsion to have a ballot. Of course there is no compulsion to have a ballot. This is not a statutory thing. It does not have to happen. We tend to look at this provision as though we were going to move into a period when there were automatically going to be ballots.
What the Bill says is that a man shall not be unfairly dismissed unless there has been a ballot. I very much hope that thinking may change so that the employers may find that they do not want to have ballots because the practice of closed shops, as we know it, tends to disappear. You may think, at least from my point of view, that this is a utopian idea, but please let us look at the question of ballots not as something which we must have but as something which is a protection for the worker. That is the point I wanted to make and I hope I have made it properly; it is not statutory but the absolute opposite.
Viscount Caldecote: It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said, that concern has been expressed about the periodical review of closed shops. However, the noble Lord misrepresented the views expressed by the Secretary of State when he made the conciliatory gesture that he would delay the implementation of the requirement of the review to have ballots. The point surely is that where there has been a closed shop tradition in existence for a long time in a company or industry, it will take time for the industry to readjust to the new provision which, in my view, is good. If the provision were not included in the Bill, there would be no incentive for the industry or company concerned to take action and look around to see what they should
758
do when the new procedure comes into effect. We should not regard it as in any way ridiculous to have this provision in the Bill, but to delay its implementation so as to give time for necessary readjustment to take place in the industries or companies concerned.
It has been said quite often that many managers find the closed shop convenient in industry. It is not the job of Parliament to make life in industry convenient and cosy for managers. It is Parliament's job to strike the right balance between the rights of the individual and of the trade union and employer, and in my view the Bill as drafted strikes that balance correctly. We should not press the argument that it is a bad provision to have ballots for the review of the closed shop simply because it is inconvenient to some managements.
Viscount Trenchard: I thank my noble friends for their remarks, almost all in support of the Government's position. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, that I am answering the proposition for the amendment as one who has in the past negotiated closed shops, and been keen to do so, within the British trade union position, even though I had responsibilities in countries where they were not allowed and where there was no trouble because they were not allowed. One thing is what is a sensible thing to do in the situation with which we have been living, which the Government and many people think is not a balanced one. Another thing is what industry will in fact do when the new law becomes accepted, as I believe it will, and when automatic, fairly low-key checks become a regular part of our life, a point to which I shall return.
Public opinion is fairly firmly on our side, and I make that point because I thought nobody would mention it. In fact, I have received a note telling me that the Mori poll conducted for Panorama in November 1981 showed that 79 per cent. of the general public and 77 per cent. of trade unionists agreed that there should be regular secret ballots on whether or not closed shops should continue. That is part of the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Howie, who felt the amendment was unnecessary.
Lord Howie of Troon: I did not.
Viscount Trenchard: I apologise to the noble Lord; he thought the Government's intention in this respect was unnecessary. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, with qualifications which he later included, also felt it was necessary. The Government believe that it is very necessary. With the powers as they at present exist in union rule books, the difficulty of bringing about a ballot if you are a minority is in fact very real. We believe that the Sandwell, the Strathclyde, the Wallsall dinner ladies, and the British Rail instances and the European Court ruling all in their different ways also support the necessity for a move in this respect.
The power of trade union rule books can be used, and has been used, in ways which make a free expression of opinion after a period of time very difficult. So the Government do not believe in the principle of one man, one vote once. They believe in a low key, automatic check in a ballot. After discussion of various periods of years arising from the Green Paper the period of three years was also suggested. It

759
might not be biblical, but nevertheless it was suggested The Secretary of State has suggested five years.
My noble friend Lord Caldecote has spoken both on Second Reading and tonight in relation to the position of the Engineering Employers' Federation, and indeed this aspect, and for instance, the problems of the shipping industry, which we talked about earlier, provide the reasons why the Secretary of State has announced—I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that there is nothing new in this—that the Government are still considering whether the transitional period before the application of the ballot should be one year or two years, and they are not likely to make a decision before the Bill becomes law.
I should like for one second to return to the position of the shipping industry. The transition period, together with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, for balloting on more than one day, are meant by the Secretary of State to make possible the proper introduction of regulated closed shops in industries where there are difficulties, and to allow time through the transition period to discuss how the arrangements should be made. So for all those reasons I reject the amendment; we cannot accept it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: It was not altogether surprising to hear that the Government will not accept the amendment. The Government do not seem to be willing to accept any amendment to the Bill; nevertheless we shall try. It is very heartening that my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon and I, when it comes to the crunch of looking at the Bill, really do not find that our positions are that far apart, though when it comes to his amendments I fear that there will still be a distance between us. I must say that I find the Government's position quite extraordinary, especially when it is supported by the kind of points that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made. I should like to touch on two of them. He said that the closed shop is an abomination. There is a lot of this talk. He also said that public opinion says that it is an abomination. Certainly time and again the public are told that it is an abomination, without any reasons being given.
Of course, when it comes to a legitimate clash between minority interests and majority interests—and that is what union membership arrangements are about—then those who can afford to stand by and not be concerned usually take the position of the minority. But that does not mean there will be low key ballots, as the noble Viscount seems to think, because workers on one side and the other feel very strongly on these matters.
With regard to the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, he said, "It is an abomination, let's abolish it, as have our friends in Europe". It really is time—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will the noble Lord not misrepresent me? I said specifically that what the Government were proposing with the ballot was a compromise which I supported.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I take the noble
760
Lord's point. He wants the present Bill, but he is happy to travel along the road this distance at least towards the goal of which he approves—that our friends in Europe have made the closed shop illegitimate because it is an abomination. Perhaps that puts it better, and I am grateful to the noble Lord. But if he makes that point, then I am afraid that it is made in error. It really is time that people realised that the union securityarrangement—though, of course, it does not take the same form in every country—is not completely outlawed in every country in Europe. Even in countries like France and Germany, where the law is against it. I remember Professor Sir Otto Kahn-Freund, when he was alive the greatest expert on labour law in the world, saying a few years ago, Try going down a coalmine in the Ruhr without a union card!"
Of course it happens as a practice in many countries, but it goes beyond that. In Holland, in Sweden and in Denmark, and to an uncertain extent in Belgium the law does not totally outlaw closed shop arrangements. Indeed, in the first three clearly it does not. So there is a wide variety of union security arrangements throughout the world. My honourable friend in another place who spoke on this Bill spoke fresh from a visit to Japan, where he visited a factory and asked, "Why do you do so well"? and they said, "We have a closed shop". It is in Hansard, and if noble Lords want the reference I will bring it to our next debate.
So it is not something which is peculiar to Britain or the form of which is peculiar to Britain; and it does not help simply to call an abomination something which is an attempt to get an orderly arrangement of industrial relations and for 95 per cent. of the time to provide for small minority interests—because that is what most closed shops do. If you want to look for that, you can look at it in the forbidden fruits of Gennard. My noble friends and I have been discussing this problem, and we think we should make the offer that if noble Ministers refrain from wearying your Lordships with four dinner ladies in Walsall and Sandwell District Council and three railwaymen in Strasbourg, we might consider not referring to the Gennard Report any more.
But much the most serious point, if I may say so with great respect, was, it seemed to me, the point made by my noble friend Lord Houghton, although I intersperse a comment on the noble Lord, Lord Spens, in respect of the matter which he touched on. that after all this is about dismissal and therefore the five-year ballot is a limit put by statute, but of course you could vary the ballots in between that. But the point also has to be taken that when we come to Clause 9—and I appreciate we are not debating it with this clause—the same sort of limits apply in respect of management action short of dismissal.
Therefore, the managements which have been making representations to the Government have this well in mind I put it in this way in one sentence, that when the Engineering Employers' Federation made its representations to the Government, as indeed many other employers' associations have, not liking this particular part of the arrangement, they of course had in mind that they were not just at risk in the tribunals for actions for dismissal, but also, under the new arrangements, actions in respect of matters short of dismissal which are unlawful in a similar way and

761
liable to compensation in the tribunals on the part of someone who is in this posiiton of a non-unionist without a ballot.
But much the most serious point, as I say, was that made by my noble friend Lord Houghton, because I refrained from mentioning in opening on this amendment the Government's curious stance, that they insist on putting this on the statute book but appear to be willing to defer it for two years. They have not got the courage of their convictions, because they know that if they enact this there will be trouble, it will be seen to be silly and they do not want that before the next election. They do not want to enact it after two years; they want the virtue of having the courage to enact it without anybody realising that they have lacked the courage to operate it.
That is the truth of the matter as the record stands now. If that is wrong, then when we meet again the Government can tell us exactly when they are going to bring in this provision on ballots, because they know that many employers' associations are very fearful, not of low-key ballots, but of the few places, no doubt, of very high feeling. We shall not withdraw this amendment. It is notable that, if I may say so, it has had considerable support throughout the Committee, and that is support on which your Lordships may wish to reflect when we come to subsequent amendments on not dissimilar matters.
Viscount Trenchard: With the permission of your Lordships, may I make just one point clear? When I mentioned "low-key automatic ballots", I was referring mentally to the fact that the closed-shop continuation can be authorised by 85 per cent. of those voting. In that sense, there is no worry and no trouble. A fairly small vote would provide a low-key automatic check, which the union I am sure would organise.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Denham: I think your Lordships would probably agree that this is a suitable moment to adjourn the proceedings for the night. I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

  CRIME AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCY
  CRIME AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCY
  RADIO RECEPTION: NEW LICENCES
  RADIO RECEPTION: NEW LICENCES
  GARTREE PRISON RIOT 1978
  GARTREE PRISON RIOT 1978
  MERSEYSIDE DISTURBANCES: INSURANCE CLAIM DISCUSSIONS
  MERSEYSIDE DISTURBANCES: INSURANCE CLAIM DISCUSSIONS
  N. IRELAND: ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE REVIEW
  N. IRELAND: ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE REVIEW
  BENNETT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
  BENNETT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
  N. IRELAND: EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES
  N. IRELAND: EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES
  N. IRELAND: POWERS OF ARREST
  N. IRELAND: POWERS OF ARREST
  N. IRELAND: ARREST ON SUSPICION
  N. IRELAND: ARREST ON SUSPICION
  SOCIAL SECURITY: APPEALS FROM SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT APPEAL TRIBUNALS
  SOCIAL SECURITY: APPEALS FROM SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT APPEAL TRIBUNALS
  COMMUNITY HOMES: GOVERNING BOARDS
  COMMUNITY HOMES: GOVERNING BOARDS
  THE FALKLAND ISLANDS: INQUIRY TERMS OF REFERENCE
  THE FALKLAND ISLANDS: INQUIRY TERMS OF REFERENCE