Sitting of 8 July 1982

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time upon Thursday 15 July at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Labelling of Food Regulations 1980
    Mr. Shersbyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is yet in a position to announce the outcome of his correspondence with the European Commission concerning the date of implementation of the Labelling of Food Regulations 1980; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him yesterday on this subject.
    Mr. Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision that he announced yesterday will be widely welcomed by both food manufacturers and consumers? What progress has been made by other European countries towards implementing the directive, and what will be the position on 1 January in respect of goods from overseas that do not comply with it?
    Mr. Walker: I delayed the decision to put pressure on the Commission to take action against countries which, seemingly, were not going to comply. I now have confirmation that the Commission will take legal action against countries which will not comply. The goods of any country that does not comply with the directive, but endeavours to export to this country, will not be allowed in.
    Mr. Bright: Will my right hon. Friend clarify his intentions so that food processors and retailers are left in absolutely no doubt about their obligations?
    Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend will not have seen the full text of the written reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) yesterday. It fully satisfies the food processors and manufacturers. They are now clear as to the manner in which the regulations will be applied.

    Agricultural Tenancies
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is now in a position to make a statement on his policy towards making available more land for agricultural tenancies.
    Mr. Brocklebank-Fowlerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to complete his consideration of the action required to encourage new lettings of farms; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I have nothing to add to the replies that I gave to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) on 10 June.
    Mr. Maclennan: It is many months since the Minister first gave that stalling answer. Does he intend to introduce legislation, or has he simply rejected the arguments put forward by both the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union that measures are urgently needed to increase the supply of tenant land?
    Mr. Walker: It is not months since I gave that "stalling" answer. It is slightly less than one month. I have since then made it clear that we approve the basic principles of the NFU-CLA agreement. We shall consider when to introduce legislation.
    Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: In addition to legislation, will the Minister consider discussing with his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the tax concessions that might encourage landlords to let more land instead of taking it back when old tenants leave?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Heddle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, notwithstanding the answer that he gave, the proposals of the Labour Party to nationalise agricultural tenancies will be disastrous for the farming industry and expensive for the taxpayer and consumer?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, completely disastrous.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why does the Minister not forget his deep prejudices about selective public ownership of land and introduce a land bank, using land that could be made available, by capital transfer tax settlements with the Treasury in lieu of payments in cash?
    Mr. Walker: Because my deep prejudices are based on the appalling record of nationalisation.
    Mr. Pollock: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the provisions in last year's Finance Act and in this year's Finance Bill regarding Scottish agricultural leases and the clawback provisions of CTT illustrate the Government's commitment to the expansion of tenant farming?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Buchan: Does the Minister agree that the NFU was absolutely right to support the Labour Government's legislation in 1976? The NFU argued that, far from any change in succession leading to more farms to let, it would lead to landlords taking over vacant farms for direct farming, and that therefore an element of public ownership was almost the only way in which tenancies could be made available? Were there not two heads to the agreement—one on rates and the other on succession?

    441
    Will the Minister introduce legislation to reduce rents based on the proposals put forward by both the NFU and the Labour Party?
    Mr. Walker: No, Sir. There is no evidence that the land nationalisation advocated by the hon. Gentleman would be other than disastrous. I am delighted that the Labour Party manifesto contained such proposals.
    There is an agreement between the NFU and the CLA, and I note that the Labour Party is unwilling to support it, which is wrong.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Is not now the opportune time for the Minister to urge his colleagues to give extra financial aid to local authorities to buy more land in Britain to let to young tenant farmers?
    Mr. Walker: I do not believe that that is a desirable role for local authorities or a correct use of public resources.

    Agricultural Land
    Mr. Heddleasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to ensure that good quality agricultural land is not lost to the industry.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): My Department will continue to ensure that Government policy for the protection of agricultural land is applied in accordance with Department of the Environment circular 75/76.
    Mr. Heddle: As nearly 1,000 acres of good agricultural land are lost each week to roads, runways, reservoirs, houses and factories, is it not of prime importance that the planner's pen ploughs a furrow through the poorest quality land before it alights on the best quality land?
    Mrs. Fenner: I wholly agree. Paragraph 3 of the DOE circular seeks to ensure that higher quality land is not used where lower quality land is available and that no more is taken than is needed for the development.
    Mr. Newens: Is the Minister aware of the strong criticism of the supine evidence that the Ministry advanced about the loss of good agricultural land through the massive expansion of Stansted? Will she consider the issue and reassure the House that the Ministry will take a stronger line in future?
    Mrs. Fenner: I do not accept the criticism of the Ministry's stand on Stansted. Ministry representatives try to ensure that there is no loss of high quality land. They battle for agricultural land in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests they should.
    Mr. Neil Thorne: Has my hon. Friend seen the discussion paper on forestry and land use issued by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, of which I am a member? Does she feel that it has a contribution to make?
    Mrs. Fenner: Such a distinguished body always has a contribution to make.
    Mr. Chapman: In the close consultation between the Ministry and the Department of the Environment on the development of good agricultural land, will my hon. Friend make the sensible representation to the Secretary
    442
    of State for the Environment that all good agricultural land that is subject to planning application should be called in under section 35 of the 1971 Act as a matter of course?
    Mrs. Fenner: My Ministry is consulted at all stages in the preparation of structural and local plans and on all planning applications affecting more than 4 hectares of agricultural land that do not conform to an agreed development plan.

    European Community (Spanish Entry)
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, preparatory to any final decision being made by the United Kingdom on the terms of membership of the European Economic Community of Spain, so far as they concern agriculture, he will undertake a study and issue a report on the effect of Spanish membership of the European Economic Community on each sector of the agriculture and horticulture industries in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Peter Walker: A considerable body of information and research now exists on Spanish agriculture, its effect on the United Kingdom market and the likely consequences of Spanish accession to the European Community. I have considered carefully the need for a further study, but have concluded that this would not be justified at present. My Department continues to monitor developments and changes in Spanish agriculture and horticulture.
    Mr. Farr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that about 2 million acres of land in Spain are suitable for irrigation and that once Spain joins the EEC and the land is irrigated our markets for many domestic products will cease to exist? Will he consider again the real threat in Spain's application?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. In any judgment we would consider the impact of such irrigation policies. However, the Spanish market also offers a considerable outlet for our agricultural products which Spain does not produce.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Might there not be further indirect costs to the British taxpayer of Spanish accession to the EEC, as it could lead to calls for a new regime in other areas—for example, olive oil, which is the mainstay of rural Italy?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. That is why discussions are taking place on olive oil production in the existing Community. The British Government have put forward proposals which take those dangers into consideration.

    School Milk
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of liquid milk production is consumed under school milk subsidised consumption.
    Mrs. Fenner: Subsidised school milk represents about 1 per cent. of liquid milk sales and about ½ per cent. of total milk production.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Does not the scheme put the best of all possible foods into children's stomachs and a good deal of cash into farmers' pockets at a minimum cost to the British taxpayer? Is it not a pity that so few local authorities have taken advantage of the scheme? Will my hon. Friend use her best offices to persuade them to do so?
    Mrs. Fenner: On the contrary, of 126 local authorities and education boards involved, only six have refused to take up the subsidy. Four have yet to respond.
    Mr. Maclennan: Why does the Minister not introduce a national scheme?
    Mrs. Fenner: It is a good Community scheme, from which in 1981 we derived £18 million. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not grumble about that.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: Does the hon. Lady agree that the quality of the scheme does not prevent it being a national scheme? Will she introduce a national scheme and not allow some reprobate local authorities to get out of it?
    Mrs. Fenner: Each local education authority should decide its own spending priorities, including the importance that it attaches to school milk.
    Sir Peter Mills: Will my hon. Friend encourage the consumption of all milk products, bearing in mind the immense danger to the industry from the new synthetic cheese that is selling at 50 per cent. below the cost of normal cheese?
    Mrs. Fenner: We have tried to make it as easy as possible for authorities to take full advantage of the subsidies that are available. Last year we negotiated an aggregate scheme that included semi-skimmed flavoured milk and cheese and yoghurt with a 12½ per cent. local authority contribution.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Proctorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on his attempts to reform the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I continue to seek improvements in the operation of the common agricultural policy designed to tackle the problem of surpluses, restrain the growth of expenditure and ensure fair competition within the Community.
    Mr. Proctor: After three years of Conservative Administration and attempts to reform the CAP, does my right hon. Friend now agree that, because of the power balances in the EEC, it is not possible to get a fundamental reform of the CAP?
    Mr. Walker: No, Sir, I do not agree. During those three years the growth in expenditure has been 26 per cent. compared with 260 per cent. under the Labour Government, and the proportion of CAP benefits going to Britain has doubled.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister accept that whatever hopes he may entertain are likely to be confounded and that whatever admirable efforts he may make are likely to meet disappointment, not least as a consequence of the recent Community majority decision? Can he yet tell the House how much the subsidy and structure of agriculture will dominate the EEC budget in the ensuing 12 months?
    Mr. Walker: I cannot give the exact forecast for the next 12 months. During the past three years the proportion of the budget devoted to the CAP has declined considerably.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Would it not be regrettable if reform of the CAP resulted in Europe becoming a food deficiency area?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Buchan: That would hardly be reform of the common agricultural policy. Will the Minister listen to the wise words of his hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor)? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this year's settlement marked the final destruction of any attempt or hope to reform the common agricultural policy in any sensible way? Does he further agree that the near surrender point was overcome by events when majority voting took place? Has not the time come for us to operate a policy suitable for British farming and the British consumer without the nonsense of high prices, surpluses, export levies and the other bureaucratic paraphernalia of the Common Market?
    Mr. Walker: I am glad that the views of the farming industry are in complete conflict with those of the hon. Gentleman. The farming industry is increasingly recognising, particularly with the reversal of the Labour Government's green pound policy, the considerably enhanced opportunities for exports and growth in the British economy.

    Food from Britain
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made by Food from Britain since his recent announcement of its creation.
    Mr. Peter Walker: As I informed the House on 8 June, I shall seek to introduce the necessary legislation to transform the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation into the new marketing organisation, Food from Britain, as soon as possible. Meanwhile, those invited to serve on Food from Britain have begun preparing its marketing strategy and formulating plans for joint marketing initiatives to promote British food and fresh produce at home and abroad.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that food processing companies will gain the full benefit of this campaign for their exports?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. Indeed, food manufacturers and processors have warmly welcomed this initiative. The food industry has guaranteed its full co-operation and agreed that its export efforts should be incorporated in it.
    Mr. Freud: I welcome the concept of Food from Britain, but will the Minister also consider food from the regions? Is the rig at hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable regional excellence? With offices in the regions, this should not be beyond his Department's capabilities.
    Mr. Walker: No, Sir. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a keen interest in this topic. I agree that there is much promotion to be done on food from our regions.
    Mr. Speller: Will my right hon. Friend do his best to ensure that the livestock marketing, meat processing and packaging industries, which are an integral part of the whole concept, are given ail possible support in these troubled times?
    Mr. Walker: We shall be giving this topic similar attention. As my hon. Friend knows, one of the members of the new council will be the chariman of the Meat and Livestock Commission.

    Potatoes
    Mr. BillWalker asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the 1981 United Kingdom potato crop was exported (a) as ware and (b) as seed.
    Mrs. Fenner: Overseas trade statistics are not yet available for this period, but figures from the Potato Marketing Board and the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland suggest 1 per cent. and 2 per cent., respectively.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does she recognise that the potato trade is a vital part of the Tayside economy? How are Government plans progressing towards improving the marketing and processing of potatoes?
    Mrs. Fenner: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have observed the beginning of the Great Brits programme for high quality potatoes, because I understand that it started in Scotland. Everyone in the industry agrees about the importance of improving the quality of potatoes. We welcome the name "Great Brits" which the Potato Marketing Board and the new bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland have chosen for seed potatoes.

    Dairy Industry
    Mr. Geraint Howellsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present state of the dairy industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Yes, Sir. I believe that both sides of the industry can look to the future with confidence.
    Mr. Howells: Will the Minister comment on the EEC proposal to give a £4 million rebate to small dairy farmers in this country? Who will administer the scheme?
    Mr. Walker: We are having discussions, but the scheme will be administered by the Milk Marketing Board.
    Mr. Colvin: Bearing in mind the damage that can be done to the dairy industry by tuberculosis and brucellosis, will my right hon. Friend either confirm or deny that he has authorised the cessation of the gassing of badgers? If his reply is in the affirmative, what discussions has his Ministry had with the RSPCA on acceptable humane methods of control?
    Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend will know that I asked Lord Zuckerman to produce a report on this subject. He strongly confirmed that it was important to carry out an eradication policy or there would be a considerable spread of tuberculosis. He also pointed out that there would otherwise be a threat to the long-term prospects for the badger population. He asked for further research to be undertaken into the form of gassing used. I recently received a report showing that the form of gassing used was causing hardship to badgers beyond that expected. I therefore stopped that form of gassing. We are now having urgent discussions on the most humane and best methods of eradication.
    Mr. Hardy: I do not dissent from the right hon. Gentleman's action on bovine tuberculosis. However, is the Minister aware that his optimism about the dairy
    446
    industry is slightly misplaced, given the effect on the price of butter of the common agricultural policy and the less than scrupulous approach of the margarine advertisers?
    Mr. Walker: The decline in butter consumption over the years has added to the surplus in the Community. There are areas where consumption of dairy products is likely to increase. The consumption of cheese and yoghurts has been increasing and the consumption of flavoured milks is likely to increase considerably. I agree that there is a battle between the margarine and butter interests on the health aspect. It is not a judgment that I am qualified to make.
    Mr. Newens: Is the right hon. Gentleman still as steadfast in his resistance to any threats to the dairy industry's doorstep delivery system? Is he confident in our ability to continue to resist such threats?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.

    Milk, Butter and Beef
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table showing the percentage increase or decrease in the average consumption per head of milk, butter and beef since 1970.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The percentage changes in average household consumption per head between 1970 and 1981 are as follows:

    per cent.

    Milk*

    -13·4

    Butter

    -38·4

    Beef

    -10·8

    * Including welfare and school milk.

    Mr. Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that at least some of these alarming reductions in food consumption are because many people, particularly pensioners and those on low incomes, cannot afford to pay the artificially high prices required by the common agricultural policy? Does he also accept that, at a time of high prices and falling consumption, it was criminal for the Minister of State to tell me yesterday that our exports of cheap subsidised food to Russia in 1981 were more than 3 million tonnes compared with 2 million tonnes in the previous year and less than 1 million tonnes in 1979?
    Mr. Walker: I do not accept my hon. Friend's premise. He has chosen those three items, but I could choose other items also affected by the common agricultural policy, such as cheese, the consumption of which is up by 8·4 per cent. and pork, which is up by 35 per cent. There has been a considerable variation in eating habits. As the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) pointed out, the battle between margarine and butter has been based on the health aspect, not on the price factor.
    Mr. Jay: Does the Minister regard as one of the blessings of Common Market membership the fact that the British public's consumption of butter has been reduced by 40 per cent. since we joined?
    Mr. Walker: The fact is that as a result of health campaigns during that period there was a considerable switch to margarine. It is interesting to note that the market price for beef for most of that time has been above the

    447
    guaranteed price in the Community. The reason, as beef producers know, is that the fixed price has been below production cost, and that has created a shortage of beef.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increase in the price of milk is less than the increases in the retail price index and the food price index, and that both increases are less than the increase in average wages since we entered the Community? Does he further agree that there has been a failure in the marketing of milk and that no blame can be attached to the Community for the fall in milk consumption?
    Mr. Walker: As my hon. Friend knows, the price of milk in this country is nothing to do with the CAP intervention price. It is an agreed price with the Dairy Trade Federation to retain the doorstep deliver service.
    Mr. Buchan: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that his policy has probably done more to reduce butter consumption in Britain than the entire U-boat campaign in the Second World War? Have not two factors come together: first, a general decline in the standard of living, brought about by the Government, and, secondly, artificially high prices because of the Minister's adherence to a crazy policy of agriculture support? Will he bear in mind that as well as being the Minister of Agriculture he is the Food Minister and, as such, responsible for the consumer?
    Mr. Walker: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on that good U-boat phrase. It is a remarkable phrase to use, as my one achievement in regard to butter has been to double the subsidy compared with what the Labour Government did.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the wholly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity—[Interruption]—and the Minister should stop laughing.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Another Exocet missile.

    Inshore Waters (Fishing Vessels)
    Sir Albert Costainasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many United Kingdom registered fishing vessels now fish in United Kingdom inshore waters; and how many there were in June 1978, June 1970 and June 1960, respectively.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The number of commercially active fishing vessels registered in the United Kingdom which are under 80ft in length are as follows:

    Year

    Vessels

    1960

    7,278

    1970

    5,410

    1978

    6,765

    1981

    7,106

    Sir Albert Costain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the increase indicated by those figures will be a surprise to many people? Does it not demonstrate that there is still some life in the fishing industry? Will he continue with his valiant efforts to conserve the stock of young fish, which is so necessary?
    Mr. Walker: The figures show both an important switch to inshore fishing and that investment has continued in that industry.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: In view of the general decline in the British fishing fleet, when will the right hon. Gentleman stop giving aid in a hand-to-mouth fashion, as a lure to encourage the industry to accept his forthcoming sell-out on the common fisheries policy? When will he announce a plan for restructuring the industry so that it can compete on equal terms with the new vessels that have been built by the French, the Dutch and the Danes?
    Mr. Walker: I am sorry that my original answer did not fit in with the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. It showed that since 1970 there has been an increase of about 1,600 vessels in the inshore fleet. We are aware of the decline that took place in the long-distance fleet and of the period in which that took place. The hon. Gentleman may complain about my aid, but it is double that given by the last Government and he should have complained more often then.
    Mr. Maclennan: In view of the increased catching capacity and the fact that, if that capacity is to be fully used, we should need access to 54 per cent. of the Community's total allowable catch, what proposals is the right hon. Gentleman considering with the Sea Fish Industry Authority for long-term restructuring and aid that is necessary?
    Mr. Walker: We are having talks with all sections of the fishing industry about the longer-term programmes for restructuring and we are preparing the industry to take advantage of future opportunities.
    Mr. Myles: In view of the considerable economic difficulties that are faced particularly by the pelagic sector, will my right hon. Friend introduce his aid package as soon as possible?
    Mr. Walker: We are currently reviewing applications for the aid package. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that in the first six months of this year there has, both in volume and price, been a substantial improvement in income compared with a year ago.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: What provision does the Minister envisage to enable this increased fleet to catch fish if he agrees with the Community's proposals, to be discussed next week, for the British fishing industry?
    Mr. Walker: 'The hon. Gentleman knows that I shall agree to proposals that have the approval of the fishing industry.

    Sugar (European Community Production)
    Mr. Richard Shepherdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the anticipated costs in the coming crop year of (a) storing the surplus European Economic Community production of sugar and (b) the producers' contribution in the form of export subsidies levied on excess output.
    Mr. Peter Walker: It is not yet possible to forecast the amount of surplus production from the 1982 crop that will be eligible for storage payments, or for how long it will be stored. On the second part of the question, if the levies by which producers contributed to the cost of export subsidies are imposed at the maximum rate during 1982–83, they are likely to raise about 550 million ECU, which is equivalent to £304 million at the current market rate of exchange.
    Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will the maximum permissible producers' contribution on the beet crop in 1981–82 cover all the costs of exporting from the Community? If not, what sort of deficit will arise to the Community?
    Mr. Walker: It is estimated that a deficit of about £52 million will be incurred on exports of the 1981–82 crop. That deficit will be carried forward to be met from the producers' levy on the 1982–83 crop.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: In fixing such a high price for sugar at about £250 a tonne, did the CAP Ministers, including my right hon. Friend, take into account the enormous damage done to the economies of some of the poorest countries by the dumping of EEC sugar on the world at a cost of about £100 a tonne?
    Mr. Walker: In our negotiations we also took into account the improved price for ACP country exports to the European market.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Strangasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he has had with representatives of the fishing industry since the last Council of Ministers meeting.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The main organisations representing the catching industry have been consulted about the Commission's latest proposals for total allowable catches and quotas put forward after the Fisheries Council on 29 June, and I expect to meet the leaders of the industry again before the next meeting of the Council in the week beginning 19 July.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that Scottish fishermen attach particular importance to the future of the north North Sea herring fishery? While it is true that stocks there have not recovered sufficiently for fishing to resume, it is vital that some agreement be reached on the future percentage share-out of fish in those waters before a settlement is reached.
    Mr. Walker: I am well aware of the importance of that matter to the Scottish fishing industry. We are at present awaiting the conclusions of third country agreements that affect the availability of the herring stock. I agree that it is important to obtain a good percentage of those stocks for our fishermen.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If the Soviet Union and Polish shipping fleets can apparently make such a reasonable profit out of fishing around the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic, what discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the British fishing industry about potential fishing in the South Alantic, particularly in respect of kryll, hake and other fish that are in abundance there and which, apparently, offer tremendous potential for the British fishing fleet?
    Mr. Walker: On a number of occasions—indeed, prior to the current Falklands crisis—I have discussed the possibilities of South Atlantic fishing with our industry. Alas, I must report that it has not shown any great enthusiasm because it considers that the quality of some of the fish involved, combined with the cost, does not make it a potentially commercial operation. I am willing to discuss this matter further with the fishing industry.
    Mr. McNamara: As the right hon. Gentleman was somewhat agitated when he made his statement on the fishing agreement to the House last week, may I put something to him calmly and objectively? What will he do to compernsate the deep-water ports such as Hull, Fleetwood and Grimsby? What will he do to get alternative employment for fishermen who have lost their jobs? What will he do to make sure that communities that have lost a great deal, not only as a result of the 200 miles but because of the CAP, are able to have a decent living standard? Is he aware that many of our constituents are now without a decent standard of living?
    Mr. Walker: We have been negotiating quota arrangements that will be of interest to the long distance fleet. We shall also be negotiating restructuring arrangements that will be of considerable importance. I am optimistic that in that sphere there will be considerable improvement on the proposals that were previously made.

    Poultry (Health Standards)
    Mr. Colin Shepherdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has had discussions with the British Poultry Federation on health standards of the British poultry industry.
    Mrs. Fenner: Close contact is maintained with representatives of the British poultry industry, both on health standards and on all related matters. We shall continue to seek to maintain existing policies to protect the health status of the national flock, in consultation with poultry interests.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend aware that the poultry industry places great importance on the maintenance of the highest possible health standards within the industry, especially with regard to Newcastle disease? Will she confirm that the Government believe that a policy of eradication is far better than a policy of vaccination? If perchance the European Court should continue to disregard the veterinary evidence, will the Government develop an adaptation of the Danish system, which will sustain the high health standards in the British poultry industry?
    Mrs. Fenner: I cannot comment on the basis of the case in Europe, but my hon. Friend will know that we feel strongly about the correctness of our Newcastle disease policy. We shall continue to defend that policy vigorously.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Government endeavour to ensure that the Common Market does not impose differential arrangements with regard to Newcastle disease upon Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mrs. Fenner: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: Did the Minister listen carefully to what the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) has just said? In the absence of a proper solution from the European Court, should we not be prepared to take the Danish line on Newcastle disease, and do it ourselves?
    Mrs. Fenner: I reiterate my answer to my hon. Friend. I listened to his comments very carefully. I am not prepared to accept the hon. Gentleman's pessimistic view. We intend to defend our policy vigorously.

    Straw (Burning)
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tons of straw have been disposed of by burning on land over each of the past four years.
    Mrs. Fenner: Detailed records of the tonnage of straw which has been burned in each of the past four years are not available. Estimates, which are based on surveys carried out in 1976 and 1977, show that the average tonnage burnt in England and Wales is about 3·9 million tonnes per annum.
    Mr. Wainwright: Is the hon. Lady satisfied that that is the best way to dispose of straw and that the benefits derived from burning are far greater than any other method that could be adopted? If she agrees that other methods should be adopted, what advice will she give to the farmers to make sure that they make better use of their straw?
    Mrs. Fenner: Research into alternative uses for straw has been carried out for many years and is still being actively pursued. There is little hope that such uses will account for more than a fraction of surplus straw in the foreseeable future.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, failing any other method of disposal, there is an appreciable cost saving to farmers in being able to dispose of their straw by burning? If there is to be strong public reaction against this, will she consider asking her Ministry to make more of an effort to see whether a more effective alternative can be found?
    Mrs. Fenner: I pointed out that research into alternative uses has been going on for some time and is still going on. My hon. Friend will know that the National Farmers Union, in consultation with my Department, has revised and strengthened the code for the burning of straw to provide additional safeguards where burning takes place.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Could not grassland used for straw burning be turned to more productive use if more effective marginal land schemes were in operation? Why is the Minister dragging his heels over the application to Brussels concerning the marginal land scheme that has been drawn up by his Department?
    Mrs. Fenner: The question that the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) addressed to me was on the subject of straw burning and I think that I should be out of order if I attempted to answer the hon. Gentleman's questions.
    Sir Peter Mills: Will the Minister bear in mind that this is a growing and serious problem and give every encouragement to the development of straw briquette-making, which could help considerably and would mean that there was not so much reliance on the coal industry. Does she agree that it is better to rely on agriculture in this regard?
    Mrs. Fenner: My right hon. Friend visited a factory in Sittingbourne in Kent recently, which is using straw for making packaging equipment. We hope to see an extension of this good experiment.

    Scientific Civil Servants
    Mr. Sheermanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many scientific civil servants were employed in the Ministry of Agriculture in May 1982, May 1981 and May 1979, respectively.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The information requested is not available for the dates stated. However, the number of scientific civil servants in the Ministry on 1 April of the three years in question was 1,895, 1,961 and 1,804 respectively.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that this vital Department is at the centre of research and development for the whole of our agriculture industry? Is the Minister further aware that many people working in that service are worried about its future, are concerned about their tenure, and are worried that the services that they are able to provide to agriculture will be far less in the future?
    Mr. Walker: Having recently visited all of the regions and met the staff concerned, I am glad to say that I found morale high. I know that the hon. Gentleman will rejoice at the fact that the figures that I have given him show that there has been an increase in staff since the Government came to power.

    Maedi-Visna Accredited Flocks
    Sir Michael Shawasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what interest has been shown by flock owners in the voluntary schemes for the establishment of Maedi-Visna accredited flocks.
    Mrs. Fenner: Flock owners have shown a considerable interest in the Maedi-Visna accredited flocks scheme since its launch on 1 May this year. Over 300 inquiries have been received from prospective scheme members representing the various breeds of sheep in this country.
    Sir Michael Shaw: Will my hon. Friend confirm that
    she will do everything that she can to encourage the continued interest in these schemes, because the disease is imported and difficult to discern and such schemes are important to safeguard our flocks?
    Mrs. Fenner: There is evidence, I assure my hon. Friend, of considerable interest by flock owners, although it is not possible to say how many of the current inquiries will result in accredited flocks.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Doverasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Dover: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the recovery of the country will depend to a great degree on the productivity and performance of engineering firms, particularly the smaller ones? If so, will she find time today to discuss with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry the possible reintroduction of the

    453
    small engineering firms investment scheme, which was withdrawn a few weeks ago because it was too successful, and under which firms could obtain a one—third grant towards investment in new machinery?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the small engineering firms investment scheme introduced in the Budget was very successful. The allocation for it then was £20 million, which has had to be increased to £30 million. However, we have had to close the scheme to applications from the end of May. I shall have a word with my right hon. Friend, but, in the meantime, other funds are available for high technology engineering and I hope that applications will be made for those.
    Mr. Ashton: Will the right hon. Lady find time to look at Tuesday's Hansard, in which she condemned ASLEF for trying to stick to a 1919 agreement? Why is it fine for her to fight to the bitter end in the Falklands for an 1832 agreement and have a full inquiry into the matter, but refuse to do anything about the ASLEF strike?
    The Prime Minister: The two things bear no comparison to one another.
    Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while many people will feel that the wrangling over responsibility for the Falklands has certain party political overtones, there is, none the less, universal acclaim for our forces? Can she say whether any decision has yet been made on the award of a campaign medal for those forces who took part?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. The Queen has approved the institution of a South Atlantic medal for those who served in the South Atlantic. At present, the details are contained in a White Paper which is at the printers, and which I hope will be laid before the House next week.
    Mr. James Hamilton: With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) about the engineering industry, will the Prime Minister concede that the first casualty in any economic crisis is the construction industry, particularly in Scotland, where there are hundreds of thousands of people unemployed? Is she aware that if public funds were made available these people could be used to the best possible advantage of the country, getting them off supplementary benefit and working for the benefit of the country?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a package for the construction industry in the last Budget. I know that the hon. Member and many other hon. Members wish that it could be larger. However, it could be larger if we spent less on current expenditure and allocated more for investment.
    Mr. Cockeram: May I remind the Prime Minister of two recent public inquiries, neither of which has been followed up, and ask her whether she shares the uneasy feeling of the country that the Falklands inquiry could have a similar ending? Perhaps she will recall the Bingham inquiry into sanction—breaking in Rhodesia, and the Crown Agents inquiry, which cost the British taxpayer over £100 million, both of which revealed grave misdemeanours, but neither of which was followed through? Is she aware that there is concern in the country that the Falklands inquiry could lead to the same result?
    The Prime Minister: Certainly the Crown Agents inquiry was prolonged, but it really consisted of two inquiries. I agree with my hon. Friend in his criticsm of the length of time. The Bingham inquiry, too, was quite long, and it was suggested that it should be followed by another, but that suggestion was not approved by the House. There has been a widespread demand for an inquiry over the Falklands. A number of people were involved—some of whom resigned—in the Falkland Islands issue, and they feel that they should have the privilege of an inquiry. I must take that fact into account, together with the widespread demand for an inquiry.
    Mr. David Steel: Are the Government still hoping to bid for the Nissan car company to set up its European manufacturing basis in this country? If so, what will be the right hon. Lady's response to the executives of that company who have criticised British industrial relations and our social class system?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the Nissan car company has not yet decided whether to continue its efforts to find a plant in Europe, whether to continue its efforts to come here, or whether it should postpone its searches for the time being. On the whole, Japanese management, when it has come to this country, has been most successful, and I hope that the Japanese will take the recent improvements in industrial relations in the private sector very much into account in any decisions that they make.
    Mr. Leightonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 8 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Leighton: Will the Prime Minister tell the House today whether the shameful projected sale of Britoil will be by fixed price or by tender?
    The Prime Minister: Such decisions are not taken until much nearer the time. We shall decide in the light of all previous experience and the advice that we receive.
    Mr. Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to study the wise words of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Johnson), which appear on the Order Paper as an amendment to early—day motion 596, in which he condemns the unjustified nature of the ASLEF strike and the hardship that it is causing to thousands of commuters?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that the ASLEF strike is causing hardship to the travelling public and to many people whose small businesses depend on the railway service for freight or for getting supplies to their business. It is also very much against the future interests of the railways themselves. I hope that those who are having ASLEF meetings shortly will take that factor into account.
    Mr. Foot: In the light of the reply that the right hon. Lady gave a minute or two ago about the sale of Britoil, will she say how she intends to ensure that the Government avoid the scandal that was associated with Amersham International? In view of the legislation that the Secretary of State for Energy has framed, will she make sure that he will make a statement to the House on how the matter is to be dealt with in the coming weeks, so that the country is not subjected to a similar scandal when the House is not sitting?
    The Prime Minister: One can either put a sale out to fixed price or to tender. Many people are sometimes very wise in retrospect about the fixed price process. It is astonishing that many who are wise in retrospect do not criticise that same price when it is published in prospect.
    Mr. Foot: Is the right hon. Lady really proud of what happened with Amersham International? Will she attempt to satisfy the House on the other matter, and get the Secretary of State to make a statement to the House before the recess about how the Government propose to proceed?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend may not be ready to make such a statement before the recess. Nevertheless, it is important, if the market is right, that we should proceed with the sale. One thing is particularly important, and it is that those who work in the company should have a chance to purchase the shares. That factor should be taken into account in the method that is chosen. I say again that far more questions were asked of me after the sale of Amersham International than were ever asked of me about the price before the sale.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are Conservative members who are concerned about the terms of reference of the inquiry into the Falklands Islands conflict, and that many of us believe that the inquiry should go back over at least 20 years, so that the civil servant niggers in the woodpile in the Foreign Office who have sold British interests down the river over many years are identified and their names made public, and so that not only Ministers resign, but that civil servants are moved to lesser positions where they cannot continue to damage British interests?
    The Prime Minister: We shall be debating this matter later, but my hon. Friend will notice in the terms of reference that the Committee can take into account all such factors from previous periods as may be relevant to the questions that it has to decide.
    Mr. Winterton: And made public?
    The Prime Minister: It is for the Committee to make public what it wishes, subject to the conditions that we shall put on publication of items such as Cabinet papers or security documents with a classification. I shall go into detail on the matter in the debate.
    Mr. Cunliffeasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 8 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cunliffe: Is the Prime Minister aware of the serious anomaly that would exist if nurses were to accept the Government's revised pay offer? Now that phase 2 of the Government's fees and lodging allowance is to be activated, it means that some auxiliary nurses will be 68p a week worse off, staff nurses will be 1p a week better off, the average nurse will be 30p a week worse off, and ward sisters 69p a week worse off. Does the right hon. Lady agree that this is a serious anomaly and that it is rather unjust? As 60,000 out of 420,000 nurses will be affected, will she ask the Minister to reconsider the position?
    The Prime Minister: The precise pattern of the pay award under the general 7½ per cent. increase is worked out by the Whitley council, and the offer is made by it. How the percentage varies from one grade of nurse to another is again a matter for the council to work out.
    456
    As for charges and prices, we all have to face increased charges and prices, and that is perhaps a good reason for trying to keep down some of the public sector increases.
    Mr. Peyton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that the Foreign Office is a nest of spies and incompetents is more useful as a reflection of the state of his mind than as an indication of the true state of affairs?
    The Prime Minister: I think that it would be as well to await the conclusions of the review, the setting up of which we have not yet debated.
    Mr. Foster: Is not the Prime Minister betraying the trusteeship of the national interest that is placed in her hands by the country by refraining from bringing together the two parties in the railway dispute? If the British Railways Board is looking after the railway's interests and ASLEF is rightly looking after its members' interests, who is looking after the country's interests? Is that not the right hon. Lady's job?
    The Prime Minister: The responsibility for running British Rail for the benefit of the travelling public and those who use British Rail for freight purposes is vested in the British Railways Board. It is for that board to run the railways according to the terms with which it is charged. Many people who work for the railways—indeed, the vast majority—are ready and willing to carry on, and I hope that that will soon apply to ASLEF—as it does at the moment to the NUR.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, along with hundreds of others, I travelled here today from Southend by train? Does my right hon. Friend think it appropriate to offer a word of encouragement and congratulation to the increasing number of train drivers who are continuing to serve the travelling public?
    The Prime Minister: We were very pleased when the NUR took the decision that it did. As my hon. Friend suggests, I should like to offer encouragement and congratulations to those ASLEF drivers who are at work, carrying out their duties to the travelling public. They are serving themselves, their families and the railways far better than those who are out on strike.
    Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 8 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Meacher: Will the Prime Minister explain what sense it can possibly make to give such unquestioning support to the British Railways Board when the introduction of seven—to—nine hour flexible rostering will, according to British Rail's figures, save less that £ ½ million this year, which is less that one—tenth of 1 per cent. of the likely British Rail deficit, and when savings over the next three years will still be only £9 million, when the dispute is costing £9 million a day? Is that not a ludicrously false economy? Does it not suggest that the Prime Minister's real purpose in this dispute is to break ASLEF?
    The Prime Minister: No. It suggests that those who are charged with the responsibility of running the railways should be allowed to get on with it. Conservative Members have not the arrogance to assume that they know how to

    457
    run everything better than those charged with the duty of managing. The flexible rostering issue has been through all the railway negotiating procedures, including a lengthy and detailed examination by the Railway Staff National Tribunal under Lord McCarthy. The hon. Gentleman's strictures presumably apply to Lord McCarthy as well.
    Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Prime Minister's Questions the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) described the
    458
    generality of civil servants in the Foreign Office as "niggers". May we have a ruling, Mr. Speaker, on whether that is accepted parliamentary language when the officials concerned cannot answer back?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) used the phrase that has been used many times and on which I do not wish to rule. The expression he used was "Nigger in the woodpile".

Prayer Cards
Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise the matter of the rules concerning prayer cards? I have not been able to give you notice of this because the incident has arisen only since the beginning of Question Time.
The rules for prayer cards have been laid down firmly in "Erskine May" and, in the early years, in Hansard. As I understand the ruling, it is that prayer cards reserve seats for the Member concerned and that it is an abuse for him to use them simply to take part in prayers and to hand over his seat to another right hon. or hon. Member who is unable to rise early enough to get to his seat in time.
It has always been a principle of prayer cards—which in many ways are a rather childish device—that early birds catch worms. If they are simply to be used to reserve seats for other hon. Members, that is an abuse of the process upon which I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule.
Mr. Speaker: Prayer cards apply to the person who places them. The House understands that. I know of nothing within the rules of the House which precludes any hon. Member giving way to another of his right hon. or hon. Friends if he wishes so to do.

Business of the House
3.34 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY I2 JuLY—Progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Motion on the Coal Industry (Limits on Grants) Order.
TUESDAY I3 JULY—Completion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY I4 JuLY—Supply (24th Allotted Day). Debate on an Opposition motion on the failure of the Government's regional and industrial policies.
Motion on the Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order.
THURSDAY I5 JuLY—Supply (25th Allotted Day). A debate on common fisheries policy. The relevant European Community document numbers will be printed in the Official Report.
Motion on the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
FRIDAY I6 JULY—Motions on Northern Ireland Orders on Appropriation (No. 2) and on agricultural marketing.
MONDAY I9 JULY—Supply (26th Allotted Day). A debate on the Royal Navy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motions on Supply procedure.
[Fisheries debate: Documents 7787/82; 7786/82; 7788/82; 7863/82; 7954/82.
Relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee.
24th report of Session 1981–82, paras. 2 to 6 (HC 21—xxiv).
26th report of Session 1981–82, para. 3 (HC 21—xxvi).]
Mr. Foot: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the rearrangements that have been made in the Government's proposed business following our request.
May I put to the right hon. Gentleman two matters arising from replies which were given earlier today? First, may we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Energy in the next few days, or at any rate before the House goes into recess, about the sale of the British National Oil Corporation in order to avoid the fiasco of Amersham International?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that there will be further statements about the railways dispute? It is a question no longer of returning to 1919 or some such date, but of whether the British Railways Board is prepared to return to the arrangements that it was prepared to make on 25 June. There is now close agreement on the proposals for a settlement that were put forward by the British Railways Board on 25 June. Will the Government make an effort to achieve a settlement on that reasonable basis?
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in response to a request that I have made on previous occasions and which I repeat now, to give an undertaking that there will be a debate on unemployment in Government time before the House rises for the recess? I hope that he will be able to do that today.
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly bear in mind the right hon. Gentleman's request that there should be a debate on unemployment in Government time, although that is a much—spent asset at this time of the year. There could be no such consideration in respect of business for next week.
I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Energy and for Transport the right hon. Gentleman's requests about the railways dispute and the possible sale of BNOC's assets. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will admit at once that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has been anxious to keep the House informed on the railway dispute, and I have no doubt that he will wish to continue in that way.
Mr. David Steel: When does the Leader of the House intend to table the motions for the debate on Monday 19 July on Supply procedure? When he does so, will he bear in mind his responsibilities as Leader of the House to the House as a whole? In particular, will he safeguard the right of those 58 hon. Members who are members of the Opposition but not of the official Opposition?
Mr. Biffen: I hope to be able to table the motions by the end of this week.
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, there has already been a debate in the House on the Select Committee's report. My predecessor gave his views on the topic to which the right hon. Gentleman refers and my views are close to those.
Sir Paul Bryan: Has my right hon. Friend noted early—day motion 531 about overseas students' fees?
[That this House welcomes the report of the Overseas Student Trust as a basis for an enduring policy for overseas students' fees; recognises its recommendations as a responsible balance between British interests and obligations, and the needs of overseas students; urges Her Majesty's Government to accept in particular the recommendation that students from British dependent territories should pay the home level of fees thus removing the anomaly by which a student from, for example, Hong Kong or the Falkland Islands, can be asked to pay up to 12 times as much for a course as a student from the European Economic Community; and supports the proposal that concessionary levels of fees should be considered for Cyprus.]
It has been signed by no fewer than 150 hon. Members on both sides of the House. In view of the great interest in the subject, will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate before the recess?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am sure that he appreciates that the Government, in the form of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, pays tribute to the quality of the report. I cannot guarantee Government time for such a debate. It is the kind of topic that is eminently suitable for discussion on the Consolidated Fund.
Mr. Charles R. Morris: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early—day motion 580?
[That this House, deeply concerned to achieve balanced economic growth throughout Great Britain, and believing that the proposed massive expansion of Stansted Airport would produce unjustifiable urban growth and congestion in North West Essex and East Hertfordshire,
462
calls upon Her Majesty's Government to opt now for a policy which, while providing for a modest increase in activity at Stansted, subject to a fixed ceiling, would place the greater emphasis on taking all possible steps to expand the use of provincial airports to meet demand in the region of its origin, the case for which has been well documented and shown to be financially viable by various groups, notably the North of England Regional Consortium.]
The motion, signed by 120 hon. Members on both sides of the House, seeks to promote the interests of regional airports in preference to the establishment of a third London airport at Stansted. Bearing in mind the volume of support in the House for an early end to the inquiry into the Stansted airport proposals, will the right hon. Gentleman give undertaking that an early debate will take place on the issue?
Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman is one of a posse of distinguished advocates of the virtues of Manchester airport. I think that he will appreciate that there are difficulties about having the kind of debate that he proposes when there is still a detailed inquiry taking place into the Stansted proposals.
Sir William Clark: Now that the Megaw report has been published, and in view of the wide public interest in the subject of civil servants' index—linked pensions, will there be a debate before the recess on the Scott report, which is now 18 months old?
Mr. Biffen: I would be happier saying that I hope that it will take place this Session rather than before the recess.
Mr. John Roper: I refer to the business next Monday week. Will the Leader of the House accept that hon. Members understand why the days for debating defence this year are so close together? Will he try to ensure in future that they are more fairly spread throughout the year?
Mr. Biffen: I accept at once the inconvenience that has been caused. On the other hand, it was not just a matter of procedure. There was the whole question of the difficulty of having debates taking into account the Falklands problem.
Mr. David Ennals: Does the Leader of the House recall that several weeks ago I raised with him early—day motion 342?
[That this House expresses its concern at the slaughter of 200,000 baby seals in Northern Canada and, bearing in mind that the United Kingdom is one of the largest importers of seal pelts, welcomes the resolutions passed overwhelmingly by the European Parliament (160 votes to 10) on 11th March calling for a ban on the importation into the European Economic Community of all skins and products derived from young harp and hooded seals and on products coming from seals whose stocks are depleted, threatened or endangered; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government not only to accept this proposal at the Council of Ministers but also, following the example of the United States of America, France, Holland, Italy and Sweden, to take action itself to introduce such an import ban as soon as possible.]
The motion has now attracted over 300 signatures of Members on both sides of the House. It concerns the importation of certain types of seal skins. The right hon.

463
Gentleman showed an interest when I raised the matter. Can he assure me that a positive statement will be made before the House rises for the recess?
Mr. Biffen: Since then, we have had a debate. Admittedly, it arose on the Adjournment, but it was nevertheless a debate. The Minister had to answer many of the questions implicit in the motion.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have published an exceptionally interesting, important and controversial White Paper in response to the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. This raises matters that many of us regard as being among the most fundamental and important that we discuss in the House. How soon may we have an opportunity to discuss the report and the Government's response?
Mr. Biffen: I should like to consider as sympathetically as I can the issue that my hon. Friend raises. With all the sympathy that I can muster, I cannot say that there will be a debate next week.
Mr. Donald Coleman: Has the Leader of the House seen early—day motion 602?
[That this House fully supports the joint shop stewards committee of British Steel Stocksbridge and Tinsley Park in their endeavours to make sure that the replacement for the 'Atlantic Conveyor' is built in a British shipyard and made from British steel, and requests the Government to pay compensation to the owners of 'Atlantic Conveyor' on these conditions.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement by the Government requiring that the replacement for the "Atlantic Conveyor" should be made of British steel and that it should be built in a British shipyard? Does he agree that the statements by the chairman of the Cunard company seemed to indicate failure by the Daily Express to promote the spirit of patriotism to which it seems to have devoted itself?
Mr. Biffen: I shall resist the temptation to answer the second part of the question. The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is one of great validity. I should have thought that it was particularly suitable for consideration in the debate on Wednesday.
Mr. Neil Thorne: Does my right hon. Friend remember my early—day motion 232?
[That this House believes that those who have been convicted of an indictable offence, other than a traffic offence, for which a term of imprisonment is an option open to the sentencing judge, should be ineligible for jury service for a period of 10 years.]
Has he seen recent reports in the Daily Mail referring to Mr. John Luck, a frequently convicted criminal who alleges that he served on the jury at Snaresbrook Crown court? In view of the scandalous behaviour of Opposition Members serving on the Administration of Justice Bill Committee in blocking the action necessary to revise the conditions of jury service, will my right hon. Friend provide an early opportunity for a debate on the matter?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises an important point about qualification for jury service. Many hon. Members will regret that it has not been possible to incorporate the provisions to which he refers in legislation which is before the House. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home
464
Secretary has this matter very much at heart and that he will be considering what may be done in the next Session of Parliament.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate next week on the major topic of the day, the rail strike, especially as the Government are backing the British Railway s Board which appears to be acting as poodle on behalf of the Government to the tune of being provided with £9 million a day to save an alleged £1·5 million in a full year of operation of new rostors? Should not these arguments be deployed by the Government? Is it not pressure from the Government that has brought about the strike? Should they not be accountable to Parliament through a debate?
Mr. Biffen: I have already said to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that I will refer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport the interest that has been shown about a statement being made.
Mr. John Stokes: In view of the exchange that took place yesterday during foreign affairs questions, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate before the recess on the work of Members of the European Assembly so that we in this House may evaluate the work of those Members and of the Assembly?
Mr. Biffen: That is a most intriguing subject for debate. I must confess that there is no time available for it next week. It is possible that we shall again debate European affairs before the recess when my hon. Friend could perhaps make his speech.
Mr. Joan Evans: Has the Leader of the House given further consideration to the request made to him by hon. Members on both sides for a debate on disarmament to coincide with the United Nations special session on that subject? Although the right hon. Gentleman has suggested that it can be discussed during defence debates, this is not entirely satisfactory, although he is presumably recommending that the matter could be raised on the Army, Navy and Air Force Estimates.
Mr. Biffen: I think that is true. In the defence debates so far, a number of contributions have been made precisely on the question of where controlled disarmament should take place. Given the grave shortage of Government time, I cannot hold out much hope for a separate debate.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: When my right hon. Friend arranged next week's business, was he aware that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would be revealing this morning that exports of cheap subsidised food to Russia in 1981 exceeded 3 million tonnes, an all—time high? The figure compares with 2 million tonnes in the previous year and less than 1 million tonnes in the year before that. The announcement coincided with information released this afternoon that there has been an alarming reduction in the average consumption per household of meat, butter and milk. Does my right hon. Friend not think it would be right to have an early debate on the cost of food?
Mr. Biffen: No, I was not aware of that. Next week's programme is saturated with very important business. My hon. Friend can pursue the topic that he raises in a free enterprise fashion on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Mr. Les Huckfield: As the British Railways Board has lost in each of the past three days the same amount of money as it might gain by the introduction of fully flexible rosters over the next three years, and as the Secretary of State for Transport has already made an announcement outside the House which will affect fundamentally the future of British Rail's finances, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is about time that the Secretary of State for Transport told the House about it?
Mr. Biffen: I do not accept the implication that my right hon. Friend has been negligent in his duties to the House in respect of the dispute. However, as I said to the Leader of the Opposition, I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the anxiety that a further statement should be made.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a Minister from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to make a statement in the House next week about Professor Pinder Wilson, the eminent archaeologist, who was detained and subsequently imprisoned by the Afghan regime? He should inform the House of the action that the Government are taking to obtain the early release of this distinguished archaeologist, who has made a great contribution to his profession.
Mr. Biffen: I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary the matter that has been raised by my hon. Friend. I know that anxiety about it is not confined to him.
Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's encouraging reply to the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), may I take it that, because the Select Committee on European Legislation &c. has made a positive recommendation and the matter is urgent, we shall be debating the proposals for unitary elections to the European Parliament?
Mr. Biffen: I was not aware that so innocent a reply as mine could open up such chasms.
Mr. John Silkin: In view of the discussions between the Secretary of State for Defence and Mr. Ian Sinclair of Australia about the future of HMS "Invincible", will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Defence makes a statement to the House on that matter before the Royal Navy debate next week?
Mr. Biffen: I am not sure that my right hon. Friend will have anything to report as soon as that, but I shall draw his attention to the matter.

Social Services (Steering Group's Report)
3.51 pm
Mr. David Ennals: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"today's report of the Expenditure Steering Group for Personal Social Services".
The matter is urgent because decisions must be taken soon on proposals involving the slashing of local authority social services by 9 per cent. in 1983–84 and up to 12·8 per cent. in 1985–86, with catastrophic consequences for the most deprived people in our society. The issue could hardly be more specific since the cuts will involve the loss of 11,000 residential places in old people's homes, 3,300 places in children's homes, 1,400 places in homes for the mentally handicapped, 80,000 meals on wheels and 70,000 home helps. The consequence will be a cut of 28,000 jobs in social services departments.
If that is part of the new post—Falklands spirit, it is deplorable and should be stopped but should be debated.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) gave me notice before 12 noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"today's report of the Expenditure Steering Group for Personal Social Services".
I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said. As the House knows, I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reason for my decision. I must rule that the right hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Falkland Islands Casualties (Burial)
3.53 pm
Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have for written answer on the Order Paper today question No. 50 which asks whether the Prime Minister has yet made a decision about bringing back the bodies of Servicemen killed in the Falkland Islands. I would have expected a written answer to the question later this afternoon, but at 3.35 pm there was no answer on the board.
However, The Standard today has the front page headline:
"Our war dead to come home".
It also says:
"Families can choose where burials take place—Maggie".
The report states:
"The bodies of British servicemen killed in the Falklands war and buried on the islands will be brought home for reburial in all cases where this is the wish of the next of kin."
However, I draw attention to the next sentence:
"Mrs. Thatcher was telling MPs of the decision this afternoon."
Although I welcome the decision that the Prime Minister has apparently made, I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on whether Members of Parliament who table questions should obtain answers to them before the press gives the information to everyone else in Britain.
Mr. Speaker: First, the hon. Gentleman did not give me notice of his point of order. Secondly, I never comment on the contents of Ministers' replies—
Mr. Robertson: I have not had a reply.
Mr. Speaker: —although I gather that that is not the burden of the hon. Gentleman's complaint. I cannot comment as long as the question is on the Order Paper. If the information gets out elsewhere, I cannot comment on it.
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I, too, am
468
distressed about what I read in the newspaper. Until a few moments ago, my worry was that I might have been asked that question orally, knowing full well that a written reply would be given. I had prepared exactly what I would say in those circumstances. It is remotely possible that the report is speculation, because letters arrive frequently at 10 Downing Street and at the Ministry of Defence. However, I am sorry that it has occurred, especially when we were meticulous not to reveal anything beforehand. I shall try to find out precisely what has happened.

Members of Parliament (Dress)
3.56 pm
Mr. Robert Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that considerable expense was incurred in providing the Chamber with air conditioning. Do you agree that it is appropriate that hon. Members should dress in a way that befits hon. Members and that they should wear jackets and ties?
Mr. Speaker: That is the custom in every Parliament.

Business of the House
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply), the business of Supply may be anticipated by the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Falkland Islands Review and that the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on that Motion; and if proceedings on that Motion have not been concluded at the expiry of Three hours after they have been entered upon, any Amendments which have been selected by Mr. Speaker may thereupon be moved, the Questions thereon shall be put forthwith and Mr. Speaker shall then put the main Question; and that thereafter the business of Supply may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour and any Motion for the Adjournment of the House made during such proceedings shall not lapse at Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Falkland Islands Review
3.57 pm
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I beg to move,
That this House approves the decision of Her Majesty's Government to set up a Falkland Islands review as announced by the Prime Minister in her reply to a Question by the right honourable Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, on 6th July 1982.
Mr. Speaker: I have not selected any amendments.
The Prime Minister: As early as 8 April, I announced in reply to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that there would be a review of the way in which the Government Departments concerned had discharged their responsibilities in the period leading up to the invasion of the Falkland Islands.
Since then, although a few have argued that it is not necessary, there is widespread agreement that a review of some sort should be conducted and that there should be prior consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of other opposition parties in the House who are Privy Councillors. It would be fair to say that the consultations led to broad agreement on the nature, scope and composition of the review.
Accordingly, I set out the form of the review and its terms of reference in my reply of Tuesday to the Leader of the Opposition, and I welcome the opportunity to explain to the House today the reasons why the Government have decided to appoint a Committee of six Privy Councillors to conduct the review and to give it the terms of reference set out in my answer to the right hon. Gentleman.
I wish to deal in turn with the nature of the review, its scope and its composition. As to its nature, the overriding considerations are that it should be independent, that it should command confidence, that its members should have access to all relevant papers and persons and that it should complete its work speedily. Those four considerations taken together led naturally to a Committee of Privy Councillors. Such a Committee has one great advantage over other forms of inquiry. As it conducts its deliberations in private and its members are all Privy Councillors, there need be no reservations about providing it with all the relevant evidence—including much that is highly sensitive—subject to safeguards upon its use and publication.
A Committee of Privy Councillors can be authorised to see relevant departmental documents, Cabinet and Cabinet Committee memoranda and minutes, and intelligence assessments and reports, all on Privy Councillor terms. Many of these documents could not be made available to a tribunal of inquiry, a Select Committee or a Royal Commission.
The Committee will also be able to take evidence from any Ministers or officials whom it wishes to see, and I hope that former Ministers or officials and others who may be invited to assist the Committee will think it right to do so.
There are several precedents for a Government setting up a Committee of Privy Councillors to look into matters where the functioning of the Government has been called in question and sensitive information and issues are involved.
470
I will refer to just one. A conference of Privy Councillors was established in November 1955 to examine security procedures in the public services as a result of the defection of Burgess and Maclean. The results of the inquiry were reported to the House by the then Prime Minister on 8 March 1956, although he stated that it would not be in the public interest to publish the full text of the report or to make known all its recommendations.
In the case of the present review, information made available to the Committee whose disclosure would be prejudicial to national security or damaging to the international relations of the United Kingdom will need to be protected. The Government will therefore suggest to the Committee that it should seek to avoid including any such information in its main report which is to be published, and that, if it needs to draw conclusions or make recommendations which, if published, would entail the disclosure of such information, it should submit them to the Government in a confidential annex which will not be published.
In the last resort the Government must retain the right to delete from the Committee's report before publication any material whose disclosure would be prejudicial to national security or damaging to the international relations of the United Kingdom. But I very much hope that the arrangements that I have just described will make it unnecessary for the Government to do that. However, should it be necessary I can give the House the following assurances.
First, the Government will make no deletions save strictly on the grounds of protecting national security or international relations. Secondly, Ministers will consider any proposals for deletions individually and critically and will accept such proposals only on the grounds I have specified. Thirdly, the Chairman of the Committee will be consulted if any deletions have to be proposed. The fact that the Committee would know what deletions had been made from its report offers the best assurance to those who might believe that the Government would try to make unjustified deletions.
Nevertheless, I repeat that it is the Government's aim to present to Parliament the report of the Committee in full.
So much for the nature of the review. I turn now to its scope. First, geographically, it includes the dependencies—that is, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Secondly, the review will be directed to the events leading up to the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands on 2 April. If these events are to be fairly viewed, they must be seen against the background of negotiations, actions, intelligence and other assessments over the years. For that reason the terms of reference given to the Committee empower it to take account of all such factors in previous years as are relevant.
For this purpose the Committee will need to have access to any relevant documents of previous Administrations, as well as to documents of the present Administration. I have consulted Mr. Harold Macmillan, my noble Friend Lord Home, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), and they have agreed that the Committee should have access to the relevant documents of their Administrations, subject to the following conventions, which are consistent with what has been done in the past.

471
First, documents will be made available to members of the Committee by virtue of their being Privy Councillors and solely for the purposes of this review.
Secondly, any member of a previous Administration who is invited to give evidence to the Committee will be able to exercise his normal right to see documents which he saw as a member of that Administration.
Thirdly, serving and former officials and members of the Armed Forces invited to give evidence to the Committee will be able to see documents which they saw as advisers to Ministers on matters covered by the review.
Fourthly, documents of previous Administrations will not be disclosed to members of the present Administration or to any other persons not entitled to see them.
Fifthly, documents made available to the Committee, and any copies made of those documents for the use of members of the Committee, will be returned to the Departments from which they came as soon as they are no longer required for the purposes of the Committee's review.
Sixthly, it is understood that the Committee may need to describe in its report the gist or purport of documents made available to it, so far as that can be done consistently with the protection of national security and the international relations of the United Kingdom. But no part of Cabinet or Cabinet Committee documents or other documents which carry a security classification may be reproduced in the Committee's report or otherwise published without the agreement of the Government and that of the former Prime Minister of the Administration concerned.
So that there is absolutely no misunderstanding on this point, I repeat that no member of the present Government can or will see any documents of any previous Administration unless he or she, himself or herself, was a member of such an Administration and is entitled for that reason to see those papers.
There is one other procedural matter on which I should say a few words. Although it will be for the Committee itself to determine its own procedure, it will be suggested to the Chairman that should the Committee wish to criticise any individual it should, before incorporating that criticism in its report, give the person concerned details of the criticism, and an opportunity to make representations, orally or in writing. At that stage the Committee would have to decide whether to allow the individual concerned to be legally represented.
Even though the review will be conducted in private, it is important that individuals should not be inhibited in giving evidence to the Committee through fears of making themselves vulnerable to criticism which they may think unjustified and which they might not be given an opportunity of rebutting before the Committee.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Prime Minister has outlined a massive amount of work for the Committee. Will she tell us about its staff? Are they to be drawn exclusively from the Cabinet Office and the Civil Service, or may members of the staff be brought in from outside?
The Prime Minister: The staff of the Committee are being provided under the leadership of the Home Office. The Home Office civil servants have not been connected either with Foreign Office work or with Ministry of Defence work, but they have been accustomed to handling
472
intelligence. It seems right and proper to make arrangements for them to provide the secretarial assistance to the Committee
Finally, I turn to the composition of the review—the membership of the Committee.
Mr. Andrew Faulds rose—
The Prime Minister: I shall, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, be replying to the debate this evening and will hope then to answer arty questions that have arisen. Does the hon. Gentleman still wish to persist?
Mr. Faulds: Is it intended that the inquiry should be free to examine the political advisability of the Prime Minister's recent exercise in the South Atlantic? That is very important.
The Prime Minister: The Committee will act within its terms of refere ace as it construes them. The terms of reference are:
"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."
Judging by the distinction of those who have agreed to serve on the review, I think that we can leave them to interpret the terms of reference as they think best fitted to the discharge of their duties.
I come to the membership of the Committee. As I announced in my reply to the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday, Lord Franks has agreed to be the Chairman. I know that that choice is acceptable and indeed welcome to those whom I have consulted. Lord Franks will bring an unrivalled breadth of experience to the work of his Committee, and we are fortunate that he is ready to take on the task.
As I also announced on Tuesday, the other members of the Committee will be my noble Friend Lord Barber, Lord Lever of Manchester, Sir Patrick Nairne, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and my noble Friend Lord Watkinson. The Queen has been graciously pleased to approve that Sir Patrick Nairne be sworn a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition proposed the names of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South and Lord Lever. I hope that the House will share my view that a Committee with this membership gives us the best possible assurance that the review will be carried out with independence and integrity.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Does the right hon. Lady agree that there might be an outside impression that this coterie is comfortable, conservative and clubable, as there is no female member on the Committee? Do only males understand war and its events? Why does not the right hon. Lady appoint someone suitable from her own sex to the Privy Council such as Mary Goldring, who might bring in an outside view, away from the claustrophobic atmosphere of Westminster and Whitehall?
The Prime Minister: All those concerned with choosing those who should be on the Committee have been anxious to select people who have the right experience, sagacity and integrity to conduct the review. I believe that that is how it will be seen outside.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not keep interrupting. The Prime Minister has not given way, as far as I know. Is the Prime Minister giving way?
Mr. Bob Cryer: Of course she is.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister can speak for herself.
Mr. Dalyell: The Prime Minister is a lawyer. Is there not a case for having either an international lawyer or a Queen's Counsel on the Committee? Is there not a case for having someone representing the view of what one might call the awkward squad?
The Prime Minister: My noble Friend Lord Barber is a distinguished lawyer, who practised for many years. Lord Lever is also a barrister. They will be well able to sift the facts from the opinions and to make a judgment upon the evidence and not upon the imagination.
The Committee must be given the time it needs to carry out its work thoroughly. But the review also needs to be completed as quickly as possible, and it is my hope that it can be completed within six months.
I have confined my comments to the setting up of the review, because that is the subject of the motion. We are not concerned today with the substance of the events that led up to the invasion of the Falkland Islands. That is for the review itself and for the debate that will follow publication of the Committee's report. I hope that hon. Members will welcome the review, and I commend the motion to the House.
4.14 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: Since a review of the matter that we are debating was first raised in the House and outside, the Opposition have taken a view about the way in which it should be approached. We have believed from the beginning that there should be an inquiry or a review. We have believed that it should be directed predominantly to the events leading to the invasion at the beginning of April. We have believed that it should be reasonably swift in making its report to the House and the country. We have believed that the review must be likely to secure general support in the House. In particular, we have believed that the House should support the way in which the final publication of the review is to be made.
I shall respond to the Prime Minister's remarks. I shall say how far we think those requirements that we have always thought to be right have been fulfilled and how far we may proceed along those lines. The House would be wise to accept the Government's motion, and I shall give the reasons.
Major constitutional questions are involved in the establishment of a Committee of this nature. If in any quarter of the House there were any doubt on such a point, the possibility of misunderstanding was removed by the intervention of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) a few days ago when he gave a fine display of his customary perception and bonhomie. In the manner in which he presented his case he showed that there was an important background to such reviews and that we should examine it carefully. In the main, I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman implied in his intervention. Important constitutional matters are involved. I do not seek to minimise them. The speech by the Prime Minister showed that she, too, accepted the importance of those constitutional questions.
474
There is the question of rummaging in the pigeon holes and other places where the work and deliberations of previous Governments may be found. I agree with what the right hon. Member for Sidcup implied. It would be an inhibition to good government if every incoming Administration were to spend considerable time examining what the previous Administration did, with special access to matters that the previous Administration had been most eager to keep quiet. That would not assist the processes of good government, although I know that some people think that that would be advantageous. In centuries gone by that was the practice of British Governments.
At the beginning of the eighteenth century incoming Governments spent a considerable part of the beginning of their period in office drawing up the measures of impeachment or Bills of attainder that they wished to make against their predecessors. No doubt they had good grounds to do so. I am not saying that any such possibilities have evaporated now.
In the early part of the eighteenth century a great barrier was placed against the way in which the Government conducted their affairs. Over a period, particularly in this century, not by any precise enactment—that does not make it any worse under our constitution—but by the general usage of Cabinet Government, there grew up the practice that Governments should not have access to the documents of their predecessors. That is a good rule. If it is to be abandoned, it should be done so only if there is a clear statement of proceedings, in circumstances that are fully understood.
There remains the issue that the right hon. Member for Sidcup underlined in his intervention—ministerial responsibility in these matters. If the proceedings of previous Governments are ransacked, ministerial responsibility to the House will be injured. I strongly favour sustaining ministerial responsibility. It is essential to parliamentary government. Ministers should not be allowed to shelter behind the claim that civil servants have offered them incorrect advice. They should take absolute responsibility for what they say. That principle could be injured if matters are not dealt with in the scrupulous way that the right hon. Gentleman suggested.
Civil Service responsibility may arise in the inquiry. Civil servants are not necessarily absolved from the advice that they give. Ministers who accept advice must take responsibility for it, but, in an incident such as this, it is right that the advice, suggestions and propositions about a course of action that a civil servant may have suggested should be examined. I do not refer to civil servants in any one Department, although I noticed that the Prime Minister was diffident about clearing the Foreign Office a little earlier. I hope that she will be a little more generous as we proceed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—Because I favour being generous to everyone if I can—even the Foreign Office.
We are debating a matter of great concern to the whole country, as was demonstrated by the debates on 2 and 3 April. We are concerned to a considerable extent about the type of intelligence that was provided for the Government and what judgment was made on it by both Ministers and civil servants. There is no absolution for Ministers in the proposed inquiry. If we are to use any information that may be discovered about the failures of the intelligence service, it will involve civil servants. The matter must be examined. It is one of the central features of such an inquiry.
Mr. Robert Adley: As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it is not necessary, when considering the way in which the Government reached their decision, to compare the present decision-making process with previous decision-making processes. How is that so?
Mr. Foot: I am not suggesting that. I agree with the terms that the Prime Minister proposed and the interpretation that she placed upon them in her speech. I am not suggesting that there should be no comparisons between what happened on this and on previous occasions about the interpretation of intelligence. The Opposition have no desire, nor did we when we were in Government, to suppress, circumvent or hide information. The more the report brings the matter into the open, the better we shall like it and the better will be the service done to the nation.
I have not heard the right hon. Lady's statements on the rights of individuals who may be charged or accused or whose conduct may be criticised by the report. I was gratified to hear that they will have the right, prior to the report being published, to see what is said about them so that they will have an opportunity to comment. I assume that they will also be able to present their own views to the inquiry.
I have heard much in the past about various forms of tribunals of inquiry. I participated in some of the debates after which we set up the inquiries into tribunals of inquiry. We set them up because grave injustice had been done to individuals in many tribunals. It was the overwhelming opinion of the House—certainly on the Labour side—that there must be protection for people in those circumstances. Should anyone question what I say, they should examine the debates on the inquiry after the Vassall tribunal, for example, or earlier ones. People were implicated in inquiries at which they did not have the chance to defend themselves. Gross injustice was done to some of them. Some were excluded or driven from public life as a result of charges that they had not seen before they were published in newspaper headlines. I am opposed to British citizens, even if they are civil servants or in the Foreign Office, being subjected to that type of trial. The inquiry may have presented a different picture. Therefore, I warmly welcome what the right hon. Lady said.
It may be thought that inquiries are always to be approved and that they always have been. That is not so, partly for the reasons that the right hon. Member for Sidcup hinted at in his intervention and partly for others. The House has rejected the idea of inquiries on important occasions. In the main, the Opposition have always supported them. In circumstances of great national concern such as this, we have consistently argued for such inquiries. I warmly welcome the fact that the right hon. Lady and the Conservative Party now accept the necessity for an inquiry in present circumstances. It is a conversion. I say that as one who, together with my right hon. and hon. Friends, for many years argued for an inquiry into the Suez fiasco. There has been no such inquiry from that day to this. The Falklands crisis was solved by a considerable military success, but what preceded it cannot be called a diplomatic success.
It is wise for the House to have learnt about these matters. The Suez catastrophe led to the loss of British lives. This country's reputation was injured and great damage was done to our international affairs. That is why the Labour Party, with the Liberals of those times, pressed
476
hard for an investigation into Suez. I am glad that there has been a conversion. It would have been much better for the country if it had listened to what the Labour Party said on the matter some 20 or 25 years ago.
Sir Anthony Kershaw (Stroud): If the Opposition are so keen on inquiries now, why was there no inquiry into the invasion of Cyprus? That invasion was widely expected when the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were in Government. They refused any inquiry or information.
Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed. There was a Select Committee on the matter, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) played a most distinguished and independent part. He was not silenced in any way. The Committee revealed many facts that were of great importance to the country. There was no suppression of the inquiry. We are now to have the type of inquiry that best suits the present circumstances. That is wise.
Mr. James Callaghan: Is my right hon. Friend a ware—I am sure that if he charges his memory he will recall it—that not only was there an inquiry, but the Foreign Secretary of the day and his officials appeared before the inquiry and gave evidence?
Mr. Foot: My right hon. Friend shows how unwise I am to give way to Conservative Members and how wise I am to give way to my right hon. and hon. Friends I shall follow that principle for the rest of my speech.
Sir Bernard Braine: The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) is a great parliamentarian. Would he consider it proper that the inquiry should investigate whether, in the course of this unhappy affair, the House of Commons was deceived? I refer particularly to the fact that, in undertaking diplomatic talks with representatives of the Argentine junta, Ministers but not Parliament were aware that among some 15,000 people who had disappeared in Argentina itself, most of whom must now be presumed dead, there were also British subjects. Should not that information have been conveyed to Parliament, and would it not have been justification for calling off talks with the Fascist junta?
Mr. Foot: I fully accept w hat the hon. Gentleman says. I only wish that greater attention had been paid to the disgraceful state of affairs in Argentina at that time. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) must also be more careful, because he was one of those who opposed an inquiry into Suez. I welcome his conversion. —[Interruption.]—I have been so forbearing that I did not mention that the right hon. Member for Sidcup was Chief Whip at the time. Such matters, of course, cannot be overlooked.
The inquiry will deal with a serious and important matter, and it will be of great benefit to the country if the matter is probed in the way in which the House is determined that it should be. I believe that the names of those appointed to the Committee are the guarantee that that will be so.
Mr. Douglas: I in no way impugn the integrity or excellence of the people chosen but this is a House of Commons matter. Will my right hon. Friend therefore give us some idea of the criteria on which he chose those representing the Labour Party?
Mr. Foot: I wish to carry my party with me on this matter. I realised that in picking two names out of such a comprehensive selection I might involve myself in some difficulties. I think that is better for us to consider the two who have in fact been selected. I am sure that all Labour Members will have absolute confidence in the two people selected to perform this important function.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is always eager to ensure that the "awkward squad" is properly represented. I can assure him that, if he had been a member of the last Labour Cabinet, he would know that my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Lever qualifies for that appellation better than anyone else in the country, rising even to the high standards of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian.
As I have said, the inquiry will investigate extremely important matters. I believe that it should be conducted speedily. If there is any difference in emphasis between me and the right hon. Lady about the way in which she presented this matter to the House, it is on timing. I do not believe that the inquiry need take six months. I believe that the work could be completed considerably more speedily and that it would be better for the country and the House and for those who wish to judge these matters that that should be so.
For the rest, I believe that what the right hon. Lady has proposed is right and that the House would be wise to support it. I emphasise what she said, and what we have always understood in our discussions, about the fullness of the report to be made to the House and to the country. That is an absolute requirement, but I do not believe that there has been any difference between us on that.
Mr. Cryer: My right hon. Friend has put forward the names of two Privy Councillors. Does he accept that people may get the impression, first, that those representatives are in a minority and, secondly, that if the entire membership of the inquiry consists of Privy Councillors, who are thereby close to the Establishment, the necessary zeal to pursue the inquiry may be lacking? There seems to be an undercurrent to the effect that only Privy Councillors can be entrusted with a task of this kind, which is plainly not true.
Mr. Foot: I am not making any reflection upon those who are not Privy Councillors. Indeed, I have my eye on my hon. Friend as a prospective Privy Councillor at some later stage. Until the convention is changed, there are certain qualifications that Privy Councillors have to sustain and to which they must subscribe. That is why I believe that in these circumstances it is wise to choose them, but I repudiate entirely any suggestion that the two spokesmen who will be there on behalf of the Labour Party will not prosecute these matters with sufficient zeal and independence. Of course they will. Moreover, as I understand it, in a case such as this they retain the right to make their own independent assessment and to produce their own report if they so wish. It does no service to the country to suggest that the inquiry will in any sense be conducted by a coterie. It will be conducted on behalf of the House of Commons. That is why I ask the House to vote for it now. I believe that it is the right course to take and that the House should give its confident support for it.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I do not know whether it was a slip of the tongue. My right hon. Friend said that the inquiry was being conducted on behalf
478
of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister may claim that that would be the effect, but, constitutionally, it is clearly being set up by the Government for the Government to edit at their discretion.
Mr. Foot: I do not accept that. If that had been the case, the first requirement that I laid down and on which we have always insisted throughout our discussions would not have been fulfilled. If the Prime Minister had said that she intended to set up a Committee on this without securing the approval of the House, that would have been an error. In the circumstances, the House has the opportunity to decide whether it wishes the inquiry to proceed on this basis. I believe that that is the right way to proceed. The House of Commons has the opportunity to state its view. If my hon. Friend is saying that the whole nature of the inquiry must be changed to ensure that the Prime Minister's position in such a matter should be abandoned in accordance with precedent, I do not agree. We have asserted the right of the House to judge the matter. No service is done by suggesting that an inquiry of this kind, on which some of my right hon. Friends will serve, will do anything other than seek to carry through the task that the House wishes it to fulfil.
Having watched events in the past months since the beginning of the Falklands crisis, I have been reminded occasionally of a scene in Victor Hugo's book, "Ninety-Three", in which a sailor lets loose a great battering ram against a ship. When it looks as though the ship will be destroyed by it, by a skilful piece of agility and manoeuvre at the last minute, he manages to prevent it from doing the fatal damage. I sometimes see the Prime Minister as the heroine of that scene. The hero in the book was first decorated and then shot. I believe that that would be a proper way to apportion responsibility. I speak, of course, in political and electoral terms.
I welcome the inquiry. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will support it. I believe that the report may be of great consequence for the country. It may help us to avoid the terrible errors that landed us in this crisis. It may also help to sustain the vigilance with which the House of Commons exercises its rights over the Executive.
4.39 pm
Mr. John Peyton: After the undertaking given by the Government at the start of the Falklands expedition, I can see that the inquiry is inescapable. I agree that, if we are to have one, its terms of reference and the form that it is to take are the least undesirable.
In this country we are habitually given to a great preoccupation with the past. That frequently clouds our interest in the future. We should reflect on who is likely to benefit from this inquisition and who is likely to be injured by it, both individuals and the nation. A collection of wise and venerable men will make their services available. I hope that they will bear in mind that such inquisitions can have a damaging and dampening effect upon discussion. They tend to make Ministers cautious, officials careful, records scarce and discussion shallow. They must be careful that attention is not diverted from what has been magnificently achieved by raking over the ashes.
I hope that I shall be forgiven if I refer to some of those in my constituency who have made a notable contribution. The Harrier pilots were mainly based there. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will agree that the

479
families of those who were killed in action should not be unduly prejudiced by their irreparable loss. The Westland helicopters played an important role in the prodigiously successful campaign.
I hope that the inquiry will remember the danger of hindsight when considering the difficulties that confronted those who took part in the events that led to the rape of the Falkland Islands by Argentina. I hope it will not be deceived into making the same facile use of hindsight as have so many of the Government's critics.
I recall the doubts that I had at the outset of the campaign. I wondered whether it was wise for us to take such a huge risk, whether such a military expedition was feasible under such appalling conditions, whether we should keep the staunchness of our friends—our friends stood by us magnificently, although no one had high hopes of Mr. Haughey, and such high hopes would not have been justified—and whether our resolve and determination would survive, not only the long delays and uncertainties, but the inevitable grim toll of casualties.
I hope that the inquiry will consider carefully how many of the Government's accusers, both inside and outside the House, are immaculate. There is a danger that its report may become a fertile quarry for those who habitually scavenge for material that can be used to discredit their country.
I do not believe that there are many countries—given the events of the past few months—that would turn their backs so readily on what was done on our behalf and indulge this passion for raking over bitter ashes. Easy and plausible arguments can be adduced for holding such inquiries, but I believe that the longer-term consequences of such exercises are damaging.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the investigations into the conduct of the generals in the First World War had a profound effect in changing attitudes to military tactics in the Second World War, thereby saving lives? It was demeaning to those who were the subject of the inquiry, but it was surely right that it should have taken place.
Mr. Peyton: The parallel is not exact and I do not wish to take up the time of the House by going so far back into history. I believe that such exercises can easily do far more damage than good. I fear that that is likely to be the case with this inquiry, even given the wide reservations that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has placed on the Committee's powers.
4.47 pm
Mr. James Callaghan: The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has only this is in his favour: previous such inquiries, going back to the Crimea, and even before, have rarely produced a satisfactory answer. That is not the only point with which we are involved, and I differ from him in his conclusions.
Once the task force had been despatched, I was not willing either to give comfort to the Argentines by showing that there were differences in the House or to make our men, who were steaming towards the Falklands, feel that there was disunity here. I believed that it was right that criticism of the Government, which I had expressed before, should be suspended, but only suspended. I do not believe that it would be right to ignore entirely what took place before the task force set sail. My view is shared. I
480
am influenced by the voluminous correspondence that I have received from the public on this matter. I do not recall receiving such a volume of correspondence for many years, and certainly not since I was Prime Minister—and a Prime Minister, of course, always receives a great deal of correspondence. There is a real feeling of shock and alarm among the public, if my correspondence is representative. I shall be happy to supply any part of it to the inquiry to show why the issue should not be allowed to trickle on and dwindle away without an answer.
It came as a shock to the British people that Britain should find herself at war with another sovereign State for the first time for at least 30 years, that all three Services of our Armed Forces—the Army, Navy and Air Force—should be involved and that when battle was joined many lives should be lost, men wounded, some maimed for life, and aircraft and ships lost, all at immense cost. We cannot brush all that to one side.
In addition, two senior Cabinet members resigned and a third member of the Government, a junior Minister, resigned. Another member of the Cabinet, the Secretary of State for Defence, offered his resignation. It was refused by the Prime Minister on the ground that his Department was not responsible for policy, which pointed the finger clearly at the Foreign Office. But the Prime Minister has an overall responsibility for everything that takes place. However, when she gave that reply in her letter to the Secretary of State for Defence, I do not believe that she was implicating herself.
All those matters have alarmed public opinion. The gallantry and professional skill of all our men in the South Atlantic have not washed away the alarm and doubts. They should be resolved now. Hence the need for the inquiry, which has been conceded—almost volunteered—by the Prime Minister. I assume that she shares at least some of the views that I hold about why those matters should be inquired into.
I have read suggestions that the inquiry should make a long and leisurely investigation into affairs over the previous 20 years. I do not know whether such reports are accurate, but the Prime Minister's emphasis in the terms of reference is different.
Mr. David Ennals: While my right hon. Friend is dealing wiht the question of the Ministers who resigned, I recall the former Foreign Secretary's statement that the matter had been a great national humiliation. Are not Lord Carrington and the others involved entitled to hear the inquiry and its conclusions? Is not an essential part of the inquiry to give them an opportunity to explain the circumstances and not just to point an accusing finger?
Mr. Callaghan: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made that point clearly. Lord Carrington and the others are entitled to have their explanations and actions fully examined and to make what reply they can; then, as the right hon. Lady said, if it is thought that injustice is being done to them, to have the opportunity to comment. A similar proposition was put by my right hon. Friend when he was Leader of the House on the question of the commission of inquiry to follow the Bingham report. I believe that the precedent has been correctly followed by the Prime Minister today.
I believe that hon. Members are entitled to offer guidance to the inquiry on what people are anxious about.

481
It will start with a blank sheet. The point in the correspondence that I have received can be summed up in one general but central question. Nearly every letter comes back to the question whether a prudent Government should have taken more positive and firmer action at an earlier date to forestall an invasion. That is the central issue with which the inquiry should concern itself.
It is generally put to me that more positive action would have been to have had sufficient force on hand early enough to anticipate an armed attack. The test of firmer action is important. I start from the belief that the junta would not have invaded had it known what our response would be. I cannot prove that, but I believe it strongly.
When the Government were finally convinced that an invasion would take place only a matter of days before it happened, they were incapable of getting men, ships, aircraft and other equipment to the area in time. What action did they take? President Reagan was approached by the Prime Minister. We read in the press that she had several conversations with him. I have no doubt that she put her point with great urgency. We understand that President Reagan urged Galtieri not to invade the Falklands. That was the action of a friend. Indeed, President Reagan had other interests to consider in Latin America.
Did the Government convey to General Galtieri, or ask President Reagan to convey to Greneral Galtieri, that in the event of an invasion Britain would not only protest peacably but would use armed force to retake the islands? That is a central question. I never had any doubt about what we would do. I was certain that we would send the task force. Although I was not in the House on that famous Saturday, I was certain about that. We all know our instincts. The Prime Minister is not the only patriot in the House. There are 635 of us. We all knew that that would be the instinctive response of the Government and the House, but did Galtieri know that we would send a task force to retake the islands? If not, the Government are open to grave criticism.
In considering whether the junta understood what our reaction would be, the inquiry will also want to consider the events involving HMS "Endurance" and the proposal by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) to consider transferring sovereignty of the Falkland Islands to the Argentines, subject to a leaseback arrangement. What signals were those? What was the junta supposed to conclude from such actions? To what extent did the Prime Minister endorse the offer of a transfer of sovereignty to Argentina with a leaseback arrangement, or did the hon. Gentleman make the suggestion on his own account when he was discussing the matter with his opposite number? [Interruption.] I have no hesitation in saying that I have a fixed view. I would be unfit to be a member of the inquiry. I would not have offered myself; in any case, I was not asked! Until my dying day I shall never get out of my head the belief that, as I said on the day that the task force sailed, this was an unnecessary war. I hold the Prime Minister responsible for what took place.
Sir Hugh Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman should go back a little further and explain why his Government failed to build a military airfield on the Falkland Islands in 1977.
Mr. Callaghan: I fear that that was a question of expenditure, and we did not do so. But I am prepared to go over all those matters in detail.
Mr. Edward Rowlands: The present Government did not do so for three years.
Mr. Callaghan: As my hon. Friend says, nor did this Government.
Mr. Peyton: I hope that in addition to saying that we must not brush the affair aside the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what benefits he expects to flow from the inquiry.
Mr. Callaghan: I am not sure that the Prime Minister will learn much from the inquiry, but I hope that she will. We need a new Government if we are to develop a better manner of conducting our affairs. [Interruption.] I am not playing games. I feel very deeply about this, and I have a right to do so.
The Labour Government decided to have discussions about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, beginning on 13 December 1977. Because we did not know what form those discussions would take, we decided to make our analysis of what might happen. We did so. It was our belief that the Argentines wanted, naturally, a peaceful transfer of sovereignty, but if there were no prospects of real progress towards Argentine sovereignty there would be a risk of a resort to forceful measures, including direct military action against British shipping and the establishment of an Argentine presence on the dependencies, especially South Georgia, in addition to the scientific station already on Southern Thule.
We also believed that there was the prospect of some private venture activity on one of the dependencies, possibly South Georgia, and that if that took place the Argentine Government would be under such pressure from public opinion that it would have to follow it up. There was internal pressure on the Argentine Government at that time to divert attention from their internal problems.
As a result, we took legal opinion on whether we could establish an exclusion zone of 25 miles. We worked out rules of engagement, authorising a challenge to Argentine ships coming to within 50 miles of the islands to declare their intention. We decided that "Endurance", which the Ministry of Defence wanted to withdraw, should not only be kept on station but should be refitted.
We sent my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) to the talks that began on 13 December, but we made certain that on that day there was a naval presence off the Falkland Islands to strengthen his hand in the event of a breakdown in the talks leading to our beliefs being fulfilled.
That was what the Labour Government did. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked questions about this recently, the Prime Minister's response was to hurl across the Dispatch Box—"sneer" is the correct word—that if a Labour Government had been in power we would not have fired a shot. I tell the right hon. Lady, if we had been in power we would not have needed to.
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), I remind him that the terms of the motion before us are whether we should have an inquiry.
5.5 pm
Mr. Raymond Whitney: I welcome this opportunity to comment on the terms of the inquiry, which is a matter of great public concern. Although serious problems have been raised about the mechanics of the inquiry and the constitutional issues, it is essential, for the political health of the country, that the air should be cleared and as many facts as possible relating to previous years brought out. It is important for the country to know whether it has been adequately served by all the Government agencies that have been involved in this sad adventure.
Some years ago I was involved in the Falklands and in Argentina. I offer to the House a few thoughts to justify the Committee's taking account—it is eminently qualified to do so—of all relevant factors from previous years. It is not enough to recognise the facts of the three months that led to the events of 2 April.
I give two or three examples to justify that assertion. We have heard a great deal, in our debates and in the press, about Argentine press comments in January, February and March of this year. It is impossible to make a fair judgment and analysis of the significance of such press reports in Buenos Aires newspapers unless comparisons are made with similar flurries of tension over the previous 10, 15 or 20 years.
Some years ago there was an incident which became known as the "Cronica landing". Cronica is a Buenos Aires newspaper. It sponsored and paid for the landing of an aircraft on Port Stanley airstrip. At that time, to put it mildly, tempers were running high and the apprehensions of those concerned in the British Government, and elsewhere in the world, were intense. Therefore, if an examination is conducted into press comments during the past few months, a comparison must be made with what happened on previous occasions.
Another matter that received considerable prominence recently—the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) made some mileage from this—was the comments of the present captain of "Endurance". In a television interview some days ago he said that when the "Endurance" visited Ushuaia in January he found a certain coolness in the atmosphere, which worried him. It is important that the inquiry should establish the amount of alarm that was sounded in the reports that he sent back to the Government on that occasion.
It is also important for the inquiry to consider other incidents in the past—remembering, of course, that the present captain of "Endurance" was not the captain at the time. I believe that the present incumbent has held the post for about 18 months. The inquiry should recognise that in 1976 "Endurance" was forbidden to visit Ushuaia. There was a period of heightened tension on that occasion.
Lord Franks and the Committee of Inquiry should also take into account an occasion in earlier years when shots were fired across the bows of the research ship "Shackleton".
Those examples—and I can offer many more—suggest that it would be inadequate to look only at the events of this year. It is essential to go back a long way. That will, in many ways, be regrettable, because of the understandable difficulties about constitutional propriety, but the composition of the Committee and the terms of reference announced by the Prime Minister will ensure that
484
none of us need have any fears about those constitutional issues. We can all be confident that they will be handled properly.
It is not for me or any other hon. Member to prejudge the outcome of the inquiry, but I should like to offer one thought. Things often go wrong in life, and there is no doubt that they went badly wrong over the Falklands. However, sometimes they go wrong, not because of some immense miscalculation, moral turpitude or fatal inadequacy of any particular individual or even a particular service, but because of a blind and determined refusal by countries to face realities. For reasons that we shall no doubt explore, even after the Committee has reported, it just may be that our two countries, and we in this House, refused to face realities.
If there is telephonic communication between two people and the individuals concerned do not have their ears to the handset, it is not much good blaming either the instrument or the wires that connect them. If this is a case of deafness between two countries, the way to wisdom is to restore the connection, to make sure that the deafness is removed and that our ears go back to the handset. That is the sort of lesson that we should learn.
The inquiry must not be turned into a political dogfight. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) talked about the country not forgiving. I doubt whether he would disagree with my view that the country will not forgive if this issue is turned into a political dogfight. After the brilliant courage and heroism that have been shown, the nation and this House must rise above that.
5.13 pm
Mr. Roy Jenkins: The responsibility for not turning this issue, on which there has been a substantial measure of national unity, into a party political dog-fight rests on both sides of the House and on all parties, including the Government. That must be carefully borne in mind in the future.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), and not with the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) that an inquiry is necessary. However, I share some of the views of the right hon. Member for Yeovil about the unhappy history of inquiries of this sort, partly because they are inquiries into unhappy affairs. That is not the only reason, and I shall return to it in a moment.
As the Prime Minister probably recognises, an inquiry has always been part of the bargain. It was understood that there should not be criticism during the operation while British lives were at risk, but that she would agree to the fullest inquiry as soon as the operation was concluded. It has been satisfactorily concluded, and we are all grateful for that.
The Prime Minister indicated that view in reply to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grirnond) as early as 8 April. In that reply, she talked about an inquiry into the work of Departments. I think that she had that in her mind until quite recently. That would have been a mistaken approach, because what is involved is not merely, or even primarily, Departments but the responsibility of Ministers and the Government as a whole. It is wrong to pretend that Ministers or the Prime Minister herself can distance

485
themselves by talking about Departments and inquiries into Departments. If we did that, we would get ourselves into a dangerous constitutional position.
I do not wish to pursue that point too far, because the terms of reference are now about right. They are approximately what they should have been all along—principally to tell us what went wrong in the runup to the Argentine invasion on 2 April 1982.
I wholly accept that it is appropriate for the inquiry, if necessary, to look back for purposes of comparison or clarification. It would be reasonable, if it judged it right, for the inquiry to bring together a review of the facts about successive attempts at negotiation. However, I believe that they are already very much more in the public domain than what happened in the immediate run-up to 2 April. I do not think that there is any great obscurity about those negotiations, but, if there is, let the cloak of obscurity be lifted and let us see absolutely clearly what happened—indeed, back to 1967 and intervening times. Let us see what happened when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who was then at the Foreign Office, nearly brought off a settlement in 1980. Still more relevantly, let us see what happened in the negotiations in New York conducted by the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce).
None the less, let us be absolutely clear that the central point at issue is why an invasion was allowed to take place on 2 April 1982. It is not why an invasion did not take place on a limitless number of occasions in the past. It is no good pretending that there is an equality of status between non-events and events.
As to the composition of the inquiry, the Chairman is a good choice. He is certainly a man of outstanding ability and experience. He has been criticised for having some Foreign Office connections. I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) about the Foreign Office. In any event, Lord Franks was very much a non-Foreign Office ambassador to Washington as long ago as 1949, and his only connection with the Foreign Office was that for four years he prevented a Foreign Office official from getting that highly coveted job nearly 30 years ago. I do not think that that amounts to a disqualification. Lord Franks is admirably qualified, not least by being a member of the Liberal Party, having taken the Liberal Whip in another place for a number of years.
I turn to the politicians, because Lord Franks is not a politician. [Interruption.] Perhaps I should say that he is not primarily a politician. I doubt very much whether the Prime Minister would have appointed him Chairman had he been so.
Everybody can produce his favourite or non-favourite list of politicians. I notice that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) has put forward an alternative list. We can all argue about that, but, however it is done, I see no way of avoiding the fact that under a whipping system the representatives of the two major parties are chosen by the Government and Opposition Front Benches. I make no point about that.
Sir Patrick Nairne, the sixth member of the inquiry, is a former civil servant. He was an outstanding civil servant. At one time I worked closely with him and found him to be a man of great power, decision and effectiveness. He will be a useful, perhaps outstanding, member of the inquiry. However, I take issue on one thing, and,
486
surprisingly, I partly agree with one or two of the hon. Members—not hon. Friends—who sometimes share this Bench below the Gangway in such neighbourly proximity.
I have no objection to Sir Patrick Nairne being made a Privy Councillor on the ground of his services to the State, which are great. However, there is a danger of making a fetish of Privy Councillorhood. It does not make great sense to pretend that a man's discretion and sense of secrecy cannot be trusted if he is not a member of the Privy Council, but if he is made one it is absolute. People who are not Privy Councillors, such as permanent secretaries in the most sensitive Departments, receive information of great secrecy. Staff will have to be appointed to this Committee who will be members of the Home Office who are certainly not Privy Councillors and whose discretion will need to be absolute.
Mr. J. Grimond: In his capacity as historian and not politician, can the right hon. Gentleman throw any light on when this custom concerning Privy Councillors grew up? Is it of recent origin that no one can speak to anyone who is not a Privy Councillor, that they are the only people who can be trusted to keep a secret, and that it is only when one is 70 or so that one is respectable enough to become a Privy Councillor?
Mr. Jenkins: It is fairly recent, although I hesitate to speak with absolute authority. The Prime Minister referred to a precedent from 1955, but that was specifically a security inquiry. The two inquiries that were rather similar to this one, those into Mesopotamia and the Dardanelles, were not confined to Privy Councillors and there was no suggestion that they should be so confined.
It is a curious concept that a man has a different sense of responsibility to his nation if he is a Privy Councillor than if he is not. As far as I can recollect, part of the Privy Councillor's oath may be more honoured in the breach than in the honouring, for it is hardly the case that if ill is spoken of another member of the Council it is never passed on unless disclosed to him in Council. [HON. MEMBERS:"Order."] What are we talking about? We do not live in a world of secret societies in which we should not know even what oaths people are bound by.
Mr. Dalyell: As one who was twice Home Secretary, is the right hon. Gentleman happy that the talented civil servants of the Home Office should exclusively provide the crucial staffing? Is there not a case for having some members of staff who are from outside lawyers' offices, the academic world or the trade unions?
Mr. Jenkins: That is a point for the hon. Gentleman to make himself, which I am sure that he can do with great power. I am satisfied that, from my experience of the Home Office, there are people there who are fully capable of discharging the responsibility that is here involved.
The history of inquiries has not been an inspiring one, and it is difficult to say that a wholly satisfactory formula has emerged over a substantial period. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East referred to the Crimean war inquiry. That was conducted by the whole House sitting as a Committee of inquiry. I doubt whether anyone would propose that that should be done for this inquiry. All hon. Members were not made Privy Councillors for that.
There was the Jameson raid inquiry, about which the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) is

487
a considerable expert as the biographer of Joseph Chamberlain. That was a Select Committee of 15 members, but with the Minister whose conduct was principally at issue playing a great part in appointing the Committee, drawing up terms of reference and sitting on the Committee together with three other members of the Government, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General. The Leader of the Opposition also sat on the Committee, but that did not prevent Joseph Chamberlain, it is generally assumed, from withholding three vital telegrams. Thus, that, too, was not a good example of how the truth should be arrived at.
Mr. Christopher Price rose—
Mr. Jenkins: There was then the Marconi Select Committee which, by sheer partisanship, devalued the whole concept of Select Committees. For the inquiry into the Dardanelles and Mesopotamia we had a different form not too dissimilar from that which is here proposed, except that members were not all Privy Councillors. The House added certain members and later added the right to send for persons and papers, which was not in the original resolution. The House also made the resolution rather more precise that it was previously. That, too, is not a particularly good example.
The Mesopotamian inquiry led to the resignation of Austen Chamberlain, who probably ought not to have resigned, although perhaps his father should have resigned 20 years before. The Dardanelles inquiry is not judged by historians to have led to any very close approach to the truth. Certainly Sir Winston Churchill did not accept it. Following that, because of the reaction against the Select Committee, we had the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. I am unaware of the form set out in that Act having been usefully used in any proceedings similar to that with which we are here concerned. Probably its most notable use was the Lynskey tribunal, which had great disadvantages.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East referred to the recent proposal for a Committee, rather similar to this one, following up the Bingham inquiry. That was passed by the House of Commons, rejected by the House of Lords and died between two Governments. Thus, we do not have a vastly inspiring record, and it cannot be pretended that a perfect formula has been worked out.
Various amendments have been tabled which you have not called, Mr. Speaker, including one from the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), which deals in great detail with points relating to confidentiality of the papers of previous Administrations. My impression was that that was largely covered by the qualifications that the Prime Minister set out in her opening statement. Those propositions seem to me to make good sense and to strike about the right balance between the needs of proper investigation and those of adequate confidentiality.
There is need for a certain degree of confidentiality in Government. The Prime Minister said the other day that she was attached to the 30-year rule. I do not necessarily go as far as that. There is nothing sacrosanct about 30 years and it may well be changed in the future, as the 50-year rule was changed. On the whole, we are moving towards rather more open government, not least in the Cabinet of the right hon. Lady. Rarely have we heard more from within an Administration about what went on in the Cabinet, about what Ministers think about each other and
488
what the right hon. Lady thinks about Ministers individually from time to time. [Interruption.] We have the precedent of certain diaries, but they were published a few years after events, although nothing like 30 years after the event. That is different a few days after the event. However, a degree of confidentiality in Government is essential. We should lose a great deal without that.
I deplore the attacks made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield upon the Foreign Office. If officials could not allow their minds to play around a problem—I am not talking about exercising executive responsibility—and offer Ministers advice without feeling that they would be pilloried subsequently, we should lose a great deal. One human freedom that is important in Government, even for Ministers, is the right to change one's mind in private. If that freedom were removed, we should find that more wrong decisions were stubbornly stuck to than if Ministers are allowed to take a tentative view of a subject, then have another look at it, with free advice from officials acting honestly, and then decide that it is perhaps better to proceed in a different way.
There is much to be inquired into. There is much that we need to know. We do not have a perfect formula for inquiries, but this seems about as good as we can get in the present circumstances. I hope that the inquiry will get on with its work expeditiously, fearlessly and frankly. In my opinion, six months is the maximum—it may be even too long—but certainly it should not be allowed to go on longer than that. We wish it well in its work, and we look forward with interest to its report.
5.30 pm
Mr. Humphrey Atkins: This is, I think, the first occasion since last Friday on which the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) has addressed the House. Perhaps I should congratulate him, at any rate on filling the Opposition Benches below the Gangway with slightly unusual and in some ways more agreeable faces than one normally sees there. I was particularly interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman describe the distinguished Member of the other House who takes the Liberal Whip as not being a politician. We shall have to see how relations between the two parties develop.
I shall detain the House for only a few minutes. I am one of those into whose activities before the events of 2 April the Committee that is being set up will inquire. I very much welcome the setting up of this inquiry. As the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said a few minutes ago, on 2 April the House and the country had a very disagreeable shock. No one likes an unpleasant surprise. The immediate reaction of all of us when we have an unpleasant surprise is to say, first, "Why was l not warned?" and, secondly, "Could not something have been done to stop it happening?" That is what the country is asking, and that, I suspect, is what the country will want this inquiry to discover.
However, there is one flaw—a completely unavoidable flaw—in any inquiry or other body that can be set up by the Government, this House, or in any other way in this country, and that is that it cannot question General Galtieri. It takes two to make a bargain, and it takes two to make a quarrel.
The inquiry can—and I hope will—delve deeply into everything that happened in this country. It can review the decisions of Ministers. It can scrutinise the advice given by officials to those Ministers. It can study the messages

489
sent to this country by our representatives overseas. It can peruse the intelligence reports—and I shall return to that matter in a moment. It can investigate the liaison between Ministries and Departments in this country. All those things it can do. What it cannot do is to assess accurately the impact of what we did here on the Argentine President, the junta, the generals, admirals and air force officers, or whoever it was who took the decision to invade on 2 April.
Obviously, what we did—or did not do—here had a powerful effect, because the Argentines did invade. That, as we all now know, was a reckless decision which caused considerable loss of life, led to a humiliating surrender and an enormous loss of material and an even greater loss of confidence in that country's leadership. But what led it to take that decision? Was it because it thought that it would have an easy victory? Did it perhaps take an outside gamble to distract attention from pressing problems at home? Or were there other considerations?
Many people, with or without axes to grind, have already given their opinions. I have no doubt that over the next weeks and months many more will give their opinions. But do they know? No, they do not. Will this inquiry know? I have to say that I doubt it. Nevertheless, as I said, I am certain that it is right to hold it, and I welcome the motion before us, which sets it on its way.
I am more than ready to give the inquiry every help that I can, and I hope that its report will produce lessons for the future. The inquiry may or may not apportion blame. That is for it alone to decide. However, I venture to suggest that if it can point out ways in which the Government machine in this country, from Ministers down, can be made to work better and minimise the chance of this kind of thing ever happening again, that will be the best service that it can render its fellow citizens.
If I may say so, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has got the terms of reference of the inquiry exactly right. Most people are interested in the events of the weeks and months leading up to 2 April, and no doubt the inquiry will concentrate mainly on that, but it would be wrong to attempt to confine the inquiry to an arbitrary period. It may well be—in my view, it is almost certain—that events before the beginning of this year had a powerful influence on what happened.
The most extreme example of that is that in 1965 the United Nations passed a resolution calling on this country and Argentina to discuss together our difficulties and settle them. It may be that the passage of 17 years, without any real noticeable progress, led to a gradual build-up of resentment in Argentina which may have created almost irresistible pressures. It may be that something else done before 1982 caused the Argentines to make up their minds about their course of action. I do not know, but it is clearly right to empower the inquiry to pursue this or other points if, in its judgment, they are relevant.
It is also right—indeed, essential—that the inquiry should be able to see every document having a bearing on the matter, including the most sensitive and secret of all, the intelligence reports. The motion before us does not state precisely that it can do that, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spent a good deal of time spelling out the precise terms on which the inquiry will operate. I am delighted that the inquiry will be able to see everything that it needs to see. The whole proceeding would be futile if it could not do that.
490
The necessity to do that places some restriction on the number of people who can serve on the new body. I take a rather different view from the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead about Privy Councillors. I believe that there is a compelling reason for believing that the discretion of Privy Councillors can be trusted, and that is because they take an oath. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I pay some attention to the oath that I took, and the fact that I took that oath on becoming a member of the Privy Council weighs heavily with me, as I think it does with most others.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: I of course pay great attention to that. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not saying that had he not been a Privy Councillor, and had be been required to deal with highly secure matters, as he may well have done in the Department before becoming a Privy Councillor, he would have been careless about the information with which he was dealing in the interests of the State.
Mr. Atkins: I like to think not, any more than the right hon. Gentleman would have been careless before he became a Privy Councillor. However, the fact that somebody has become a Privy Councillor and is known to have taken the oath means that outsiders can place reliance upon him.
I place reliance upon those who have been chosen to conduct the inquiry. I rely not only upon their discretion, but upon the way in which they will approach their task. It is my belief—hon. Members may challenge it if they wish—that Privy Councillors, bound by the Privy Council oath, will have the necessary credibility outside the House. Two of the members are unknown to me, but their reputations speak for themselves. I am as confident in them as I am in any of the others.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend resisted the temptation to appoint a judge to the inquiry. It is not that I do not have the highest respect for Her Majesty's judges, I do, but this is not an inquiry for a judge. There is no justiciable issue. There is a great need for an understanding based on experience of how the Government machine works. Without such knowledge it would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to know the right questions to ask. If the right questions are not asked, the right conclusions will not be drawn and the right lessons will not be learnt.
I am glad that the inquiry has been proposed by my right hon. Friend. I hope that the House will support the motion before it tonight and that the inquiry, once it is under way, will proceed with all possible speed.
5.41 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: I greatly welcome the opportunity for the House to debate this subject. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said, I hope that we shall be able to give some guidance to the members of the inquiry before they begin their task.
I greatly welcome the fact that there seems now to be general agreement that there should be an inquiry, although I do not agree with the terms and some of the details of it.
I welcome the privilege of being called to speak in the debate, particularly as I am the first Labour Member to be called who is not a Privy Councillor.

491
I welcomed the opportunity of participating in the debate on 3 April. On that occasion, amongst other rather more controversial remarks, I said that everyone, except the United Kingdom Government, seemed to know that the Falkland Islands were to be or were in danger of being invaded by the Argentines. That is becoming increasingly clear.
We now know that the captain of HMS "Endurance" warned that the Falkland Islands were in danger of being invaded. We know that even Mrs. Madge Nichols was worried about the Falkland Islands being invaded. We also know the kind of dismissive reply that the Prime Minister gave to Mrs. Madge Nichols. I asked the Prime Minister how many other people had written to her expressing concern about the withdrawal of HMS "Endurance". She said that she could not provide that information because it would cost too much. That she was not willing to spend some money and to give her staff time to discover the extent of the opposition to that withdrawal does not bode well for the inquiry.
I welcome the scope of the review that the Prime Minister has agreed to institute. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) seems to have misinterpreted the scope of the inquiry. Under pressure from my right hon. and hon. Friends, it is to concentrate on the events leading up to the invasion. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition shold be congratulated on that achievement. It is only incidents previous and relating to the invasion that the inquiry will look at.
There, I am afraid, my welcome must end. I have serious reservations about the inquiry that we have heard about today. First, we must consider how the inquiry measures up to the principle of natural justice. It does not measure up to the principle of natural justice. It does not measure up very well. The Prime Minister has said that it is to review the action of Government Departments. That matter was raised by the right hon. Member for Hillhead. My understanding—the Madge Nichols letter and other evidence point in this direction—is that the actions of the Prime Minister herself must come under scrutiny.
If the actions of the Prime Minister are to be among the principal subjects of the inquiry, is it in accord with the principles of natural justice that she should choose the members of the inquiry, set its terms of reference, receive its report and finally have the power to delete any part of the report that she wishes on grounds, as she said, of national security or international relations? Those two broad grounds have been misinterpreted and misused by Governments in the past. On those tests, this inquiry does not measure up to the principle of natural justice. That is why I am unhappy.
I move with some trepidation to the membership of the inquiry. I suppose that I should not question the age, experience and distinction of the members of the Committee, particulary as I used to work for Age Concern. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) is the youngest and most militant member of the inquiry, which says a lot about its membership.
I do not question that people of experience and distinction have an appropriate part to play in the inquiry. However, there should be some people with more inquiring minds as well. There should be some members who are less a part of the Establishment. I question the myth that respectabilty, age and experience equate with objectivity. The Establishment has a self-protection mechanism. One has only to recall the way in which the
492
misdeeds of—dale I mention the names?—Philby, Blunt, Burgess and Maclean were covered up by their fellow members of the Establishment to realise that the Establishment has a powerful self-protecting mechanism.
Without criticising the individuals, I would argue that the attitude of mind, background, education and experience of most of the members of the inquiry lead them to a predisposition to defend the Establishment. Their experience in the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office will lead them to protect those who in many cases were their former colleagues—people whom they appointed and worked with.
Why is no one.—perhaps the right hon. Member for Hillhead came nearest to doing so—arguing strongly that we have now set up a system of powerful and, I hope, experienced Select Committees? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] My fellow members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs agree with me. The Defence and Foreign Affairs Select Committees have already agreed to set up their own inquiry into the circumstances leading up to the invasion. There will be problems in that regard.
Mr. Christopher Price: At least the Select Committee into the Jameson raid, which the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) was criticising, was able to take evidence in public. One member, Henry Labouchere, made a minority report which put on the record what happened. If the Prime Minister were to give evidence to a Select Committee, whether some matters have to be sidelined or not and whether it is in public or private, at least far more would be made public than with the present inquiry.
Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has experience of getting to the bottom of some of these matters.
I am surprised, for example, that the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee are not arguing that their Committees, which they chair with great distinction and experience, should deal with the matter. They have experience of interrogation. They have experience of the two Departments and of Ministers and of officials appearing before them. They seem appropriate Committees. In the United States, a Senate Foreign Relations Committee would be dealing with the issue in public with the Executive appearing before it. We would be all the better for that.
Mr. Anthony Grant: As a fellow member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, who has perhaps not such a grandiose view of its ability and experience compared with the distinguished members of the inquiry, I invite the hon. Gentleman not to overlook the fact that the Falklands inquiry, composed as it is of Privy Councillors—whether one likes it or not—will have access to material that would not be available to our Select Committee. Does he agree that any inquiry by the Select Committee would inevitably go off at half-cock and would be much more second rate than what is proposed?
Mr. Foulkes: I have considered that important point. I understand from the Clerk to the Select Committee that special arrangements have been made in the past for both the Defence and Foreign Affairs Select Committees to see and to read privileged, confidential and, in some cases, even more highly classified information as part of their

493
exercise. I am sure that can be done without the necessity of swearing in people as Privy Councillors. I have no wish to be included with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) as a candidate for the Privy Council.
Mr. Cryer: It was not my wish. It was the response of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) in a highly jesting manner. The point I made was that all the members of the Committee are recipients of patronage, which puts them right in the middle of the Establishment.
Mr. Foulkes: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made it clear that it is not his desire to be a Privy Councillor. I am also glad that he made the second point, which is important. I agree with the right hon. Member for Hillhead. I do not know what magical transformation occurs when the oath is taken that makes someone who was dishonest before into an honest man or someone who was honest before into a dishonest man.
I am glad that the Prime Minister is to reply to the debate. I did not gather from her introduction what pledge of action she was giving about the inquiry report. I have expressed my reservations about the power of deletion. The right hon. Lady seemed to talk a great deal about deletion. She did not give any indication of what action would result from the report. I hope that she will tell us how the report will be made to the House and what will be the procedures to enable the House and the Government to take action upon it. This may seem a technical matter. I know, however, that my hon. Friends who serve on the Select Committee are anxious to be made aware of exactly what will happen. So many reports, not just of Select Committees, but of other inquiries have gathered dust with no action arising from them.
I have made clear my reservations. I know that I am not alone in having serious doubts about the independence of the inquiry and the confidence that it will command in the House and in the country as a whole. Two of the criteria that the Prime Minister set herself in establishing the inquiry were that it should be independent and that it should command confidence. On both counts, it is seriously wanting.
5.54 pm
Mr. Edward Heath: The Prime Minister reminded us that it was on 8 April, three months ago, that she told the House that there would be an inquiry into the Falklands affair. I am sure that my right hon. Friend was absolutely right not only to make that announcement but to make it so early after the start of operations.
I am one of those who believe that the inquiry is necessary, for a number of reasons. It is necessary in fairness to my right hon. Friend Lord Carrington and to the two other Foreign Office Ministers who resigned. It is necessary to enable hon. Members, once the inquiry has been approved, to concentrate their minds on the other great issues that face this country instead of pursuing constant trails of what happened before or during the invasion of the Falkland Islands.
It is also necessary in order to try to remove some of the bitterness, anguish and heartbreak of those who lost relatives in the war and of those who have been injured. So far as I am able to ascertain, no one in my constituency was directly affected. Like the right hon. Member for
494
Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), I have received letters from all over the country from those who have been deeply affected and are obviously puzzled and sometimes very bitter about what happened before their own sons or relatives were subjected to all the risks and hazards of war. For those reasons, I believe that it is right to have the inquiry.
I do not share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) that the inquiry is flawed by the fact that it is unable to summon General Galtieri before it. In foreign affairs we have constantly to make decisions affecting other countries and affecting international relations without being able to cross-examine those concerned on the other side about their motives or intentions. We have to form our own assessments and our own judgments. With great respect to my right hon. Friend, this Committee will have to do that, assisted by seeing the papers and being able to invite those concerned to give evidence before it.
This brings me to the nature of the inquiry. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who interrupted the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when he said that this was a parliamentary inquiry, is right. It is not a parliamentary inquiry. It is not a parliamentary inquiry in the sense that following the publication of the Bingham report the then Attorney-General of the Administration of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East put a motion before the House, which was clearly a case of the House setting up its own inquiry and establishing its own procedures. This is an inquiry established by the Government, for which they are asking approval. The plain fact is that we have never succeeded in finding the perfect form of inquiry. An exchange has occurred on the inquiry into the Jameson raid and about entrusting the inquiry to a Select Committee.
If my recollection serves me right, the Select Committee inquiry into the Marconi scandal just before the First World War was the occasion of so much abuse that it led to the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 and therefore the introduction of that form of legally established tribunal. It was, I think, the Salmon commission that examined the workings of tribunals over a period of 60 years and pointed out the grave weaknesses and injustices that followed from the use of that machinery. I am prepared to accept the motion before the House to set up a Government inquiry with the approval of Parliament if Parliament decides so to approve. To judge from the debate, although some right hon. and hon. Members have reservations about some aspects of it, the great majority are prepared to approve the inquiry.
I find myself in a very difficult position in what I have to say next. I find, in the terms of reference and in the letter that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister kindly sent me, that the Government are now in agreement with what I proposed. I also find myself the recipient of compliments from the Leader of the Opposition. It is difficult, at short notice, to assess which is the more damaging to me.
I welcome the fact that the terms of reference announced on Tuesday referred to the responsibilities of the Government in relation to the Falkland Islands instead of to the responsibilities of Departments, as was previously said. I am sure that that is right. In her reply to me last Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister emphasised that one reason why the inquiry had to look back was the importance of the intelligence

495
services. These are the responsibility not of a Department, but of the Prime Minister. The budget for the intelligence services is also the responsibility of the Prime Minister.
No doubt one matter that the Committee will wish to examine is whether the intelligence services were given the necessary resources to carry on their activities properly at a time of economic difficulty. The Committee may also wish to examine the performance of the intelligence services. But when I hear from some hon. Members that it is necessary to go back over many years in order to compare the results of the intelligence services and the policies of other Governments, it leads to the question whether the present Administration, in reaching whatever decisions they took before the invasion by the Argentines, studied all the intelligence reports of the past 20 years and examined all the papers of previous Administrations and the policies that they pursued. If they did, I ask myself how they had access to all that secret information on the policies of previous Administrations. Obviously, the answer is that no Government behaves in this way.
If the Committee of Inquiry wishes to go back, we now have a procedure by which it can make comparisons. But, as was said by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), there is a severe limitation on the advantage of so doing, which is that it will prolong the Committee's deliberations.
Based on experience, I am not as optimistic about the time that this inquiry will last as some hon. Members who have spoken today. I have been reading the report of the Committee that examined the memoirs of former Ministers, a report that one would not have thought was the most difficult, lengthy or engaging of tasks to compile. That Committee took nine months to produce a straightforward and simple report. In fairness to the three Ministers at the Foreign Office who resigned, this Committee of Inquiry should do its job as speedily as possible, without, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said, our setting a time limit upon it.
I now deal wih the other matter that I raised previously—the papers of a previous Administration. I wish to comment briefly on this issue, because I am glad that the Government have now fully accepted my point of view. In the letter that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent to me, which is not confidential, she said:
"I hope therefore that you will be able to agree that the Committee should have access to any relevant documents of the Administration for which you were responsible,"
This is not a matter of courtesy. It is a matter of the constitutional practice of Parliament, which has been established since 1917, when Cabinet minutes were first kept. I am not sure that the Leader of the Opposition was accurate in his description of what happened in olden days. Of course Ministers were impeached, but not on the basis of their papers, because they either took them away or burnt them. The practice was that if one did not wish another Administration to see such papers one simply got rid of them. It is now accepted that such a practice ended in 1917.
For those who are still in doubt about the matter, I draw their attention to the Bingham report in which, as long ago as 1954, Mr. Churchill and Mr. Herbert Morrison both agreed that
"there is a general custom … that the Cabinet documents of one Government are not considered by those who are the Ministers in another Government; they are left as their own internal affairs."
That practice has been reinforced many times.
496
For those who prefer constitutional historians to the vested interests of politicians, page 274 of the third edition of Jennings' "Cabinet Government" states:
"The Ministers of one Government are not entitled to examine the Cabinet documents of their predecessors, though some of those documents (without the minutes) will be in the secret departmental files."
They are in the Department, but are not available to another Administration. I hope that the point has now been fully confirmed.
The Committee of Memoirs of ex-Ministers was chaired by Lord Radcliffe. Lord Franks was a member of the Committee and signed the report. On civil servants, the report states that the advice that they give should not be revealed during their service lifetime. That is the practice, but the report goes on:
"Successive Governments have accepted a convention that neither the views of predecessors in office nor the advice tendered to them by their departmental officers should be made available to the successors."
In January 1976, the Committee, with Lord Franks assenting, accepted that position, and I have every confidence that Lord Franks will observe it in the Committee that he will chair.
I also agree strongly with the conditions that my right hon. Friend set out this afternoon, and which were set out in broadly similar terms in the letter that she sent to me and to the other former Prime Ministers. Hon. Members have mentioned the possibility of excisions from the report when it is presented. It is customary for excisions to be made with the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of other Opposition parties. I do not know whether that was omitted deliberately or accidentally, but if excisions are to be made the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of other parties must know what has been kept out. The terms of reference and the acceptance of the responsibility of former Administrations for their documents are right.
I have great admiration for Lord Franks and the other members of the Committee. However, it is sad that the Committee does not contain a Conservative Member of Parliament. I should have thought that some Conservative Privy Councillors on the Back Benches would be suitable to serve on the Committee. As it is, the Committee consists of four members of the Upper House, one member of the Lower House and one former civil servant, for whom I join the right hon. Member for Hillhead in expressing admiration. When I was Prime Minister, he served with great distinction as head of the European part of the Cabinet Office.
I hope that the Committee will function satisfactorily and that it will pursue the main emphasis of the terms of reference that have now so obviously been shifted to this Administration, with authority to ask the Prime Minister of the day whether it may refer to earlier papers. I said last Thursday that I was willing to allow the papers affecting the Falkland Islands during my Administration to be seen by a committee of inquiry, but that the constitutional proprieties had to be maintained. That is now the position, and I am perfectly satisfied.
6.8 pm
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I believe that it was Mr. Costa Mendez who, soon after the invasion of the Falkland Islands, said that he did not believe that in the late part of the twentieth century Britain would wage a

497
colonial war in defence of the islands. That misconception may have encouraged the Argentine junta to invade the islands when it did.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that he has never had any such misconception and always believed that the Government would react by using force to repel the invasion. I was not so certain at the time—we had this disagreement in earlier debates—and it came as a surprise to me, not having attended the famous Saturday debate, that that was the uniform reaction throughout the House, with the notable exception of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes). I formed that judgment, as I said in an earlier debate, on the basis of my perception of the stance of successive Governments on the Falkland Islands. They were persuaded, because of the economic plight of the country and its present defence capability, that it would be impossible to maintain a force in the Falkland Islands that would be able to repel an invasion and to protect the rights of 1,800 people. Therefore, they came to the conclusion that the right thing was for sovereignty ultimately to go to Argentina and that the best they could do for the 1,800 Falkland Islanders was to negotiate on a basis of sincere conviction to achieve the best that they could for them.
Mr. James Callaghan indicated dissent.
Mr. Lyon: My right hon. Friend shakes his head, but that was my perception. Some Back Benchers visited the Falklands and returned full of righteous indignation about the state of the morale of the islanders who were insisting that they could never negotiate sovereignty.
We criticise the Government for entering into negotiations, but, as I understand it, the Labour Government also entered into negotiations in the hope that sovereignty could be ceded in a way that would satisfy the Falkland Islanders. If that was not the case, and my misconception was a genuine misconception, then an effective signal was not made either to Argentina or to Britain in the run-up to the present dispute. If the Government always had it in mind that sovereignty would never be ceded and that if the Falkland Islands were invaded by Argentina there would be a military response on the scale that has taken place, that should have been made clear to all concerned. It is not my perception that that was the position.
I always take what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East says as the unvarnished truth, but, with the history of the past few years, I find it difficult to believe that there has been any opposition. I wish to know from the Committee whether that was the position. Is it clear from all that was said and done by the Government in the lead-up to the invasion that they were always going to resist, even to the extent of killing people, any attempt by Argentina to take over the sovereignty of the Falklands? Was that their position? Did they take proper steps to ensure that that was made plain to the world—in particular, to Argentina?
In deciding whether the Committee will answer those questions, I have to consider personalties. There is no other way. These questions will not be answered by appointing any Committee; they will be answered only by the appointment of a Committee which will ask the right questions. Those who have said that they are satisfied with
498
the Committee believe that that will be achieved. How do we indicate the nature of our reservations in a debate such as this? We cannot go into the personal qualities of the members of the Committee or those whom we think should be on the Committee. However, having looked at the composition of the Committee, I cannot say that I am satisfied that the right questions will be asked.
I was once the parliamentary private secretary to my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Lever. I have the greatest affection for him and I rejoice in the relationship that we had when I was his PPS. I know that all hon. Members have the greatest affection for him. The House is used to making savage judgments about people, but I have never heard a savage judgment about Lord Lever because he is such an amiable man.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) described my right hon. and noble Friend as one of the "awkward squad". I agree that he has a perceptive mind but he believes and is anxious to believe the best of everyone. However, I am not sure that that is the best attitude in a committee of inquiry into the conduct of individuals.
As a barrister, I am used to trying to find out the truth about people. It was never the best tactic in cross-examination to begin by believing the best of the person being cross-examined. It was sometimes as well to take what they were saying with a pinch of salt. That is what I should like to see the Committee do.
I have referred to my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Lever, who I know will forgive me if I say anything personal about him. I do not propose to say anything personal about my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) or anyone else. The most I would say about the members of the Committee is that, with the apparent exception of Lord Watkinson, each has a close relationship not with the present Prime Minister but with a past Prime Minister. All past Prime Ministers can happily sit quietly in their seats because they have a friend at court. I believe that that represents a danger. I am not sure whether Lord Watkinson has been chosen as the Prime Minister's friend—I do not know what her relationship is with Lord Watkinson—but it may be so. Certainly, the civil servants to be questioned in the inquiry have a friend.
Those engaged on the inquiry might, through a sense of affection, friendship or links with the past want to do justice to—I would say protect—the interests of some of those whose reputations and records are at stake. That is not the right approach for an investigatory Committee.
What we need—my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) used the phrase "the awkward squad"; I would not put it as baldly as that—are people who are prepared to ask the difficult questions and to persist with them in order to ensure that they get the right answers.
Mr. Donald Stewart: I suggest that, because of friendship, members of the Committee would be so keen to prove their impartiality that they might be less than fair to those involved.
Mr. Lyon: In a wicked moment before I rose to speak, while I was thinking about what to say and how difficult it would be to say it in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East, I thought it might be

499
useful if the Government heard a cynical contribution at the beginning of the debate in order that they might overreact. Even in that situation they would not do so.
The truth is that we have a selection of people who will ensure that some of the questions are at least muffled. I say that openly not because I am in any way hostile to the membership of the Committee. If I were to choose the Committee, I would not necessarily choose those mentioned in my amendment, which has not been selected for discussion. I chose those mentioned in the amendment because they fit the criteria laid down by the respective Front Benches. They are all Privy Councillors. Lord Franks is to be the Chairman. There is one civil servant and two Labour and two Conservative Members. However, if I were to choose the members of the Committee, they would not necessarily be Privy Councillors.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that this was a parliamentary inquiry. It is not. It has been agreed by the two Front Benches. I am not criticising you, Mr. Speaker, for not selecting the amendment, but the fact that you have not means that the House has only one choice at the end of the day. We can either accept what the Front Benches have agreed or throw it out altogether. If we throw it out, there will be no inquiry. I want an inquiry, but I should have liked the House to participate in setting up the inquiry and appointing its membership. That is the most important factor in the whole issue. The House cannot find a way of selecting people for such committees. We are resistant to a system of selection that means putting forward candidates and having people canvassing for them.
You, Mr. Speaker, and I are privileged to know a method that would overcome this difficulty. You were once selected as the vice-president of the Methodist conference. I was selected too, but I turned down the invitation. We were selected on the basis that, on the first day, each person in the conference puts forward the name of a person he would like to be vice-president. Of the people nominated, the first two or three who receive most nominations are voted upon by the conference. Therefore, there is a nomination system that comes out of the grass roots. No one can canvass. That is what we want in the House. We want a system whereby the whole House can put down names. Those who are highest in the list should be selected. If there has to be a vote, there is an immediate vote to identify who should fill the position. Some such system must emerge. I am treading on delicate ground by saying that such a system would be useful in the selection of Mr. Speaker.
We in the House have no means of identifying our wishes. In the end it is the wishes of the Front Bench that count. We are not consulted. We are not privy to the decision. For that reason, I have my reservations. I hope that the Committee will be successful. I hope that it will bring out the truth, but I have my doubts.
6.22 pm
Sir Bernard Braine: It is right to hold an inquiry into the events leading up to the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands on 2 April. The nation and Parliament are entitled to know not only what went wrong but whether what happened could have been avoided. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was right. That is the key question. However, with respect, that is a reason why the inquiry cannot be
500
concerned solely with what happened just prior to the invasion, important and relevant though that may be. The Falklands tragedy did not start then. I fear that the signals that had been flashing from Britain to Buenos Aires over the past 17 years had been conveying at best a confusing message and at worst the idea that in the end the British would yield.
True, there was a dispute over sovereignty, but Britain had always made it clear that she was ready to submit it to the International Court of Justice. It was Argentina that refused. There the matter should have been left. In 1965, the twentieth general assembly of the United Nations passed resolution 2065 inviting Britain and Argentina to enter into discussions to find a peaceful way of resolving their differences. However, as our spokesman at the United Nations, Lord Caradon, told the assembly, referring to the Falkland Islands,
"the people of this territory are not to be betrayed or bartered. Their wishes and interests are paramount and we shall do our duty in protecting them."
That was the last robust statement for some years.
Since the Falkland Islanders themselves told the United Nations that they wished to remain British, the matter should have been left there. Instead, talks went ahead. The storm burst when four unofficial members of the Governor's executive council wrote on 27 February 1968 to each hon. Member of this House asking;
"Are you aware that negotiations are now proceding between the British and Argentine Governments which may result at any moment in the handing over of the Falkland Islands to the Argentines? Take note that the inhabitants of the islands have never yet been consulted regarding their future. They do not want to become Argentines. They are as British as you are. Are you aware that the people of these islands do not wish to submit to a foreign language, law, customs and culture because for 135 years they have happily pursued their own peaceful way of life, a very British way of life? Do you not feel ashamed that this wicked thing may suddenly be foisted upon us?"
Not only had there been negotiations behind the backs of the islanders but the Argentines were beginning to think that they might prevail. The distinguished naturalist, Peter Scott, who had just returned from a visit at that time wrote to The Times saying that in Buenos Aires he had found
"a general impression that any minute now, the Islas Malvinas, as they call them, will be part of Argentina."
Who had given the Argentines that impression? The crisis was debated in the House on 26 March 1968 under pressure from both sides of the House. The then Foreign Secretary Michael Stewart, speaking firmly, made it clear that there should be no doubt about our sovereignty, but that, in order to secure a lasting modus vivendi with the Argentines, it was thought right to discuss sovereignty.
Later in the same year came the bombshell of the Chalfont mission. It seemed clear to us—to the islanders it seemed certain—that an attempt was being made to change their minds by telling them, without real foundation, that if they did not do so their economic prospects were gloomy. The exercise was described by The Economist on 7 December 1968 as a sign of "sheer governmental incompetence."
The most crushing comment came from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who was then the Leader of the Opposition and in whose team I had the honour to serve as a Commonwealth affairs spokesman. At a meeting of the Royal Commonwealth Society, reported in The Times on 6 December 1968, he said:
"It was wrong and foolish to try to scare the islanders out of their loyalty to the Crown by partial and pessimistic accounts of their long-term future. It is wrong and foolish to go on discussing

501
the sovereignty of the islands with Argentina. This alarms the islanders and at the same time arouses expectations with Argentina and at the United Nations which we cannot fulfil.
The Government gives the impression to the world that it is sorry that the islanders wish to remain British. But this is a matter for pride, not for shame."
My right hon. Friend went on to say that Britain should applaud the islanders' loyalty, promise them its firm support and encourage development through private enterprise projects. Those were plain and honest words. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not mind if I say that they expressed my view, and it has never changed.
At a stroke my right hon. Friend had revealed the weakness and confusion that were passing for policy on the Falklands issue. My right hon. Friend no doubt will defend the communications agreements into which he entered when he became Prime Minister. I am not criticising this. I am merely saying that that was part of the exercise of pushing the Falkland Islanders into sole dependence on Argentina for their external air communications.
The only ray of light that emerged after those events was the Shackleton report. It was an admirable document, but it was confined to economic matters. There were no political overtones in it. It appeared in 1976 and showed for the first time that there were resources which could be developed, and that there could be a viable future for the Falkland Islanders. But it also said that it was crucial to lengthen the runway at Port Stanley
"without which any substantial new development would, in our judgment, be greatly handicapped".
Needless to say, the runway was never extended. Nor was there any hurry to implement the 90-odd recommendations of the report. It was as though such a positive report was an embarrassment, even an obstacle, to getting rid of the Falklands. When the inquiry gets to grips with its task, I hope that it will establish the true facts about that.
Mr. Heath: The treaties that were negotiated during the Government of 1970–74 when Sir Alec Douglas-Home was Foreign Secretary were negotiated in the interests of the islanders and the development of private enterprise. There could not have been any private enterprise until air and sea communications were established. The islanders then managed to get social services that they desperately needed—education and health—in Buenos Aires. Moreover, that was agreed by the great majority of the islanders.
Sir Bernard Braine: It was indeed. I was careful to say that I was not criticising the agreements. I would point out, however, that the airfield was capable of taking only relatively small aircraft from Argentina. It was unable to take larger aircraft from other parts of South America and Europe. Perhaps they were the best arrangements that could have been made at the time, but undoubtedly they increased the dependence of the islanders on Argentina.
I now turn to a serious development that made the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup against negotiating with Argentina all the stronger, and here I hope that the inquiry will ask the most searching questions. From 1975, Argentina's armed forces were engaged in war against their own people. Since then, at least 15,000 persons—it may be many more—including children, drawn from 30 nationalities, have disappeared into the prisons and torture chambers of the junta. A few of these unfortunates have reappeared and testified to the
502
horrors that they endured. The rest must be presumed dead. The disappeared have not been brought to trial or charged with any offence. Their families can obtain no information about them. There is evidence of mutilated bodies being washed up on the shores of Uruguay.
In 1980, the inter-American commission on human rights reported to the OAS, of which the United States is a member, after a visit to Argentina that serious violations had taken place affecting the right to life and personal freedom. Thousands had disappeared. Many had been killed in prison or had died from torture and other inhumane and degrading treatments. The methods of torture used were unbelievably cruel.
All that was known to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights; it was known also to Western Governments. The total unfitness of Argentina to have any hand in administering a territory inhabited by people of British stock, nurtured in our tradition of parliamentary democracy, should have been apparent to all. But it was not, save to those hon. Members on both sides of the House who had known it for years. Alas, we did not know all.
From 1976, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had known what was going on. I have also established in the past few days that the truth had been concealed from Parliament that among the disappeared were United Kingdom citizens. How is it that the British Government were prepared to enter diplomatic talks with representatives of the military junta knowing that British subjects were being held illegally, perhaps tortured, and are probably now dead?
I hope that the inquiry will ask whether when Ministers were advised to enter negotiations they were told that on 9 August 1976 Walter Kenneth Nelson Fleury, a British citizen, had been apprehended by Argentine security forces and had not been heard of since. Were Ministers told that in September 1977 Dr. Douglas Gillie Whitehead, a British citizen, born in Berwick-upon-Tweed, and his brother Deryck, born in Argentina, were seized in their own homes and have not been heard of since? I have spoken to women who were similarly kidnapped who owed their survival to the King of Spain. In 1978 he had successfully demanded the release of a Spanish woman who had been swept into the same net. She was released quickly enough and gave the names of others, who were also released and allowed to go into exile.
Why did the Government of the day not demand the release of our people as a precondition for talks? Better still, why did they not see, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup so clearly saw in 1968, that there was no case for entering into talks? At the very least, Ministers could have said that sovereignty was non-negotiable, save with a democratic Argentine Government that respected human rights. Why was that not done?
When the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) went out to Buenos Aires and the Falklands, an Argentine human rights organisation was giving evidence to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva about the appalling treatment, the torture and killing going on in Argentine prisons and military camps. Was the Foreign and Commonwealth Office ignorant of that, or was it just deaf?
One can see how, step by step, despite protests made in this House, the ambivalence in the conduct of foreign policy had disheartened the Falkland Islanders and

503
encouraged the Argentines. Is it really so surprising that the junta was prepared to take chances? Did the junta escalate its harassment because it believed that there would be no more than a token response? If so, it would not have been the first to misjudge us. The tragedy is that we did not learn the lessons of our own history in time. We should have known that it is always fatal to appease the bully and shameful to let our own people down.
I have only posed the questions. The inquiry is composed of people who are admirably placed to discover the answers. I have every confidence that they will.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you, at your own convenience, clarify your own position? Will the Franks Committee be empowered to call you in your previous incarnation as Minister of State at the Foreign Office? Whether the Speaker of the House of Commons should be subject to a Committee is a serious matter.
Mr. Speaker: I should be very surprised if it could. I am a servant of the House. No one in the land can order me around.
6.37 pm
Mr. Denis Healey: That was the final assurance that we needed to terminate the debate.
Some hon. Members seem to imagine that the Prime Minister dictated the terms of reference of the review. That is not so. I must pay tribute on behalf of the other parties in the House to the fact that she consulted all of us about the procedures, the terms and the composition of the inquiry. She made substantial changes to her original intentions.
I warmly welcome the flexibility that the Prime Minister showed in her consultations about the nature of the inquiry, and her readiness to change in a search for consensus. I hope that the widespread support that the final proposals have received will encourage her to be similarly flexible in the pursuit of consensus in other matters.
The debate has been concerned primarily with the nature and composition of the inquiry. For that reason it has been obliged to stray into the substance of matters that the inquiry must consider.
Is an inquiry necessary and should it concentrate on the responsibility of the Government in the period leading up to the Argentine invasion? There can be no doubt but that it is necessary. That must be the focus of its work.
The fact that the Argentines were able to invade the Falkland Islands without significant resistance was rightly described by the Foreign Secretary himself at the time as a national humiliation, and it led him and two of his ministerial colleagues at the Foreign Office to resign and the Secretary of State for Defence to offer his resignation. We should all pay tribute to Lord Carrington for allowing his sense of honour to dictate his resignation. He served the country with great distinction in that high office, but he was right to resign after the events which led up to the Argentine invasion. I do not believe, however, that he was solely responsible for the national humiliation that we suffered. I suspect that there were other weaknesses in the way in which the Government discharged their responsibilities. If so, they must be identified and corrected so that similar errors are not made again. That is the case for the inquiry and for its terms of reference as they finally emerged.
504
There have been questions about the people chosen to serve on the inquiry and about its procedures. It seems to me that the composition of the Committee of inquiry is dictated by the nature of the events and the errors of judgment which led to our national humiliation and the subsequent ministerial resignations.
The inquiry is bound to spend some time considering problems of intelligence. Was the information required for the proper judgment of Argentine intentions available to Ministers? I do not mean just secret intelligence through communications from satellites and agents on the ground but also information publicly available from the British community in Buenos Aires, articles in the Argentine press, statements by Argentine representatives and, indeed, the actions of the Argentine forces themselves, from the warlike preparations seen by the captain of HMS "Endurance" in Ushuaia at the end of January to the landings on South Georgia.
I find it difficult to believe that adequate information was not available to the Government. The real question is whether the information was rightly interpreted. The answer to that can only be a clear "No". The Government misjudged the intentions of the Argentines and thus reacted improperly to the way in which the Argentines behaved.
The central question that the inquiry must consider in this context is one that, I confess, perplexed me when I was Secretary of State for Defence 20 years ago. Is it right that representatives of Departments responsible for policy in the Government should have responsibility for assessing intelligence information? It is inevitable that, in assessing intelligence, highly placed members of the Foreign Office are bound to be influenced by the policy positions that they have honestly and sincerely taken in their Departments on a particular issue. I know well, as I believe that the Secretary of State for Defence knows, that it is dangerous to make an individual defence service responsible for evaluating intelligence about the opposite enemy service which may influence its position in Whitehall.
I believe that there is a strong case for separating the assessment of intelligence as well as its collection from policy Departments in the Government, as the Americans decided when they set up the CIA. Whatever its defects, it is worth recalling that the CIA was the only American agency which gave accurate information to the American Government throughout the war in Vietnam. I hope that the inquiry will look into that aspect of the matter, as I suspect that the failure to interpret intelligence correctly and to purvey the right interpretation to Ministers may derive from the way in which responsibility for its assessment is currently structured in Whitehall.
The central importance of intelligence makes it inevitable that members of the Committee of inquiry should be persons with some knowledge of how the intelligence community operates. I do not believe that it was essential that they should be Privy Councillors—as I shall explain, I think that other considerations led to that conclusion. The presence of Lord Watkinson, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and Sir Patrick Nairne—to whom I also pay tribute, as I think that he served as private secretary to about half the Ministers and ex-Ministers now in the House—was necessary for that reason.
The inquiry is also concerned with wider issues which go to the root of how foreign and defence policy should be handled. For that reason, it is essential that it should

505
include senior politicians with Cabinet experience at a high level, as will indeed be the case. In this respect, I am glad that the Prime Minister has not chosen Cabinet Ministers with recent experience in the Departments that are the subject of the inquiry. She was right to steer clear of that.
The central charge against the Government by both sides of the House has been that of unpardonable fecklessness in dealing with the Argentine threat to the Falklands in the months preceding the invasion. General Galtieri made it clear when he took office that he would use force to recover the Falkland Islands if he could not obtain them quickly through negotiation and if force could be used without serious resistance. There is a great deal of evidence for that. Lord Carrington, on the day on which he resigned as Foreign Secretary, admitted on television that the Argentines were likely to use force but that he had thought that it would come later in the year. The implications of that surprising statement will need to be explored by the inquiry.
The central question is this: given the mass of evidence that an invasion might be being contemplated, why did the Government send the wrong signals to Buenos Aires on every occasion? That cannot be denied. It was made clear by many Members on both sides of the House in raising questions about, for example, the announcement that HMS "Endurance" was to be withdrawn, the failure to respond to the extremely offensive renunciation by the Buenos Aires Foreign Ministry of the agreement on pursuing negotiations made by the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) a few days earlier, as well as in our handling of questions about the landings on South Georgia.
Another matter that must be considered is the fact that General Galtieri and Mr. Costa Mendez said on many occasions after we had reacted that they were absolutely staggered that we had reacted in that way, as they had had no reason to believe that we would. Every signal that we sent them was to the effect that we did not take the possibility of an invasion very seriously. We sent no messages of warning. Instead, we sent them armaments right up to two or three days before the invasion took place.
One reason for the difficulties into which we fell may be suggested by the fact that the Foreign Secretary, as Lord Carrington said in his television interview, was staggered by the reaction of the House of Commons in the debate on 3 April. I suspect that that is a very strong argument against the appointment of a peer to an office of such political importance—particularly a peer who has never served in the House of Commons and has never been elected to public office.
The analogies for the failure to send the right signals at the right time have been legion in recent years and all have had tragic consequences, from the failure to stand up properly to Hitler from the Rhineland to Munich to the failure of the Americans to warn the North Koreans when they withdrew their troops from South Korea without replacing them with any kind of defence commitment.
The one lesson to be learnt from recent history is that in dealing with dictators, military or civilian, one cannot afford to take chances. On the intelligence side, one cannot afford to take the easier interpretation rather than the more difficult one, and, on the military side, an ounce of deterrence can save tons of military action to restore the consequences of one's failure to react. The principles that
506
I have announced are fundamental to the conduct of any Government's responsibility for foreign affairs. The House must know why they were neglected in the months preceding the invasion of the Falklands. Nothing can reduce General Galtieri's prime responsibility for the thousand families who are now mourning their dead because of his action.
If it is shown that the United Kingdom Government failed in their responsibility to take timely action that could have led General Galtieri to abandon his plans, the Government will bear a heavy responsibility. Should that be the inquiry's finding, I hope that the Prime Minister will show the same courage in accepting its implications as Lord Carrington showed three months ago.
6.50 pm
The Prime Minister: I shall reply in the few minutes available that I believe are sufficient because of the way in which the debate has gone. The House has generally supported the proposals that the Government have placed before the House.
I thank the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) for the tribute he paid to Lord Carrington for the excellent way in which he carried out his duties as Foreign Secretary and for his supreme integrity. I listened extremely carefully to what the right hon. Member for Leeds, East said about intelligence assessment. I shall follow that up from the viewpoint of a Minister and Prime Minister. I thank him for making it clear that the consultations between the Front Benches and the leaders of other parties had been fruitful and were largely responsible for coming to the agreement that we have broadly reached.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) rather took me to task for referring initially to Government Departments in my reply to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). The right hon. Gentleman will remember that he first asked me if I
"will order an inquiry into the conduct of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in recent years and the sufficiency of the advice and information supplied to Ministers."—[Official Report, 8 April 1982, Vol. 21, c. 416.]
It was in reply to that question that I said that we would have to go wider into other Government Departments. A good deal of what was in that reply is in the terms of reference. When the answer was drafted, to me "Government Departments" obviously included "Ministers". I saw afterwards that it might be taken to be an inquiry only into officials. That is why we changed it in the final terms of reference to the responsibilities of Government.
There have been some comments about the fetish of having inquiries by Privy Councillors. I have to consider not only the integrity of Privy Councillors and others, but the attitudes of the intelligence community and maintain its confidence that it is yielding its information to people of supreme integrity. Officials are governed by the Official Secrets Act. Ministers would be, but not necessarily those people who would be on an inquiry.
If we are to continue to obtain intelligence and protect its sources—to continue sometimes to obtain it from other countries—we must be certain that we do everything possible to protect it. It was for that reason that we were naturally led to a Committee of Privy Councillors. It makes it easier to secure the consent of those who have to

507
give such consent if Cabinet minutes and documents are to be revealed to the members of the inquiry. There was never any suggestion that Cabinet minutes and documents of one Administration should be revealed to another of a different political party, or even to another Administration whose members were not entitled to see them. The question arises as to what can be revealed to those who are on the inquiry. I was naturally anxious that we should reveal as much as possible, because if the inquiry is to be charged with the duty of finding the facts it must see as much of the evidence as possible. That is why we were led naturally to a Committee of Privy Councillors
The 30-year rule has been criticised in some quarters of the House. I believe in that rule. It is a reasonable period, and if it were made much shorter we should soon find that Cabinet minutes and Cabinet Committee minutes would be drafted differently and would yield up far less information to future generations and fewer of the reasons that led us to take certain decisions.
I shall make one point about previous relevant information, although I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) put it extremely well. Other right hon. and hon. Members pointed out that a great deal of such information was already in the public domain but it is not possible to appreciate some of the decisions that were taken except by seeing them against a longer background.
With regard to a pledge of action that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East mentioned, it is a little early to talk about that before the review has even started. We shall have to see what it reports. It will have to come to the House for debate and perhaps we can take it from there.
Mr. David Winnick rose—
The Prime Minister: I must finish in three minutes.
With regard to the members of the inquiry, I have, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East pointed out, been careful to choose those who have not had recent experience in the principal Departments concerned. I take issue with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East on what he said about natural justice. I have gone to great lengths to consult with many other right hon. and hon. Members on the terms of reference and on the composition of the inquiry and its general scope. I have made it perfectly clear that I shall very rarely make deletions.
Mr. Foulkes rose—
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made a point about intelligence. I have made it my business to ensure that the intelligence and security services have had sufficient resources to fulfil the requirements placed upon them.
As has been said, there are some drawbacks to every inquiry. I am anxious that we should reveal as much as possible and I believe that this is the right inquiry to choose and that that has been endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the other political parties. I believe that it has had the general support of the House, and I ask the House to support it.
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to the Order this day.
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House approves the decision of Her Majesty's Government to set up a Falkland Islands review as announced by the Prime Minister in her reply to a Question by the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, on 6 July 1982.

Orders of the Day
  SUPPLY
  [23RD ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.
  SUPPLY

    The Army
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. — [Mr. Goodlad.]
    6.58 pm
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Peter Blaker): The Army has made great progress in the last three years. At the beginning of 1979, just before we came into office, the Army was not in the best of health. Pay was between 16 and 26 per cent. behind comparable jobs in civilian life. The Regular Army was nearly 10 per cent. short of its requirement for trained men, with a voluntary discharge rate running at about 5 per cent. Recruiting and discharge rates were getting worse. In Northern Ireland we had seven roulement major units, four of them from BAOR. Only two of the 14 infantry battalions in BAOR were able to man their establishment of four rifle companies. The Territorial Army was 19 per cent. under establishment. On the equipment side the 1st British Corps compared very badly with other corps in Germany, and no new tank was due until the end of the 1980s, if then. We were short of medium artillery. The Army was overstretched, undermanned, underpaid and badly equipped.
    I am glad to report that the patient is now making good progress. Today the Army is fully manned and the TA is less than 2 per cent. below its establishment. Pay is fully comparable. The number of men leaving voluntarily is insignificant. In Northern Ireland we have only three roulement battalions.
    In Germany we are now manning a full front-line tank strength; and the number of manned tanks has now increased by over 120, or more than 25 per cent., compared with three years ago; we have formed a ninth armoured regiment. We have trebled the number of medium guns in BAOR, and we already have the FH70 towed medium gun in service. We have increased the number of Rapier air defence equipments in Germany and the capability of our armed helicopter fleet has been improved by the introduction of Lynx with its full quota of Tow missiles.
    The outlook is that the Army will continue to gain strength. However, before I go into the ways that that will be achieved, I should like to deal with the case for our retaining a substantial Army in Germany. That case was called in question during the past week's defence debates. In doing so I am not taking sides or joining any lobby; I am simply stating the facts of life that confront any Government who address the subject.
    I want to make five brief points. First, the central front, where BAOR is situated, is the heartland of Western Europe. BAOR occupies a key sector of that front. If that front collapsed in a war the Russians could be at the Channel. It would be a very different matter having the Russians there, with all their numbers and all their armaments, even from having Hitler at the Channel ports
    510
    in 1940, and that took long enough to put right. In saying that, I do not intend to belittle the importance of other parts of the NATO front. I simply state a fact of geography.
    Secondly, there is no substitute for in-place forces. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) made that point very effectively in his speech on the Defence Estimates. We cannot be sure how much warning we would get. The Territorial Army has a vital role to play in the defence of the Continent, and it would do it well, but my hon. Friend drew attention to examples of surprise attack, and even if the British Government of the day acted with the utmost resolution and dispatch at the first sign of danger it would take a while to get the reinforcements to Germany.
    Thirdly, I ask the House to consider the possible effect if we were to reduce BAOR below the figure of 55,000 which our treaty commitment requires. It would be bound to affect the lessons which the Soviet Union would draw about our political will, despite events in Afghanistan and Poland, and in advance of any MBFR agreement. Even more serious could be the effect on our Allies.
    My hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir G. Johnson Smith), whose comments are all the more valuable, given the benefit of his experience and contacts through the NATO Assembly, is absolutely right to say that it would have a catastrophic effect on our Allies if we were seriously to entertain withdrawing BAOR. He got to the heart of the matter when he said that it would not add up in political, let alone defence, terms for us to argue that it is vital for the defence of the United States to station about 300,000 of its men in Europe but that it was not vital to station 55,000 of our Army on the Continent.
    Mr. Keith Best: On the second day of the defence debate the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), and perhaps one or two others, postulated the idea that our treaty commitment to station troops in BAOR could be satisfied with reservists rather than with the Regular Army.
    Mr. Blaker: If that is what the right hon. Gentleman said, I do not agree.
    The Belgians, Canadians and Dutch between them contribute 80,000 Army personnel to the central front. The French also maintain about 46,000 men in West Germany under bilateral agreements with the West Germans. What would be the effect of our example on them? In that context, one of my hon. Friends has said that a gap is always filled. That is not so. History is full of examples of peaceful States neglecting their defences through loss of will or wishful thinking and tempting acquisitive powers into attack. Any serious step by us to reduce BAOR could be the start of a process of unravelling NATO's main land defences.
    Fourthly, we must consider the financial factors. It would cost us far more to bring back our forces than to keep them in West Germany. We simply could not house or train them without a massive new infrastructure programme. We are talking about a possible bill for total withdrawal of about £1,000 million for barrack accommodation alone. On top there would be many other costs. Just how that proposal is supposed to produce resources for allocation elsewhere escapes me.
    This year British Forces Germany will cost under 9 per cent. of the defence budget compared with over 11 per cent. in 1979. Bearing in mind that British Forces

    511
    Germany accounts for about 30 per cent. of the total Army and RAF strengths, that underlines the real value for money of its contribution to forward defence and to our overall defence effort and collective security.
    Fifthly, it has been argued by some hon. Members that the very stability of the central front, and the fact that it has lasted for 30 years, means that we can safely make big reductions there. That is to stand common sense on its head. The stability results from the joint resolve of the NATO countries to keep a strong military presence on the ground on the central front. The success of a policy is not a reason for abandoning it.
    I turn to our plans for the Army. By the middle of next year the reorganisation of 1(BR)Corps into three larger and more powerful in-place divisions than the previous four will have been completed. That will allow the corps commander to maintain two strong forward divisions and a division to give the corps more depth. It will provide him with the flexibility and balance necessary to fight the immediate tactical battle, if necessary on short warning, and to provide a credible corps reserve.
    Grouping in peacetime will reflect grouping for war more closely than at present, and much of the confusion that could arise under our present reinforcement plans will be eliminated, particularly in the forward area, where the most critical battle is likely to occur. A fourth infantry division, consisting largely of existing TA units, will be located in the United Kingdom in peacetime with its headquarters at York, and will move to BAOR on mobilisation with responsibility for securing the corps rear area.
    The new structure will also help us to maintain the size of BAOR, after some reduction, at 55,000 men, the Brussels Treaty level. I make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) that the treaty is talking about men present on the Continent and not about reserves. We shall do that by making savings in infrastructure and support, but in areas that should not affect front line operational capability. The command structure in BAOR is being streamlined and administrative staff cut. All Headquarters are being reduced in size and unit establishments pruned.
    We shall be creating headroom within the 55,000 level for key improvements. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned that the planned buy of sufficient Challenger tanks to equip four armoured regiments will enable us to form two additional armoured regiments in Germany in the mid-1980s, the 10th and 11th, and to provide a full war maintenance reserve of Chieftains. Together with other planned enhancements in the logistic, engineer and communications areas, and the continuing major re-equipment programme announced last year, the net result will be a major improvement in 1 (BR) Corps' fighting capability and staying power.
    Let me now turn to the details of the major re-equipment programme over the rest of the decade, a programme that is already well under way. We are placing high priority on improving our armour and anti-armour capability. In addition to the purchase of Challenger, we plan to introduce thermal imaging sights, for both new and existing tanks, and new 120 mm high pressure gun; and a new generation of anti-tank ammunition. There will be further improvements to fire control systems and to automotive components.
    We plan to double the number of Milan firing posts and to triple our missile holdings by the late 1980s. Over the
    512
    next few years we shall be introducing a new night sight for both Milan and Swingfire—our longer range anti-tank system—which will enable our troops to detect and engage enemy armour in darkness and in poor visibility. Improved warheads will also be introduced for both missiles. By the middle of the decade LAW 80, the new light anti-armour weapon, will have entered service. It will be issued in large numbers throughout the Army.
    When the deployment of Lynx helicopters armed with the TOW anti-tank system is complete we will have doubled the number of helicopter-borne systems in service and increased our helicopter-launched missile holdings sixfold. Improved warheads should also be fitted to our TOW missiles, enabling them to engage the latest Warsaw Pact armour. The introduction of a series of improved fuses will enable Barmine, our current anti-tank mine, to increase its effectiveness against enemy armour.
    Another key area is air defence. We announced last June that we had placed an order for the self-propelled variant of the Rapier, the air defence missile system. By the mid-1980s tracked Rapier will equip three air defence batteries in BAOR, and will bring greater speed, mobility and flexibility to air defence in forward areas.
    The artillery will receive the self-propelled—SP70—field howitzer in the later part of the decade. This is the self-propelled version of the in-service FH70. Another major improvement in firepower will be the introduction of the multiple launch rocket system planned for the middle of the 1980s. The delivery of the 69 extra M109 announced in last year's White Paper is now complete. In addition, the battlefield artillery target engagement system—BATES—has entered full development.
    BATES is a "force multiplier" designed to enable us to make more effective use of current and future guns. We plan to introduce BATES in the latter part of the decade along with other equipment designed to enhance our command and control. This includes the Wavell automated system for the rapid handling of tactical data, which is currently being evaluated in 1(BR)Corps, and the Ptarmigan trunk communications network is also being developed for introduction in the same timescale.
    We have another major programme under way to modernise the equipment and capability of our infantry. We plan to improve its mobility by providing more vehicles for both mechanised and non-mechanised units, with consequent benefits in flexibility and protection. We have let the development contract for a new mechanised combat vehicle MCV 80, and we are now developing plans for the best mix of vehicles required for infantry mobility in the 1990s.
    Soldiers will start to receive the new small arms in the NATO standard calibre of 5·56 mm from the middle of the decade. Two weapons will be entering service, the individual weapon and the light support weapon, which will simplify the logistic and support problems associated with the larger number of types of weapon that they will replace. Nuclear, biological and chemical defence will be further enhanced by the introduction of the NAIAD chemical attack detector, production of which has already started.
    Finally, I have already alluded to the emphasis that we place on raising the level of our war stocks. Plans are in hand to give effect to this. In addition, we will establish a special stockpile of items to support operations outside the NATO area.

    513
    In general, although the Army will lose about 7,000 personnel, it will be better able to fight and therefore to deter aggression.
    Still in the front of our minds is the magnificent role played by the Army in the Falklands. But, as the House knows, other men and women in the Army are making a valuable contribution to our defence in several other parts of the world, including the United Kingdom. Not least, our men and women are still fulfilling a task in Northern Ireland which is as vital as ever, and the House, I know, would want to pay them a special tribute. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, if he catches your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will expand on the role of these forces.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: The Government have set up a fund for the relatives of the Service men killed in the Falklands. Does the Minister feel that many of the relatives of soldiers killed in Northern Ireland may feel badly dealt with in comparison?
    Mr. Blaker: Existing funds care for the relatives of those killed in Northern Ireland. The Army benevolent fund, for example, has funds for that purpose. The fact that the South Atlantic fund will be available specifically for the relatives of those who suffered in the South Atlantic will release the other funds of the Army benevolent fund for other purposes including Northern Ireland.
    Returning to the Army's role in the Falklands, I focus attention on one or two specific aspects of the land campaign and pay tribute to the professionalism and courage of the corps and units represented in the military forces under the command of Admiral Fieldhouse.
    Before I start I should like to express my deepest sympathy to the next of kin of those, especially in the Army, who gave their lives in the campaign. I also extend my sympathy to those who have been wounded or injured. The House knows that the Army's casualties were higher than those of any other Service.
    The breakout from San Carlos beachhead, to which I referred on Tuesday, began on 26 May. 45 Commando, Royal Marines moved on the northern route to Salvador settlement while the 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment advanced on a central axis towards Teal Inlet. The 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment was given the task of securing the heavily defended area of Darwin and Goose Green. I want to say a little more about their achievements.
    The House will, I know, appreciate that full details of this epic battle have still to emerge. However, we do know that all members of that gallant battalion, reinforced by a company of 42 Commando, conducted themselves with superb courage and resolution. The narrowness of the isthmus separating Goose Green from Darwin denied them room to manoeuvre and obliged them to advance directly on the enemy across open ground. Bad weather deprived them of close air support, although they were able to rely upon the magnificent assistance of the gunners, one of whose batteries fired more than 1,000 rounds during the battle. Even so the battalion had to fight its way through about three miles of well dug-in enemy positions amply provided with mortars, 105 mm pack howitzers and anti-aircraft guns. As we know, it lost its commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel H. Jones, early in the action, while he was, with great courage, leading an assault party against two heavy machine gun posts.
    514
    When the guns finally fell silent, a single battalion group had overcome an enemy force nearly three times its size. One thousand four hundred prisoners had been taken for the loss of 16 dead and 34 wounded. I believe that military historians will look back on the seizure of the Argentine positions at Darwin and Goose Green as a battalion action as brilliant as any in our military history.
    The 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment scarcely had time to draw breath before its leading elements were rushed forward to secure Fitzroy Settlement and Bluff Cove, both of which had been left unoccupied by the Argentines. It then became a race to reinforce the position before the enemy could counterattack to prevent the complete encirclement of Port Stanley. Fortunately, by this time 5 Infantry Brigade, with the Scots and Welsh Guards and 1st/7th Gurkha Rifles, had been safely put ashore at San Carlos. As all available helicopters were needed for other vital tasks, these units had to deploy by sea. Regrettably, on the last day the cloud lifted and the final elements, about to disembark from two landing ships logistic, were hit by an air strike which inflicted heavy casualties and caused both ships to be abandoned.
    Nevertheless, the position was secured and the way was open for the final attack on Port Stanley. After overcoming stiff opposition 3 Commando Brigade secured positions on three key mountains. Two nights later it was 5 Brigade's turn. While the 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment took Wireless Ridge, the Scots Guards attacked and overran the Argentine positions on Tumbledown Mountain. The Gurkhas then pushed on and took Mount William and the Welsh Guards moved on Sapper Hill as all units prepared to exploit the situation and advance on the town itself. However, by then it was obvious that the Argentines had little stomach left for a fight and the white flags began to appear over their positions. Just after midnight, London time, on the night of 14–15 June, General Menendez formally surrendered all Argentine forces on the Falkland Islands to General Moore.
    Mr. Jim Spicer: The Parachute Regiment will be grateful for the kind words that my hon. Friend has used about a regiment that was merely doing its duty. It would be unfair if at the same time he did not make special mention of the 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment and its assault on Mount Longdon, where its casualties were more severe than those sustained by the 2nd Battalion. That was the most outstanding feat of the campaign, although it was overshadowed by the fall of Port Stanley. Perhaps my hon. Friend will confirm that the 3rd Battalion suffered heavier casualties.
    Mr. Blaker: I agree with my hon. Friend about the remarkable achievement of the 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment on Mount Longdon. I was unable to mention that in my remarks, because I had to be selective. In fact, every battalion that took part in the ground action distinguished itself. However, I am conscious that many other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate.
    On Tuesday I referred to the role of the Special Forces in the campaign, which was carried out with all their customary skill and daring. During the years since Korea we have had little need to call upon the Royal Regiment of Artillery to fulfil the roles for which it is trained and equipped, yet its air defence batteries were given plenty of opportunity by the Argentine air force to prove that all those years of training had been put to good use. As I have said, Rapier and Blowpipe achieved significant successes.

    515
    The men who manned the Rapier system deserve the fullest praise. Throughout the daylight hours they could never relax and never take their eyes off their radar screens, yet despite the appalling weather conditions they maintained the highest possible state of vigilance. Equipped with the British-designed and manufactured light gun, which more than proved its worth during the campaign, the men of the five field batteries responded magnificently to all that was asked of them. Keeping them supplied with ammunition presented a major logistic challenge, which, I need hardly add, was successfully mastered.
    Indeed, the mounting and maintenance of "Operation Corporate" produced the most intense activity in logistics for decades. The lines of communication stretched back more than 8,000 miles, with the only possible forward base—Ascension Island—about 4,000 miles from the United Kingdom.
    In addition to the routine support of the Field Army, Army logistic units provide a considerable measure of direct support to the other Services and to the Royal Marines in particular. For example, the bulk of the Royal Marines assault packs of ammunition and general stores are held and accounted for in Royal Army Ordnance Corps depots.
    The stores outloaded during the operation amounted to many thousands of tons, the majority of which were moved to the ports within 48 hours of the issue of the task force's sailing orders. Of course, the flow of stores to the South Atlantic still continues.
    Very detailed logistic staff-work has been necessary to ensure the continued maintenance of the force. I congratulate all those staff officers in the Ministry of Defence, at Northwood and at headquarters United Kingdom land forces, whose many hours of detailed planning on both a single and tri-service basis ensured the smooth running of the operations. I also pay tribute to the work of all members of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, who worked so hard to issue and to account for stores, both at home and in the field, and to their civilian colleagues in the depots.
    The movement of stores on land is, of course, the responsibility of the Royal Corps of Transport, whose members played a major part in the organisation and supervision of ship loading programmes. Many of them also accompanied the stores into the operational area to arrange their offloading. The military-manned port at Marchwood has been in almost constant use, and, in addition to Regular Army involvement, about 2,000 task vehicles were provided by the Territorial Army units of the RCT during the initial stages of outloading.
    Not all stores travelled by sea. Men of 47 Air Dispatch Squadron RCT spent many hours in the back of Hercules aircraft delivering urgently needed items and mail to ships of the task force. That even more stores and equipment were not needed is a tribute to the skill of the craftsmen of the Corps of Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, who worked so hard in the miserable conditions to maintain vehicles, helicopters, weapon systems and radios. I salute them all and gratefully acknowledge the full co-operation of industry in fulfilling many of our urgent and outstanding orders and in speeding up some of the contract repair and construction work.
    The care of human beings is, of course, of greater importance than even the care of material and no Service in the Army can have enhanced its reputation more during
    516
    the Falklands campaign than the Royal Army Medical Corps. The field dressing station of the Commando Logistic Regiment, which was manned by both naval and military surgeons, tended more than 500 wounded, many of whom were Argentine, and performed more than 150 major operations in far-from-ideal conditions in makeshift accommodation. They cart justifiably take great pride in the fact that every man who entered that operating theatre alive left it alive.
    None of this would have been possible without the courage and skill of the medical orderlies from the RAMC and the individual units who rescued the casualties and rendered immediate first-aid without regard to the dangers to themselves.
    Tragically, the danger to life and limb is by no means over, because of the Argentines' practice of sowing mines over large areas of the Falkland Islands in an indiscriminate way, without keeping the appropriate records. This is a clear breach of the generally accepted principles of mine warfare. Clearing these mines is a dangerous task, made more difficult by the fact that the majority of the mines sown are in plastic cases. Unfortunately, the science of mine detection has failed to keep up with the development of new mines and it is likely that it will be many months before this task is complete.
    Mr. Julian Critchley: Why did we seem to be surprised by the fact that Argentine mines were made of plastic? Does not the Soviet Union have similar mines?
    Mr. Blaker: Many countries produce plastic-covered mines. This is both a problem of terrain and the indiscriminate way in which the Argentines distributed the mines. The conventions of war require that minefields should be recorded.
    Mr. John Browne: A particular question has cropped up many times in my constituency mail. Given that the Argentines broke the conventions of war on three counts—first, indiscriminate laying; secondly, the fact that they did not label the minefields; and, thirdly, that the mines were covered in plastic—why should British soldiers risk their lives picking up the mines? Why do we not use the Argentine prisoners, just as we used German prisoners in the Second World War, to lift their own minefields?
    Mr. Blaker: To oblige the Argentine prisoners to do so would be contrary to the Geneva convention.
    Mr. Browne: We did it in the Second World War.
    Mr. Blaker: I believe that the Geneva convention to which I am referring was not then in force. Thirty-five Argentine soldiers have volunteered to help us remove the mines, and I am sorry to say that one has been severely injured.
    We are sparing no effort in our attempts to find new solutions to the problem of mine clearance in the extremely difficult terrain and conditions of the Falkland Islands. I know that all hon. Members will share my admiration for the skill and dedication of the Royal Engineers who are now carrying out this work.
    Many of them have already made a major contribution to the successful campaign by removing obstacles from the path of our advancing troops and by constructing a host of installations, ranging from a Harrier operating base to emergency refueling points. Of course, their skills are

    517
    now in greater demand than ever before as they work in Port Stanley and the outlying settlements to repair the damage inflicted on private homes and public utilities.
    Sadly, I must record that three Royal Engineers have been seriously injured while trying to make the Falkland Islands a safe place in which to live again. In addition, tragically, a Gurkha has been killed while clearing ammunition.
    Apart from the problem of mines, in Stanley itself the town water and electrical supplies were badly damaged during the fighting. The Royal Engineers have restored the water supply. In the power station, two of the three generators have been repaired by the Royal Engineers and the public works department working together. The Royal Engineers are engaged in many other tasks to restore Port Stanley to normal. The House may like to know that the Armed Forces are co-operating with the civilians in Port Stanley and elsewhere in a number of ways. They have provided an officer to teach in the Port Stanley school while a teacher is absent on leave. Another Army officer is assistant organist at the Port Stanley cathedral. The Army is helping to produce the local newspaper and to run the radio station for the time being.
    I find it difficult to overstate the achievements of the British Army during the past three months. I have tried to draw the House's attention to the more notable aspects, but I am fully conscious that I have been unable to do full justice to them. I have not mentioned the contribution of the men of the Household Cavalry, who took maximum advantage of the mobility of their Scorpions and Scimitars to fulfil their roles of reconnaissance and flank protection. Time prevents me from doing more than mention the other corps and services that took part in the campaign.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the Household Cavalry. Does he agree that the role that it performed was unusual and unprecedented?
    Mr. Blaker: My hon. Friend is correct. Among other things, the terrain was extremely difficult for it.
    The other corps involved in the Falklands campaign were the Royal Signals, the Army Air Corps, the Royal Army Chaplains' Department, the Corps of Military Police, the Royal Army Pay Corps, the Intelligence Corps, the Army Physical Training Corps and the Army Catering Corps. They, too, can take pride in the way in which their members discharged their duties.
    Many of the Army Department civilians willingly worked long hours to ensure that the supplies needed by the task force were available. Others had vital roles in the casualty reporting and welfare systems. Theirs is not a glamorous task and it is right that I record here their devotion to duty and their important contribution to the success of the whole enterprise.
    In short, the recovery of the Falkland Islands showed that the British Army is, as we all believed it to be, well trained, well led and equipped with some of the finest weapon systems available. Above all, it is manned by what I believe to be the finest professional soldiers in the world, resourceful and resilient people who will endure any hardship and overcome any discomfort to perform their duty regardless of the odds against them. It is an honour to be associated with them.
    7.32 pm
    Dr. Oonagh McDonald: I hope that the House will give me leave, should I catch Mr. Speaker's eye, to speak again later.
    Before I turn to what I should like to say, I extend the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) for his absence. He expected the debate to take place earlier and, regrettably, made other arrangements.
    Mr. Best: Has he taken the whole of the Opposition with him?
    Dr. McDonald: The hon. Gentleman seems a little surprised that one Labour Member can take on the whole of the Government single handed, but I am sure that I shall find that possible.
    I thank the Minister for the detailed picture that he has given us of the role of every aspect of the Army in the Falklands campaign. The Opposition appreciate that picture, and we were impressed with the skill with which the Army carried out a difficult job in the Falklands and the success of the operation. The Opposition express their sympathy to the relatives of those in the Army who were killed and to those who were injured during the course of the campaign and those who have sadly been injured during the mine-clearing operation. I thank the Minister for referring to the mine-clearing operation, as I had intended to ask him a question about that.
    As the Minister rightly pointed out, the Army was not only engaged in the recent Falklands campaign, but for too long now has been engaged in difficult and dangerous operations in Northern Ireland. The Opposition pay tribute to the work that the Army does there.
    The Minister spent much of his time commenting on the White Paper and, in particular, on defending the role that is still given in the Government's planning to the defence of the central front, the stationing there of 55,000 troops, and to the operations of the British Army of the Rhine. I wish to deal with some of the points that the Minister made.
    In the White Paper of 1981—and the White Paper of 1982 is simply a continuation of that—we were promised a radical review of our defence expenditure and planning. However, there has been little change. A substantial part of the defence budget—both this year and last year—is spent on the central front. The Minister said that the BAOR takes up 9 per cent. of the defence budget.
    If we examine the subject in another way and attribute planned expenditure to the principal roles, we find that total defence spending, directly or indirectly attributed to Britain's contribution to the NATO forces for land and air warfare in the European theatre, constitutes just over 40 per cent. of the defence budget. That is the estimate provided, although the Minister may wish to give a different version later.
    If we examine the subject in that way, we find that there is still a substantial amount of money going to the BAOR, but, as we know from the many voices raised in protest in last year's and this year's defence debate, that has been at the expense of the nation. The Government felt that they could not cut this part of the budget because there were political and military obstacles in the way of doing so.
    The military obstacle lies in the NATO belief that the major threat comes on the central front. The NATO forces are organised to fight in layer cake distributions on the

    519
    central front, and as long as NATO takes that view and the Government do not question that view there are military objections to any reduction of the BAOR and its supporting units.
    The political objections were mentioned by the Minister, and I shall return to them later. However, if we examine the whole thrust of our defence policy and are prepared to question some of the shibboleths that underlie NATO's thinking on the third world war and the Soviet threat, we reach rather different conclusions. Perhaps the burden of the adjustment has fallen on the British forces in Germany—the Rhine Army and RAF Germany. For this reason, what Britain does in the Eastern Atlantic is unique.
    It is inconceivable that any other European member of NATO would or could make good the deficiencies that the Government would bring about if Britain's contribution to NATO's defence of the Eastern Atlantic and to her sea lanes and interests in other parts of the world were changed. The Government's problem with planning is that the plan may work for a few years but in the years to come we may regret the decisions taken in 1981, which are merely being followed through in 1982. We have not yet heard of any new thinking that might be done after the review of the Falklands campaign has been completed.
    We may regret the decisions in future years because the maritime capacities that are being cut away cannot be rapidly restored. A commitment to a labour-intensive standing Army means that it will continue to be expensive in future and will make us vulnerable to foreign exchange changes, as it has done in the past. It is unlikely to change in the future. The new model force structure that the Secretary of State introduced last year may be difficult to support in German marks in the future and at that time, when the unemployment position may ultimately have changed and recruitment to the Army may not be as easy as it has been over the past year or so.
    There is no radical change in the Secretary of State's thinking. He merely accepts NATO's assessment of the threat. He merely continues the whole commitment. There is a small reduction in the Army, but in general the principle remains the same. We maintain the largest standing Army in Europe, as the Minister made plain, apart from America.
    Mr. Blaker: Will the hon. Lady repeat what she said? Did she say that we maintain the largest standing Army in Europe?
    Dr. McDonald: Yes—in the West, apart from America's standing Army, because our contribution is higher than that of others. If I am wrong about that, I apologise. At any rate, we maintain a large standing Army in Europe.
    We also pay the largest proportion of our defence budget to NATO. We pay NATO more than 90 per cent. of our defence budget, which is a higher proportion of defence budget than America or any other NATO ally pays. We are the paymasters of Europe in terms of the percentage of our defence budget that goes to NATO defences, in spite of the fact that, measured in terms of average income per head, we are one of the poorest countries in NATO. Only Turkey, Italy and Portugal are poorer than the United Kingdom, and yet we pay one of the highest proportions of our GNP in terms of defence budget, and of that we pay the largest proportion of our defence budget to NATO.
    520
    We should therefore bargain from a position of strength. We should say to our NATO partners "It is time that you shared some of the costs. It is time that we had a fairer distribution of the burden of NATO defence and, in particular, a fairer distribution of the burden of maintaining forces in Europe."
    The political obstacles that the Minister sees can be overcome. I accept that they are serious difficulties, but negotiations could take place about the costs of maintaining BAOR and RAF Germany over a period so as to phase down our contribution and allow others to take greater resposibility for maintaining their standing armies. That is perhaps cheaper for them, as they have conscript armies, not a professional Army like ours, which inevitably is more expensive. The political obstacles are not insuperable. The Minister and the Government use them as excuses for refusing to reconsider the costs of BAOR and how they might better be shared among other NATO countries.
    The Minister told us about the costs of bringing the Army back home. He said that the Army would have to be rehoused, that, inevitably, that would be expensive, and that there would be no saving in public spending. I was impressed by that argument, until I looked at the report of the Defence Select Committee for 1981–82 on the allied forces in Germany. It showed that the British section of the allied forces in Germany has undertaken a barracks improvement programme. It began in 1974, and it is expected to continue until 1990. The cost of the improvement and maintenance programme is undertaken by us. The construction of any new barracks is done by the Germans.
    I should like to know how much the programme will cost. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said in his evidence that the Committee was concerned with the social welfare of soldiers. He said that they looked at a number of barracks of the 32nd Armed Infantry Brigade and at the American accommodation. The American accommodation looked like four-star hotels. He said that ours was not as bad as the Salvation Army, but that he had seen better Salvation Array accommodation.
    I am sorry that the British Army apparently has such poor accommodation, and I do not suggest that the accommodation should not be improved, but I wonder how much that improvement will cost. The programme is only 48 per cent. complete—at least, that was true in autumn 1981. Clearly that will be an expensive programme. What will the cost be? Who is carrying out the work? I assume bat German construction workers are doing that improvement work.
    There is empty Ministry of Defence accommodation in this country, and I am sure that some of it needs improvement. Could not that impovement work be undertaken? Could not the soldiers be housed there? Would that not be a sensible use of resources? I do not say that it would save resources, but if the troops were brought back and if barracks had to be provided and modernised for them, at least public money would be spent in this country, and we should be providing jobs. After all, about half a million construction workers are out of work in this country. Surely the money would be better spent here.
    Some of the acommodation appears to require the purchase of land, and that is a time-consuming procedure in Germany. Clearly takes time, money and effort. We should consider not only the costs of providing housing

    521
    here, but the economic impact of doing that. If troops were brought home, the local economy and community in parts of the country would benefit. All these factors should be taken into account in assessing the costs of bringing the troops home. So the Minister's claim that it would simply be more expensive to do so needs close examination.
    Other aspects of the support that is required for the British Army of the Rhine need to be considered. It is not just a matter of providing accommodation. We must also provide airfields, ammunition storage and so on. That process is continuing until 1990. The Minister mentioned it this evening, and spoke of the need to speed up the programme and the Government's plans in that regard. What progress has been made in obtaining new grants from NATO's infrastructure fund for the new storage that has to be provided? How soon will it be before we have all the storage that is necessary to provide sufficient conventional ammunition should there be a third world war, and should Europe be the theatre that is immediately involved?
    That is an extremely important question in view of the recommendation that was made in the first report from the Defence Committee in 1979–80. It points out that if there were insufficient ammunition, storage, and means of distributing ammunition efficiently, the commander would have to plan for a period of conventional warfare no longer than that able to be sustained by the corps with the lowest level of supplies. He might therefore be forced to recommend the premature introduction of tactical nuclear weapons into the battle.
    That is an alarming prospect. Although tactical nuclear weapons sound innocent enough, as though they might be merely restricted to the clash between armed forces, they are far more dangerous than that. The average size of such a weapon is four kilotons. That is greater than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
    If the worst happens and conventional ammunition runs out forcing the Army to use the so-called tactical nuclear weapons, we should be rushing headlong into a nuclear exchange. Many commentators agree that it would be far too difficult to confine that simply to a clash between armed forces. Nearby cities would soon be involved and the war would rapidly escalate.
    The Minister should provide further information about the progress of ammunition supply and storage space. He must assure us that sufficient quantities of conventional ammunition will quickly be available so that such a risk will be eliminated. It is a risk which must alarm him as much as it alarms the rest of us.
    Those are the kinds of question upon which I wish to press the Minister. He should consider the costs of the whole programme and the speed at which aspects of it are taking place. He should also reconsider his claim that the costs of bringing the Army home would far outweigh the costs of maintaining it there.
    We are told that the Secretary of State cast his merchant banker's eye over defence spending last year when he took up his post in January 1981. We were told that he was considering in great detail every aspect of the defence budget and looking sensibly for proper savings. His eye seems to have failed to fall on one aspect that is mentioned in the first report from the Defence Committee on the allied forces in Germany. It talks about the estimate of costs being complicated by variations in the exchange rate between the deutschemark and the pound. It says:
    522
    "A variation of a single pfennig could represent more than £1 million in the cost of pay and allowance".
    That is a high cost indeed.
    That is not an unfamiliar problem, but it is one that the Secretary of State appears to have overlooked. If one looks back over the history of the Government, it appears that that issue was raised in 1979, shortly after the Government took office. We were told in The Times on 27 November that London was preparing for a battle with Bonn over the cost of BAOR. We have heard little about that battle since.
    Have the Government given any further consideration to the foreign exchange costs of maintaining BAOR? Will they do battle with Bonn over those costs? Will they obtain an improvement on the agreement that was signed in 1977—regrettably—by the Labour Government which involved the Germans finally agreeing to pay £125 million over three years? I say "regrettably", because the Bonn Government insisted on £125 million worth of building for British troops, whose barracks have long been in need of modernisation, which not only benefited the German economy but added to its real estate since the barracks remain in its possession. Has any more thought been given to that? We cannot sustain such heavy foreign exchange losses. I am not suggesting that there should necessarily be an alteration to the defence budget, but it does require urgent investigation. What plans do the Government have to cope with that?
    In his opening remarks the Minister spoke about weapons and armaments. Has he given any more thought to the Government's decision to note the Select Committee's report in which the lack of anti-helicopter weapons was pointed out? I noted the cost of the improvement programme for the main battle tanks, which now includes thermal imaging, at a cost of £450 million. That involves partly modernising the Chieftain tanks and partly producing the Challenger tank, at a cost of about £1·5 million.
    I cannot help but ask whether this is the best expenditure. I know that NATO claims that there cannot be tank parity between Warsaw Pact countries and NATO forces. I merely ask whether that is something that we should try to do. Perhaps we should concentrate our expenditure and effort on anti-tank weapons, bearing in mind that the tanks that are produced by the Russians tend to become obsolete more quickly because the Russians and Eastern European countries generally tend to go in for longer runs of the production of a particular tank than does the West. No doubt they have their own reasons for doing that. However, is this the best use of resources? Should we turn away from equipping the Army to such a large extent with tanks? Should we spend £440 million, perhaps partly on anti-tank weapons and partly on some other weapons systems? Roughly three to four tanks would cover the cost of a Harrier.
    I know that this is a matter of dispute and that there is a pro-tank and anti-tank lobby. However, if one looks at more recent wars, such as the Egypt-Israeli war, one wonders about the usefulness of such heavy equipment.
    I have listened carefully to the debates and discussions on the Falklands and about all that has been provided by the Army, Navy, Air Force and by back-up organisations of various kinds. There has been one startling omission. There has been no mention of the Royal ordnance factories where many workers work overtime during their Easter holiday to provide much-needed ammunition for the Falklands conflict. In general, the Royal ordnance

    523
    factories have provided a stable capability for the Army, providing about one-sixth of the arms equipment and in some case constituting the only British source of supply. I am surprised that the Royal ordnance factories and their workers have not been mentioned. Some of them were badly treated—
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): I am grateful for the opportunity to remind the hon. Lady that I mentioned them fulsomely in my speech the other evening.
    Dr. McDonald: I do not recall a detailed and lengthy reference to them. I note, however, and I stress, that workers in the Royal ordnance factories in Chester-le-Street and Blackburn, for example, were badly treated during the campaign. Numbers of them received redundancy notices having worked overtime presumably to provide ammunition for the Falklands campaign. The Royal ordnance factories provided stable employment under the Labour Government. Under the present Government, in spite of alleged increases in Government spending on defence, the factories have faced redundancies together with a long period of uncertainty while the Government decided on their privatisation plans.
    The general response of the Government to the study undertaken at the end of 1980 has now been announced. The Government are waiting to bring forward legislation to privatise the Royal ordnance factories. These plans, which bring fear and anxiety to the workers in the factories, should be abandoned. The factories should continue to fulfil the same role that they have always occupied. The Government should recognise the stability of provision for the Army by dropping the plans once and for all.
    I turn now to the question of personnel. The White Paper describes the Army as now being fully manned and says that fewer trained personnel are leaving the Army than at any time since the ending of conscription. However, the target for the Army is a reduction of 7,000 by 1986. I should like to know what progress has been achieved in reducing the size of the Army through natural wastage. If the Army is at present fully manned and if fewer people, at a time of high unemployment, are inclined to leave, how confident are the Government that they can bring about a reduction in that way? Does the Minister expect redundancies? If so, what arrangements have been made for such redundancies? I should be grateful for answers. I hope, however, that any reductions planned by the Government will be brought about by natural wastage and that redundancies, with the consequent problems that they cause for the individuals concerned, will not be necessary.
    I still do not believe that the Government have presented an adequate case for their refusal to alter the size of BAOR. They have failed to provide strong arguments for suggesting that the Army should not, at least in part, return home. I look forward to the Minister's response to some of the questions that I have asked.
    8.3 pm
    Mr. Jim Spicer: If falls to me to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald), who spoke for the Opposition. I sympathise with her. For a large part of her speech, she has been the only Labour Member present. That must be a difficult burden to bear
    524
    when she has to deal with a subject of such complexity. The hon. Lady talked about the strength of our forces in the Rhine Army. I would advise her, at some point, to talk to Army commanders in the field, who have to face the problems caused by armies around them that are continually looking for reasons for reducing their strength on the ground.
    The Danes and the Dutch are longing for the moment when we reduce oar forces in the field. They will see it as an excuse to do likewise. Many people in Europe and within European armies still look to us, not to the Americans. They take a line from what we do. That is a factor that the hon. Lady and the Labour Party should remember.
    This is a timely debate. This week sees the arrival home of key elements of our task force. No one will mind if I mention the fact that the Royal Marines arrive back on Sunday morning in the "Canberra". It is hoped that they will pass through the towns of Dorchester and Bridport where people are making great efforts to get the pubs open early in the morning and the flags out to receive them. I should also like to mention my own regiment, the 2nd and 3rd Battalions the Parachute Regiment, which has already arrived home and whose members are enjoying a well-deserved short leave.
    My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who opened the debate, covered a tremendous amount of ground in talking about the re-equipment programme. I hope that he will not mind if I concentrate on the Falklands campaign. It is vividly in our minds. There is much to be learnt from the campaign. Soon after the 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, with its supporting arms and services, occupied Goose Green and Darwin, an early-day motion, supported by hon. Members from every party in the House, was tabled. It stated:
    "That this House congratulates the 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment on its magnificent achievements at Goose Green and Darwin which were in accord with the traditional standards of the regiment, whilst at the same time mourning with them the loss of their commanding officer and others serving with, or in support of, the battalion on this occasion."
    There was a remarkable degree of support for the motion. That first major ground engagement set the pattern for what followed. I am certain that it undermined the ability and the will of the Argentine forces to resist in any great strength. At that time the 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment was very much in the public eye. On other occasions, both before and after, many acts of heroism showed the calibre of all members of our Armed Forces engaged in the Falklands campaign.
    I have already intervened to mention the fierce and bloody battle fought by the 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment for Mount Longden two days before the final capitulation of the Argentine forces. That was a magnificent feat of arms and deserves special mention. The 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment was up against the crack forces of the Argentines on the island. It suffered heavy casualties in a bloody engagement.
    I have spoken of the two battalions of my own regiment. However, as hon. Members know, honour and casualties were shared equally among the Armed Services in that short and memorable campaign. While paying tribute to those involved in the campaign in the Falklands, it is also necessary to recall that our forces have spent long, dreary and bloody years in Northern Ireland. One recalls the full horror of Warrenpoint and other places, but much more the events that have occurred in the back streets of

    525
    Belfast and Londonderry. The calibre of Armed Forces, especially the Army, has been demonstrated in a way that no other Army ever could demonstrate. Above all, the self-restraint of our troops in Northern Ireland was the marker that showed exactly what they would do when they embarked on the Falklands campaign.
    I return to the Falklands campaign. Earlier this week, Sir Edwin Bramall, the chief of the General Staff, talked to men of the Parachute Regiment on board the ferry "Norland" near Ascension Island. In his address he said:
    "You will be able to say, as they said after Agincourt, after Alamein and Arnhem, 'I marched, and fought, and won in the Falklands and showed the world the incomparable quality of the British Army'."
    Sir Edwin Bramall spoke for almost every British citizen.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to say that the lessons of the Falklands campaign had yet to be digested. Chief among the lessons that we have already learnt is the incredible ability of all our Armed Forces to improvise when the need arises. Improvisation is a wonderful thing. We all use it in our lives from time to time, but one would not wish to rely totally upon improvisation and say that things will always come out right in the end. They do not. We should avoid improvisation, if possible, and instead have what is needed on the ground at the right time.
    I turn to two matters about the Parachute Regiment, to which I hope my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will address himself. Not too many years ago we disbanded the Parachute Regiment's field force formation headquarters. Our experience in the Falklands has shown that it might have been much better to keep that small headquarters, at what would have been a very small cost. I ask my right hon. Friend, when examining the lessons of the campaign during the next few months, to pay special attention to that small, but vital, element.
    With the vast increase in range afforded to our C130s by in-flight refueling—we have seen only the tip of the iceberg on this development—is there not a strong argument for developing more positively the parachuting capability of a reformed Parachute Brigade? Who knows when we may yet again wish to move forces over a long range with their parachuting capability ready for use?
    I have been unashamedly banging a drum for my own regiment today, but it is a proud week for all those who have served at any time in the Parachute Regiment.
    Mr. Best: I hope my hon. Friend realises that many hon. Members in the House endorse his remarks.
    Mr. Spicer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment.
    I turn to the back-up stocks about which the Minister of State spoke. Earlier one heard some rumours about the panic stations caused by the need to raid our first line stocks at short notice. It is clear from the Falklands campaign that we cannot fight a modern war without sufficient supplies and back-up stores ready on the ground. If I agreed with anything that the hon. Member for Thurrock said, it was her brief mention of the need to have stocks ready to hand. I hope that during the next few years we shall learn the lesson of the Falklands. Those lessons have been hard-learned, but if they are taken to heart they will not only serve to make our forces more efficient, especially the Army, but save many lives in future incidents that will inevitably face our Armed Forces.
    8.14 pm
    Mr. Clement Freud: I listened with care to the Minister's speech. The whole House was proud of the courage, skill and bravery of our soldiers in the South Atlantic and we extend our sympathy to those who could not go there. Their bravery and skill is no less for being in Northern Ireland or at some other base. The protection of what we have is more satisfactory and cost-effective than the recapture of what we have lost. The fact that we recaptured what we lost with some brilliance does not exonerate the Government. War is brought about by the failure of politics.
    The defence correspondent of The Economist some years ago wrote:
    "Navies and airforces are machines manned by men and armies are men with guns."
    During this debate we can pay tribute to our soldiers and perhaps examine their role a little more carefully. The defence correspondent also said that our Army is the worst equipped Army on the Rhine. He called our soldiers
    "first-class men using second-class equipment".
    I am pleased that steps are being taken to ensure that first-class men will soon have the equipment that they deserve.
    I wish to talk not about the military role of the Army, but about its social side. I accept that the Army's role is to prepare soldiers to fight, not to ensure their comfort or that of their families. Housing is one of the most important and most ignored aspects. A soldier who joins at 18 and leaves the Army 22 years later invariably does not have a home to go to. The Army does nothing to facilitate the purchase of houses for men who have given the 22 best years of their lives to their country. I know of soldiers who cannot put down deposits on homes when they leave the Army. I know that housing lists are often long, but, even if proper notice is given to a local authority, it is difficult to find a house for someone who has been demobilised after serving his full term. Some local authorities do not accept them because they live outside the area. Some military families have no right to council housing in any area because of the peripatetic nature of their lives.
    The remit of Sir Derek Rayner was to look for financial savings, but I wonder whether the social cost has ever been studied. In the city of Ely, which I have the honour to represent, we have an Air Force hospital. After the Rayner report, the cleaners from the city of Ely who took pride in working in the RAF hospital were made redundant. The cleaning is now carried out by contractors. There is no longer a genuine connection between the Air Force and those who work in the hospital.
    Mr. Best: I have the same problem in my constituency with RAF Valley. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear about the great efforts made by the Ministry of Defence to ensure that the contractors reengage those who were made redundant. The system has worked well in my constituency.
    Mr. Freud: In my constituency the contractors have re-engaged many workers, but they are no longer under the auspices of the RAF and do not have a gentleman officer to whom they may bring their grievances. They now have the telephone number of the head office, which is about 50 miles away. I deplore the lack of connection.
    In my opinion it is better to pay more to local people for the sake of good will. The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) will accept that if the contractors employ the same people, and since the whole point of the exercise is

    527
    to save money, it is unlikely that they will be paid as much. They will in fact be paid less, work harder and have fewer nice people with whom to deal. That has been the substance of the complaint that I have received.
    I am a great believer in military establishments playing their part in the community and I wonder whether enough thought has been given to that. I should like to see adjutants sitting on parish councils of the villages in which their barracks are situated. I should like members of regiments to become governors of colleges of further education and polytechnics. I know that they are sent away, but they are replaced by others. It is essential that the Army, which provides full and now well-paid employment, should play its part in the community by providing the occasional service—allowing, if security will permit, its sports grounds to be used by local citizens who have no football field and behaving like the good and rich neighbour.
    In a previous debate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) pleaded that, when widows were told of the deaths of their husbands, the sad information should be brought to the house by an officer. I know that the Secretary of State gave an assurance that that would happen and it is enormously to be welcomed.
    There are Service families overseas who have much to complain about and no one to hear their complaints. There are those who are not covered by the DHSS in the same way as those serving in Britain, despite the fact that they pay taxes to the United Kingdom. Non-contributory invalidity pensions are not available to Service wives who return from living abroad until they have established residence here. Child benefit is paid to a husband in Germany, and when he is sent to Northern Ireland he still receives the child benefit while his wife is in Germany looking after the children. Many of us have had to deal with such cases. A little more concern for the Army would eliminate such complaints.
    The Royal Medical Corps prepared soldiers to fight, so it cannot spend as much time as perhaps it should on women's and children's health. In Germany there are no smear clinics and few facilities for public health. There are lower standards of health care and higher infant mortality in German bases than anywhere else. I should like the Minister to look into that matter.
    Great Britain already has the highest infant mortality in Europe. In Germany, in the Army of the Rhine, it is even higher, and this is largely due to stress during pregnancy. The other problems in the Army of the Rhine include a substantial divorce rate, a high rate of non-accidental injuries and a very high rate of delinquency. There is now a new standing civilian court with a United Kingdom magistrate and a probation officer.
    Women's rights in the Army are virtually ignored. A woman cannot choose where she wants to live; she is given a house. An Army wife cannot choose the decor; it is chosen for her. She has no say in running the community because, despite the loud words of feminism in the civilian sector, in the Army a woman is still "an Army wife" with no rights. Such wives follow the flag loyally. It seems a mindless waste of resources, especially given the cost of and limits on staff officer provision, not to cater for such women properly, caringly, and compassionately.
    One currently remembers Kipling, now that the nation welcomes home the Army and speaks so highly of soldiers. Kipling wrote:
    528
    "Oh, it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Tommy, go away';
    But it's 'Thank you, Mister Atkins', when the band begins to play."
    We forgot about the Army until we welcomed our Service men back to this country as heroes. It would not be a bad idea for the Minister to look into the provision of No. 2 dress uniform. I do not know of soldiers who have complained about their battle dress and I know that SCREDE has looked into hats and boots, but the No. 2 dress uniform, which the soldiers wear with pride when they go out into the community, is a uniform on which little work has been done. There is not as much pride as there was when I was in the Army and I had my smart uniform apart from my ordinary uniform.
    Mr. John Browne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is ridiculous that the No. 2 uniform is still khaki, which is made for camouflage in the field? Does he agree that there is a great opportunity for the Army to design a new No. 2 uniform in a more attractive colour than khaki? The combat kit is camouflaged, but the No. 2 uniform should be for parades and home service.
    Mr. Freud: I thought that I had said that. I was unhappy about the humdrum nature of the No. 2 uniform. I should explain that the No. 2 uniform is what used to be the No. 1 uniform, which has gone. It would be nice if there were something a little more charismatic. Perhaps that could be looked into.
    We have opinion polls on so many pointless subjects. We now find out how popular the Prime Minister is or who is the best dressed leader of which party. It is high time that the Army found out how unhappy are the Army wives and families. To have a competent and contented soldier, one needs some assurance that he will have an infrastructure in which his family can be reasonably happy and his children receive a decent education;
    I have looked at the Defence Estimates carefully. The Government do not publish anything remotely satisfactory about the health and welfare of dependants, of whom there are 100,000 in Germany. The House would like to know why people leave the Army. They no longer leave the Army because they are ill-paid. That has been seen to. However, too many highly trained people are still leaving the Army—men who have cost the country a great deal of money in training. We can read how many there are, but we do not learn the reasons why.
    Finally, it would be a good idea to give military dependants some rights, rights that they do not now have. There should be someone to whom they can appeal for redress without it harming their husbands or whoever is their relation in the Army. The Government tend to concentrate on what soldiers do for us. It is time that we concentrated on what we can do for them—and their families.
    8.28 pm
    Mr. Keith Best: I agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who is concerned about the ability of soldiers, particularly Army officers, to purchase property. My hon. Friend the Minister has been considering that matter for some time. It is an area of concern that cannot be satisfied by the gratuity as presently constituted. That is why so many soldiers and Army officers who purchase property during their Service lives have the difficulty of maintaining it while they are many thousands of miles away serving overseas.

    529
    The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow him down the road of the argument about No. 1 or No. 2 dress. My No. 1 dress has been hanging in my cupboard for many years. It has not been used. Therefore, perhaps I can give it to the hon. Gentleman and he can decide what best to do with it.
    As a Territorial gunner having served with both airborne forces and Commando forces, I was pleased when my hon. Friend the Minister spoke so highly of the role of those forces in the Falklands campaign. Hardly any hon. Member has not referred and will not refer to the Falklands campaign. It is absolutely right that it should be mentioned time and again.
    I also pay tribute to the Service men who went there. I am sure that the House will understand if I mention two of my constituents. The late Welsh Guardsman, David Williams, from Holyhead, was killed on an assault landing ship at Bluff Cove. Another Welsh Guardsman, David Grimshaw, from Valley, has had a leg amputated and suffered severe burns. He was married only in January this year. When hon. Members learn about constituents who were killed or severely injured, it brings home the tragedy of war and the need for the House to avert it in so far as we can. I hope that that thought is never far from hon. Members' minds.
    Although we may have been fortunate not to lose more Service men and ships—luck plays its part in any military venture—because the campaign was successful it seems rather strange that some hon. Members now want completely to disorientate our defence strategy and the way in which our forces had been deployed in the past, just because of that one campaign.
    Surely the very success of the campaign demonstrates our forces' ability to meet such a challenge when it presents itself while they continue to be prepared to meet the underlying threat that undoubtedly comes in central Europe from the forces that are ranged against us in the Warsaw Pact. I do not wish to dwell on the matter. The Government will draw conclusions later this year as a result of the analysis of the Falklands campaign. That will be the time to make speeches on the matter.
    The present debate, just like the debates on the Defence Estimates, is essentially about financial resources. In his statement that accompanied the publication of the White Paper my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said:
    "We can only enhance one capability at the expense of another—unless, of course, the nation decides to devote more than the 3 per cent. rate of growth to defence."
    He reiterated that view at the beginning of the debate on the Defence Estimates.
    I listened with great care to the speech of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald). She did it with great charm. She was on a lonely promontory for much of her speech. It must have been a formidable task when she saw ranged on the Government Front Bench not only my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but the rest of the Defence team—my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) and Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin).
    Mr. Freud: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that she received 100 per cent. reinforcements halfway through her speech?
    Mr. Best: The hon. Gentleman may not be too sure of that. No doubt he knows the story of the Trojan horse. The hon. Member for Thurrock may discover that one has marched into her own camp. We must wait to hear what the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) says before we know.
    As I understand it, it has always been the view of the Opposition in these debates that savings must be made in defence. That seems to be their central theme. In a way, it coincides with what my right hon. Friend has said—that if we are to seek to expand any element of our defence forces, savings will have to be made in some other element.
    If that is so, wherein are the savings to be made? I do not think that anybody would argue that savings should be made in the Royal Navy. Certainly that is not the view of the Opposition. They take the view that the Navy is essential to preserve our independence, our lines of communication and, most importantly, our lines of supply. Nor are savings to be found in the defence of the home base by the RAF. I remember hearing, and I believe that it is still true, that the RAF intercepts more Soviet reconnaissance aircraft in a year than all the other NATO air forces put together. Clearly, savings cannot be made there.
    That leaves only two areas in which savings could be made—the nuclear deterrent, that is to say, Trident, and the Army. I shall not dwell at length on whether savings could be made on the nuclear deterrent, although it is right that I should deal with it now that I have mentioned it. The Opposition accept the concept of deterrence, as is clear from the speeches of their Front Bench spokesmen. It seems strange, if not disingenuous, to argue that one believes in the concept of deterrence and then to say that one does not believe in the concept of nuclear deterrence. The whole point about deterrence is to meet strength with strength and to make the military adventure of the potential aggressor such a costly exercise to contemplate that he will desist from ever embarking upon it. That is just as true of the nuclear deterrent as it is of conventional weapons.
    In this context, I refer to a paper published in May 1981 by the Fabian Society, to which I am sure the hon. Lady will pay particular heed, entitled "A British Approach to Peace" and written by Professor Neville Brown. It states:
    "A unilateral departure by Britain would heighten by perhaps a factor of ten the near-term danger of nuclear war, especially if she renounced the Rome Treaty at about the same time."
    Yet that is precisely the policy of the Opposition—unilateral disarmament and withdrawal from the Treaty of Rome. I hope that Labour Members will weigh carefully the words of Professor Brown and consider carefully whether their policies might not bring this country much closer to the brink of war than those currently being followed by the Government.
    In a recent analytical article, two Soviet policy-makers wrote that the Soviet Union
    "cannot undertake the unilateral destruction of its nuclear weapons (and indeed has no right to do so, as it is responsible to the peoples of the whole world for peace and progress). To do so would mean disarming in the face of the forces of war and reaction."
    What, then, is the benefit of unilateral disarmament? Clearly it will not encourage the Soviet Union to follow suit, let alone ensure that it will do so. In my judgment, therefore, it is not a valid option to save money. It does not follow, as some Opposition Members suggest, that

    531
    because other NATO countries do not have the nuclear deterrent they are defective or that we are in some way immoral to retain it.
    That flies in the face of logic. We have a nuclear deterrent. If we were to dispossess ourselves of it, that would dramatically alter the concept of deterrence. It cannot be put forward as a serious proposition that, because other NATO countries do not have a nuclear deterrent, we can dispossess ourselves of it.
    One is left to consider whether savings can be made in the Army. It appears that they can be made in no other area of our defence commitment. The argument about the nuclear deterrent cannot be whether we have one; it can only be whether we have Trident. If the Minister is correct when he says that Trident is still the cheapest and most effective nuclear deterrent, we should maintain that rather than anything else.
    Savings in the Army appear to be the only option. Surely those savings cannot be made in equipment. The tenor of the remarks of the hon. Member for Thurrock, in which she was joined by the spokesman for the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Isle of Ely, seemed to be that our equipment is not good enough. One cannot make savings there.
    I welcome the announcement of the advent of the multiple launched rocket system. One has become increasingly worried about the effectiveness of the Soviet BM21 and the damage that it can wreak, as shown on training films and during exercises. It would be a lacuna for us not to have a multi-barrelled rocket launcher system. I am glad that that will now be remedied and that we shall have new small arms by the mid-1980s. It will undoubtedly simplify logistics not to have 7·62 mm ball and 9 mm ball within the same small unit.
    I am pleased that the Territorial Army is being expanded and that more man-training days will be made available. Those of us still in the Territorial Army realise how valuable man-training days are and have fought hard to have them increased. It cannot be suggested that we can turn completely from a professional to a citizen army. I welcome the expansion of the Territorial Army. It is a cost-effective complement to, but it cannot be a substitute for, the Regular Army.
    The Territorial Army is only one aspect of the reserve. There are the Regular Army reserves. When I was on Exercise Crusader in BAOR, I talked to men in the units who told me that they had never seen the Regular Army reservists who would come to them at basic section level as top-up troops. They have never trained with those troops. What are the Government doing to ensure that that situation is remedied?
    The Opposition seem to be putting forward the argument that savings can be made in the numbers of the British Army of the Rhine. That point was postulated by the former Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), but perhaps he has not looked carefully at the Brussels Treaty. I am pleased that the Minister replied to the point that I put to him. He will not be surprised to know that I suspected what the answer would be. We should have to rip up the Brussels Treaty if we were to substitute reservists for our 55,000 regular troops in BAOR. Our NATO Allies would not allow that; nor would it be advisable.
    In the second day's debate on the Defence Estimates the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) became more and more coy the more that I pressed him. He said that
    532
    what was proposed would be very difficult. I agree. It hardly sounds a firm foundation on which the Opposition can base savings to enable them to put all their eggs into one basket, namely, a massive increase in the Royal Navy. What about Northern Ireland or any other situation that would require the commitment of British forces? We cannot be certain that it would be only a naval conflict. We must keep a broad base to cover our commitments and not significantly diminish any one of our major capabilities. If we diminish on BAOR, provided that we could get the agreement of our NATO Allies, where would the troops in substitution for them come from?
    The hon. Member for Thurrock accepts that she made a mistake. Not only the Americans keep more ground forces in West Germany than Britain. The Germans have 155,000 regular troops and a further 180,000 conscripts. We are the next largest contingent. The French have 46,000. Is the hon. Lady suggesting that the shortfall in British troops could be made up by the Federal Republic of Germany? From visits to Germany, I know that West German politicians do not want that. In addition, to increase German forces would be a major provocation to the Soviet Union and would be highly destabilising.
    The only effective way to make significant savings is to proceed along the slow but vital path of negotiated disarmament. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces devoted a large part of his speech to the issue the other day. We need greater publicity for what the Government are doing towards disarmament. People want to know what is being done. When talking about the need for Trident and defence forces, we sometimes fall into the error of not specifying why we need them. We need them for greater security and so that we can proceed along the path of negotiated disarmament. That is the only way towards greater global security.
    The McCloy-Zorin agreement, the
    "Joint statement of agreed principles for disarmament negotiations",
    was signed in September 1961 between the Soviet Union and the United States and adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. It is sad that it has fallen by the wayside. Can we not get back to that sort of agreement?
    The first section states:
    "The goal of negotiations is to achieve agreement on a programme which will ensure: That disarmament is general and complete and war is no longer an instrument for settling international problems, and
    That such disarmament is accompanied by the establishment of reliable procedures for the peaceful settlement of disputes and effective arrangements for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations."
    The agreement talks about the creation of a standing United Nations peacekeeping force. The greatest tragedy of the Falkland Islands dispute is that a British task force was dispatched to do the work that a United Nations force should have done. That is what we must work towards. The problems of disarmament will not go away. Public opinion is geared firmly to that and demands action from the Government on disarmament. That is illustrated by the growth of the peace movement. Many people in that movement are misguided in the way that they seek to achieve disarmament, but the desire for disarmament is there.

    533
    Perhaps the greatest telling aspect is the terror—I do not believe that I use a euphemistic word—of the super powers that a third world war will occur not between them, but will start in the third world over which they have no control. Proliferation poses the greatest threat to the security of the world. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will continue to speak in public and press through those long hard negotiations the very raison d'etre for the retention of forces—ultimately to achieve disarmament.
    8.50 pm
    Mr. Bob Cryer: It is inevitable that most speeches will start with comments about the Falkland Islands. Those who went there were brave. They did not run when presented with the threat of immediate death or destruction. They carried out their business effectively, and I recognise that. We must extend our sympathy to those who will be returning blind, paralysed, scarred or limbless and to the families of those who will not return. More than 1,000 lives were lost in the Falklands.
    A fair proportion of the families who suffered losses will want to believe that the sacrifices were made for something permanent, but the likelihood is that over the next few years a move will be made to transfer sovereignty over the Falklands. Such a move was being negotiated before the act of war. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, discussed the possibility of a transfer of sovereignty with the Falkland Islanders.
    The task force was not necessary. The Argentines could have been forced to give guarantees, if necessary, by the use of economic sanctions. Argentina is in a very difficult and dangerous economic situation. I regret that in applying the sanctions the banks were not as comprehensive in their support as they might have been. The banks got off comparatively lightly. The people, as always, took the brunt. They deserve the credit. The decision to send a task force was wrong, but there is no discredit on the people who undertook that difficult and dangerous task.
    The cost has been enormous, not only in life and limb but in money—between £1 billion and £2 billion. The Government are coy about the expenditure involved.
    I suppose we must be grateful that the Russians did not invade while a considerable part of our Army and two-thirds of our Navy were in the South Atlantic. The Secretary of State has from time to time pointed out that the real threat comes from the Soviet Union. I want to deal with that myth so sedulously perpetrated by the Government.
    The White Paper, in page 25, states:
    "The Warsaw Pact has a substantial advantage over NATO in almost every respect."
    That is not true according to the Institute of Strategic Studies, which in page 111 of its 1981 publication on the East-West theatre balance in Europe says that NATO has 2,860,000 troops and the Warsaw Pact 2,612,000. It points out that the Soviet Union has a large number of its divisions and men on the Chinese border, which indicates that they are not available for what is euphamistically called the European theatre, which comprises countries where people actually live.
    The 1982 annual report of the American Defence Department states:
    "while the era of US superiority is long past, parity—not US inferiority—has replaced it and the United States and the Soviet Union are roughly equal in strategic nuclear power."
    534
    According to that statement, there is a balance of conventional forces and strategic nuclear power, not an inferiority.
    The position on tactical nuclear weapons, which are under the control of the Army, is obscure. I do not suppose for a moment that in this apothesis of democracy the Minister will enlighten us and tell the citizens who pay for defence expenditure where the money is going. It is generally believed that about 3,500 tactical nuclear weapons are in the hands of the Warsaw Pact, but, according to the Stockholm Peace Research Institute, NATO has 7,000.
    It was said in 1978 by the Pentagon—and it has not been contradicted since—that the Soviet inventory of tactical nuclear weapons "was probably much smaller." If, in respect of strategic nuclear weapons, and conventional forces and there is a balance in theatre nuclear forces, including Poseidon, the balance is only marginally in favour of the Soviets—as it is—and we embark on Trident, cruise and Tornado, which will have a nuclear weapon carrying capacity, the balance will swing markedly to the side of NATO and the West. No doubt the Soviet Union will immediately try to restore the balance and we shall again have notched up the nuclear escalation.
    The difference between tactical, theatre and strategic nuclear weapons is purely arbitrary. Lord Mountbatten warned against the illusions that can be generated by nuclear weapons when he said that there is no possible use for nuclear weapons. There is no distinction between tactical, on which the Army depends so much, and the rest of the nuclear armoury that each side possesses in such abundance.
    Mr. Best: I have Lord Mountbatten's speech. In it, he says:
    "To begin with we are most likely to preserve the peace if there is a military balance of strength between East and West." Does the hon. Gentleman also subscribe to that view?
    Mr. Cryer: That is exactly what I have just pointed out. There is a military balance, but the Government and NATO say that there is not. They argue that there is an imbalance. The late Lord Mountbatten was therefore supporting the view that I have put forward.
    The introduction of Trident, with its massive escalation of nuclear fire power, cruise missiles and Tornado will produce an imbalance that will continue the arms race.
    Lord Mountbatten's speech has not been repudiated, although the Secretary of State used to say that he had had a chat with Lord Mountbatten who felt differently about it. That is not evidence that we can take into account because Lord Mountbatten unfortunately is no longer with us to comment.
    The other myth on which I shall comment was neatly demolished by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), who is the vice-chairman of the Conservative parliamentary defence committee. I have quoted this before, but it is worth quoting again. The hon. Gentleman said:
    "If one measures the extent by which the strength of the Soviet Union has been eroded in central Europe by defections of one kind or another since that high point at the time of the Berlin airlift, one sees that effectively, it has lost Austria, half of which it occupied, and Finland over which it exercised almost total dominance. It has lost, irreparably, Yugoslavia. It has lost Rumania in all but name. In Hungary, the regime has become more relaxed and more inimical to Soviet influence. Finally, there are threatening developments for the Soviet Union in

    535
    Poland. Seen from the Soviet side, this shows a steady pattern of retreat and disintegration."—[Official Report, 3 March 1981; Vol. 999, c. 193.]
    That is not my view. It shows the Soviet Union not as a strong and burgeoning force, but as one in "retreat and disintegration".
    Then there is the cost. The defence statement says that the Soviet Union is not prepared to enter into meaningful discussions about cost. Translated into ordinary language, that means that the Government call the Soviet Union a liar. They say that they do not believe the Soviet figures on expenditure and the Soviet Union is not reasonably prepared to defend itself. No member of the Government, if I called him a liar, would allow the start of any discussion or meaningful conference on such a basis.
    The Secretary of State admitted to me:
    "Since the Soviet figures are so unreliable we have to make our own estimates of its expenditure and this is done in great detail every year by assessing the cost to the Soviet Union of all known items of spending and aggregating them for purposes of comparison according to the NATO definition of defence expenditure."
    That was endorsed by Senator Nino Pasti of Italy in 1979. He wrote:
    "The truth is that NATO forces, both conventional and nuclear, are stronger than those of the Warsaw Pact countries. During the last ten years the Soviet Military budget has remained stable. My colleagues were unhappy about this situation, because they could not justify increases in their own expenditure. So they invented a 'pricing' system. It is easy to see how the figures were inflated to show higher Soviet expenditure".
    Senator Nino Pasti is one of the generals who wrote a memorandum by the group, Generals for Peace and Disarmament, which was submitted to the second special session of the United Nations General Assembly devoted to disarmament. It says:
    "During the first few years of its existence, NATO had no need of nuclear weapons in Europe. At the time, the Soviet Union did not use its conventional superiority as a threat against the politically and militarily weak Western European states. All the more, a military approach in the present time would not promise the Soviet Union any reasonable political, economic and military gains. On the contrary, this would be the first step to a nuclear holocaust. The Soviet leaders are well aware of that. Thus, they are serious about their will to negotiate and they can be taken by their word. There is a chance for the limitation and reduction of nuclear weapons."
    That statement and many others making positive suggestions for a reduction in the level of nuclear weaponry was signed by the following retired generals—Gert Bastian of the Federal Republic of Germany, Johan Christie of Norway, Francisco da Costa Gomes of Portugal, who is a retired former President of the Republic of Portugal, Georgios Koumanakos of Greece, H. M. von Meyenfeldt of the Netherlands, Nino Pasti, whom I have mentioned, Antoine Sanguinetti of France and Michael Harbottle of the United Kingdom. Just because they are generals, it does not mean that they are authoritative, but it is a view that we cannot ignore. There is therefore an ex-military view that we must reduce expenditure on conventional and, particularly, nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Blaker: Does the hon. Gentleman support the proposal of the United States for a one-third reduction in strategic nuclear weapons, as opposed to the Soviet position, which is for a freeze?
    Mr. Cryer: It is important not to take an absolute position and say that either the United States or the Soviet Union has the sole solution. What is important, and it has
    536
    been brought about by pressure not from Governments but from the people, is that both sides should put forward a point of view. In negotiations, neither side will be proved absolutely right. Compromise is needed. Compromise can lead to an acceptance of reductions in nuclear levels The statements made by the Soviet Union and the United States have been the result, not of internal initiatives from the Government, but of the pressure of external events.
    As I was saying, a massive cost is involved at a time when local authority services and central Government services are being cut. This defence statement gives an increase, for example, of £280 million in Army equipment alone, from £1,053 million in 1981–82 to £1,332 million in 1982–83. That is for land equipment which, presumably, is largely, if not wholly, for the Army. That is a massive escalation in equipment. I am sure that there are better alternative uses for that money. Last night, for instance, the House discussed two orders for the African Development Fund, in which about £24 million was to be allocated. It was a limited increase and, as several of my hon. Friends said, that was due to the limitation on funds allocated to the Ministry of Overseas Development.
    Almost £2 billion goes to research and development for the Armed Forces. The hungry nations of the world do not need new means of extermination. They need water pumps, means of irrigation, and the basic means of producing and increasing the amount of food for their people who, by and large, go hungry each night.
    We should compare ourselves with Japan. That country has renounced the use and deployment of nuclear weapons. Instead, it has put its research and development largely into peaceful purposes, with the results that we know so well. As a manufacturing nation, Japan is supremely well equipped and able to produce the goods and services that the nations of the world need.
    The second statement says that exports of defence equipment have amounted to £537 million. We should think about this miserable international trade in arms. It is an affront to us and to the families of those who died in the Falklands war to realise that some of that equipment was sold by this country, under both Governments. The majority of the small arms equipment came from this Government. This Government's hands are by no means as clean as they would lead us to believe. It was only in August 1980 that the Minister for Trade, now the chairman of the Conservative Party, went on a mission to Argentina, which was then under military rule, under a junta, which our Government discovered was a Fascist military junta when it suited their convenience. However, at that time, the Minister for Trade wanted to encourage trade links, and at that time they were involved in selling arms.
    A principle is involved here. We should be trying to diminish our dependence on arms sales. Instead, we should shift those resources towards the production of materials for peaceful purposes. We can do that if there is a political will. I know that there are 3 million people unemployed as a result of Government policies that are unlikely to change. However, if there is a political will there will be a way out of this wretched trade.
    The results of the trade were apparent in the Falklands war. I viewed with contempt a representative of British Aerospace who on BBC television smugly said that the Sea Harrier would sell well after its performance in the Falkland Islands. We must beware of falling into the horrible trap of selling equipment on the basis that it has

    537
    been Falklands tested. If that were to be done, it would be selling equipment on the blood of those young men who fell during that tragic time.
    Mr. Best: Would not the hon. Gentleman's efforts be better directed to seeking a treaty to ensure that there are no arms sales throughout the Western world, or even in the Soviet Union? Surely all he is advocating is that Britain should not sell arms, which simply means that our competitors will get there first.
    Mr. Cryer: There is certainly an element of justification in what the hon. Gentleman says and I shall come to that point later.
    I turn now to the United Nations second special session on disarmament. Out of the many pages of detailed accounts in the statement on the Defence Estimates there is only one page—page 25—on disarmament. The Government should place greater emphasis on disarmament.
    I tabled two questions about two proposals that have been made at the United Nations second special session on disarmament. First, there was a proposal that there should be a world disarmament campaign. The Government have said that they will support such a campaign, and I welcome that. I hope that they will give it substantial financial support and facilities, although I suspect that they will not.
    Secondly, there was a proposal that there should be a world disarmament conference. A conference is clearly different because there would be treaties that would be binding on the participating nations. The Government have said that they are not particularly keen on that idea. They are opposed to a conference because they prefer individual arrangements between countries—bilateral arrangements or other relatively narrow arms limitation treaties.
    I support all attempts to reduce nuclear and other weapons. However, this United Nations proposal would do just what the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) suggested in his intervention. It would establish a conference to enable nations to talk about world disarmament. The limitation of British arms sales would then be set in the context of discussions with other nations. Surely that is what the Government should be supporting and welcoming. A world disarmament conference could negotiate a reduction in both nuclear arms and the miserable sale of death in which too many nations participate with such tragic results.
    Not only the Labour Party but countries throughout the world are pressing for such a conference, representatives of which were at the United Nations second special session on disarmament. Non-aligned countries told nuclear powers that they would be affected by a nuclear war. There were speeches on comments such as that of General Haig that a warning nuclear shot could be used in Europe. However, nuclear war would affect the non-aligned countries because the level of radioactivity would drift around the world breeding death and destruction wherever it went.
    The non-aligned countries are saying that the nuclear powers should move down the road of disarmament. So, too, are the people. There is a large and growing peace movement. I was fortunate that the Keighley campaign for nuclear disarmament collected money to help towards my fare to attend the special session of the United Nations as
    538
    representative of a non-governmental organisation. I took part in a march of 1 million people from the United Nations building to Central Park. I was enormously inspired to see Americans from all parts of the United States taking part in that protest for peace.
    On the previous Sunday 250,000 people had demonstrated in London for peace. They were saying that Governments must take action to stop the escalation in nuclear arms. It is a process in which this Government participate by accepting cruise missiles and by embarking on expenditure of £10 million on Trident. People will not accept it any longer. That is why the peace movement is growing apace.
    About 2,000 people last Sunday took part in a demonstration near Harrogate, the Tory spa town with effete and gentle achitecture of a typical spa nature. On the moors above Harrogate there is a strange development called Menwith Hill. It was started by the United States army security agency and is now apparently run by the United States national security agency. It has never received explicit authority or approval from this Parliament. It is an area that comes under executive action. No one knows exactly what it is. Some people claim that it is an interception base to obtain information for the United States European operations. Others say it is the European communications centre of the United States army. It would be a prime target in any conflict in Europe.
    If it is an interception base and if it is interfering in our telephone network—there is a GPO microwave tower nearby with a massive cable link from the tower to the base—it is an absolute disgrace and an outrage that it should continue to operate without any discussion or decision by Parliament. Those 2,000 people clearly wished to express the view that the base should be closed as part of the closure of United States bases in this country. They want to get rid of cruise missiles, the F-111s that carry nuclear weapons into and out of this country on a regular basis and also this base that exists without the authority of Parliament. Within our wonderful democratic system which is so widely praised that we sent an armada to the Falklands and also have nuclear weapons to protect it, I wish to know who is responsible for the base. Is it the Army? Or do I have to raise the matter on the Navy Estimates or the Air Force Estimates?
    Is it perhaps one of those areas where no one says anything? If an hon. Member puts down a question there is a blocking answer that stops the elected representative from tabling questions in the Vote Office. It is known that this sort of thing goes on. Ministers raise their eybrows in a mock way, apparently surprised that anyone should actually question what is happening. I question it because people want to know what is going on. They want to know what is being done in their name. It is part of the pressure brought by people who wish to say "No" to nuclear weapons and to communications linked to the deployment of such weapons. They want the Government to make a positive move towards disarmament.
    At the United Nations, the Japanese Prime Minister made an impressive speech. He concluded by saying that as a young man he had been a seaman. On board ship he had stared at the millions of stars in the night sky. Whatever one feels about a starlit sky, whether one takes the view that it is part of God's pattern or simply a mystery that one cannot understand, the Japanese Prime Minister said that, as far as we know, we are the only planet with life on it and yet we are trying our best to produce weapons

    539
    to destroy that life. He said that from that time he was a devoted supporter of peace and disarmament. My purpose is to persuade the Government to adopt the same role. By buying Trident and supporting cruise, their actions are directly opposed to the wishes of the people, who desire peace.
    9.20 pm
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: As most of what must be said has already been said, I shall not detain the House for long. I associate myself with almost all of what my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) said in his excellent speech. I differ from him only on his interpretation of the merits of the British forces rather than a United Nations force going to the Falkland Islands. It was better that British forces carried out that task.
    I especially associate myself with what all hon. Members have said about those who have suffered because of the conflict. I disagree wholly with the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) on whether those lives were spent in a worthwhile cause. The fight for the Falkland Islands has immeasurably assisted the search for world peace and European security. The stand that Britain took to ensure that our sovereign territory could not be attacked with impunity will help to guarantee our future safety.
    A substantive matter that was not dealt with today was a home defence force. I raise the matter because of the deep fear and concern that I feel and wish to share with the House. There are many ways in which we may be threatened in the future, especially by the Soviet Union, and no Government and no defence of which we are capable can consider all possibilities, but I ask the House to consider the following scene.
    Let us suppose that, instead of having in the United States an Administration who are dedicated to peace and security in Europe, that country has an Administration who are isolationists, who believe that America can survive without a free, independent Western Europe, and who would not contemplate or command its people to make the sacrifice that America would be called upon to make to save Europe from Soviet attack.
    If that were to happen, Europe would have to rely upon two back-up forces. First, there would be the conventional forces that we have in Europe, leaving aside American intervention. Secondly, there would be the deterrent value of our Trident missiles. If the Trident missiles failed to deter and Russia walked into Western Europe, how could we defend our shores?
    My right hon. and hon. Friends know as well as I do the balance of conventional forces in Europe. I do not believe that in a conventional war Europe could hope to stop the Soviet Union reaching the Channel within a week; nor could we stop Soviet forces from crossing the Channel and invading our country. In the event of such a conflict, almost all of our forces would be committed to going overseas and fighting for the integrity of Europe on the German war front. Some divisions would remain in Britain, but not enough to make a significant impact on a full-scale Soviet invasion by sea and air.
    The Soviets have the great advantage in Europe that they can and will attack without warning. If they do, our only hope would be a substantial home defence force which the Soviet Union was aware would fight to the last man in every town, village and street. That would be a much more effective deterrent than a nuclear weapon, which we could not use in those circumstances. It is right
    540
    to have a nuclear deterrent, because it is an additional factor that the Soviet Union must take into account, but we must bear in mind the defence that the Soviets are building against nuclear attacks. Vast works are going on to safeguard the civilian population against nuclear attacks. We must compare the steps taken by our potential enemies with the steps that we are taking, which are almost non-existent.
    I do not wish to enter into a debate about whether civil defence should be controlled by the Home Office or by the Ministry of Defence, as I would wish, but I am certain that if we have a nuclear weapon against which the Soviet Union has taken steps to safeguard its people, and if it has a weapon that can do equal or greater damage and we have taken no steps to counter it, the deterrent factor of the likelihood of Britain firing its weapon must be undermined. It would be different if, to ensure that they could stamp out the freedom that they so dislike and fear on their borders, the Russians had to kill every man in Britain.
    We should start to build a home defence force along the lines of the Home Guard, with a defensive commitment to individual communities or families. The advantages of local knowledge against an invading force are enormous. Such a force could De created at little cost and the deterrent value of our forces would be immeasurably and disproportionately increased as against the cost to the Exchequer.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey mentioned the options open to the Government. He pointed out that we can make no savings in the Royal Air Force. I am sure that during our debate on the. Navy next week there will be widespread agreement on the Conservative Benches that we need a more efficient, better equipped and more expensive Navy than the present one. We cannot make any cuts in the Army. Even the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) failed to make out a case for saving by bringing back any part of the Army of the Rhine. She was probably right to say that unemployment would be improved if some troops were brought back from Europe, but the overall saving would be insignificant, because it will cost a great deal to increase the power of our Navy.
    However, my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey did not draw the only possible conclusion, which is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must be given more funds by the Treasury. We must make it clear in the House that we are prepared to pay the price, whether by increased taxation or borrowing. We must put defence needs first and find the assets with which to back them later. It is no good having two-thirds of the defence force that we need if the two-thirds are inadequate for the task ahead. I ant sure that my right hon. Friend will do everything that he can to persuade my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give him the necessary money. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent way in which he tried to increase the capacity of our three Services and the substantial success that he has had within narrow financial constraints.
    The conclusion that should be drawn from the debate is that the extra finances must be found to increase the capability of the Navy and that the Army and the Air Force must be left at least as powerful as they now are.
    9.30 pm
    Mr. John Cartwright: Like almost every other hon. Member, I should like to endorse what

    541
    the Minister said about the performance of our forces in the Falklands. It is understandable that much of the comment has concentrated on the skill and courage of our fighting men. I was glad that the Minister did not forget the achievements of those who tackled the appalling logistic problems to ensure that everything that was needed was in the right place at the right time. There can have been few military operations in which the teeth owed so much to the tail—it was an incredibly long tail. It was a successful feat of organisation which has been praised throughout the world and is something of which the people of Britain can rightly be proud.
    I should like to refer to one problem that arises out of the Falklands campaign that I have raised with the private office of the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces. The problem concerns some Falklands casualties in the Queen Elizabeth military hospital in Woolwich who had considerable difficulty in telephoning their families, some of them a long way away in Wales. They were having to share one pay telephone. I have persuaded British Telecom to make good the deficiencies of the equipment, but the problem now is that the soldiers concerned are facing substantial costs in telephoning their families. From a parliamentary answer, I understand that they are entitled only to one free telephone call. Many of them are making calls to their families in Wales, many of whom are suffering from unemployment. Therefore, I hope that something can be done to assist those soldiers to keep in regular contact with their families.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): I well understand the problem that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. We have given some attention to it. If the hon. Gentleman has specific cases, I know that many welfare organisations will be happy to help out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will draw my attention to any correspondence.
    Mr. Cartwright: I am grateful to the Minister. I shall certainly follow up the matter.
    I should like to concentrate on what the Minister said in the first part of his speech. I very much welcomed the details of improvements to our conventional capability in the central front in Europe. Unlike the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), who has departed so rapidly after his speech, I believe that the most obvious danger of a Soviet attack exists in the central front in Europe because that is where there are major imbalances, certainly in conventional capability.
    The hon. Gentleman claimed only on the basis of troops under arms that there was a conventional balance in Europe. It would be difficult to discover any authority which would suggest that there was a balance in terms of battle tanks, artillery or tactical aircraft. Every statistic that I have seen indicates clearly that the Soviet Union has a major superiority in those important areas. That superiority makes us vulnerable to the possibility of a rapid smash-and-grab thrust which exploits Soviet conventional superiority. In such a scenario, NATO would be forced to respond with tactical nuclear weapons or capitulate.
    There are inherent dangers in relying so heavily on battlefield nuclear systems. Short-range arsenals have grown considerably since 1954 when NATO first introduced them. The defence White Paper lists short-range systems in the overall theatre balance. The NATO
    542
    1982 force comparison sets out in more detail the balance of short-range nuclear systems. It shows that NATO has about 1,000 nuclear capable artillery systems and about 100 Lance and Honest John missile launchers, whereas the Warsaw Pact has 300 artillery systems and 650 Frog and SS21 missile launchers. That shows a numerical superiority in NATO's favour, but it could easily be argued that the Warsaw Pact advantage of range and survivability in land-based missiles rules out that numerical superiority.
    It is also true that there are short-range nuclear capable aircraft in Europe, atomic mines and all the rest of the paraphernalia of battlefield nuclear systems. There are about 7,000 systems on the NATO side, 5,000 of which are in the Federal Republic of Germany. There is always the spectre looming of the enhanced radiation warhead.
    Is it likely that the short-range nuclear systems will be used? I have heard the NATO supreme commander, General Rogers, say clearly on a number of occasions that to resort to tactical nuclear weapons would lead inevitably to the use of strategic nuclear forces. Admiral Lord Hill-Norton, the former chairman of the NATO energy committee, made the same point in a statement in The Times on 18 August 1980, when he said:
    "once you cross the nuclear threshold you have taken an irreversible step which is almost bound to lead to a strategic nuclear exchange, which in turn is almost bound to lead to the end of civilisation."
    That cold, realistic military assessment of the risk of escalation that flows from the use of short-range nuclear systems must raise some questions about our willingness to use them if the situation so requires.
    There has been concern about political control over battlefield systems and a feeling that in the pressure of a battle, under threat from the Soviet Union, commanders might use the systems first and seek political assurance afterwards. We have been assured regularly that that could not happen, that there is full political control and that there would be consultation between the Allies before a decision was taken to use short-range battlefield systems. That is a little hard to understand or to believe. It would be an extremely time-consuming operation. To visualise the Heads of State and Foreign Ministers in the European capitals, where evacuation would probably be taking place, discussing whether they could take such a decision is a little hard. In the real world there is a strong risk that the decision would be postponed, or, because of concern about rapid escalation of nuclear warfare, it is likely that the short-range systems would not be used.
    There is growing concern in Europe about the dependence on short-range nuclear systems. There is a desire to rethink the doctrine of flexible response. That doctrine grew out of a conventional inferiority. There is some debate on whether the weapons systems were produced to fit the needs of the doctrine or whether the doctrine was designed to suit the existence of weapon systems that were becoming available. There is lack of clarity about the circumstances in which battlefield nuclear systems would be used.
    It was originally hoped that those systems would be a warning to the Soviet Union that NATO was determined to use the full range of nuclear weapons, but that was in the days when NATO had strategic nuclear superiority. That is a much less likely event today simply because the use of short-range systems on the NATO side will produce a similar response, with all the risks of escalation that I

    543
    have mentioned. The use of short-range systems could not bring military success and the Soviet Union would not be faced with unacceptable damage.
    We should improve our conventional effectiveness and reduce our reliance on short-range tactical nuclear systems. That does not mean that we have to match the Soviet Union tank for tank, gun for gun or plane for plane. I agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) that there is a feeling that tank commanders hanker after tank battles, as happened in cavalry battles in the past. They sometimes give the impression of regarding modern anti-tank weapons as unfair and unsporting. We should aim at building up our defensive capability to such an extent that we could hold a Soviet conventional attack at least in the early days. That does not always mean dramatic new weapons systems.
    I shall quote one example from my experience on the Select Committee on Defence. The first matter that we considered was ammunition storage on the central front. We were not very happy about what we discovered. We were concerned about the delay in construction of forward storage sites. We were not happy about the arrangements for transporting ammunition from the rear zones. We drew attention to the differential levels of supplies of ammunition that appeared to be available to different national forces. We said in the report that, as a result of those differentials in ammunition resources
    "the Commander … would have to plan for a period of conventional warfare no longer than that able to be sustained by the Corps with the lowest level of supplies. He might therefore, be forced to recommend the premature introduction of tactical nuclear weapons into the battle".
    We strongly recommend that steps should be taken to achieve NATO-wide agreement on calculations of ammunition expenditure rates and stock levels. The response from the Ministry of Defence was not encouraging. It said:
    "In the end stock levels are a matter for individual nations to decide upon".
    It is extraordinary that our strategy might, in some circumstances, depend on something as basic as ammunition storage and availability.
    It should be admitted immediately that greater concentration on conventional capability, as opposed to nuclear capability, is not a cheaper option. The White Paper makes that clear. That is why I and my party support the 3 per cent. target, despite the difficulties that are involved in meeting it. We want that growth to go into conventional improvements rather than being siphoned off into super-sophisticated de luxe strategic nuclear systems that the country cannot afford.
    It is not fair to suggest, as is sometimes argued by the nuclear disarmers, that conventional war is an easy option. We have seen recently that high technology modern weapons systems can have a devastating effect on the combatants, as was the case in the Falklands, or on infrastructure and population, as is the case in the Lebanon. An all-out conventional war over the Federal Republic of Germany is not an appealing prospect.
    We are more likely to deter a potential aggressor if we make it clear that we have a powerful conventional strength than if we rely on nuclear weapons systems which are not credible in the last analysis.
    That is why the Government and NATO should give high priority to a battlefield nuclear weapon free zone in Europe. That is just as urgent and as important as the START negotiations for strategic weapons and the INF
    544
    negotiations for theatre weapons. It could help to unstick some of the MBER negotiations. A battlefield nuclear weapon free zone, accompanied by a balance in conventional nuclear forces, would do much more to secure peace in Europe than the great gestures of unilateral disarmament that are now the policy of the official Opposition.
    9.42 pm
    Mr. John Browne: I congratulate the task force. It was an epic victory and was of historic consequence. The conduct of these amphibious operations more than 8,000 miles from a home base and more than 4,000 miles from any base must be one of the most outstanding feats of arms in history.
    I also congratulate and thank the people at home who supported the campaign. They are the people who worked on the ships, supplied the goods and organised the task force from its bases. I would also like to mention an element that has not been emphasised sufficiently—the role of leadership in the success of the task force. Great endeavours are not usually successful against such odds without determined and good leadership. From the Prime Minister to the commanders within the task force, the leadership was of outstanding quality.
    I extend my sympathies to the families of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and merchant mariners who were killed, and to those who were severely wounded.
    I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on getting the best out of our Armed Forces within the cash limits that have, in my view, been wrongly imposed on them. He has made the very best of the resources made available to him. Secondly, I am glad that he succeeded in preventing the incremental cost of the Falklands incident from falling on the normal defence budget.
    The Army is just one part of our integrated Armed Forces. We must therefore view it in relation to our total Armed Forces.
    As I have said before, I believe that defence is the prime duty of the Government. Ideally, defence expenditure should be based upon needs rather than cash limits, as I am sure many of my hon. Friends and certainly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will agree. The reality is, however, that cash limits have been imposed upon us. Therefore, although I heartily support my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Sir N. Bonsor) in urging that we should fight for more cash resources for the Armed Forces, we must plan today on the basis of the resources that we actually have and adapt these resources to meet the threats that face us.
    Three key internal political factors must be taken into account in developing any defensive plan. The quantity of total financial resources available for defence depends on two elements—first, our economic ability to generate the wealth and, secondly, our political will to spend a sufficient percentage of it on defence. The Ministry of Defence must decide what systems should be developed and how they should be deployed, but defence is only part of our total foreign relations. Indeed, defence is generally used only when diplomacy breaks down, as in the Falklands incident. Foreign policy must dictate where our defence resources should be deployed.
    I believe that we face a major threat at this time. Finance and foreign policy must join and co-operate with defence to plan and balance our defence resources with our

    545
    defence needs. As I have said, we must work within the present limited financial resources. Moreover, the outlook for the American economy and interest rates there make it unlikely that, despite the pressure that I and my hon. Friends seek to exert, much more will be spent on defence in the short term.
    It is true that defence spending has been increased by 3 per cent. in real terms. I congratulate not only the Government on maintaining that increase, despite adverse economic conditions, but the last Labour Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) on accepting it. It was absolutely right. Nevertheless, although 3 per cent. in real terms accounts for inflation, it does not cover what I would describe as technical escalation.
    To maintain our defence ability, we must maintain the technical capability in terms of "technological escalation". It is like buying a car. In defence terms, it is no good just trading in one Marina and buying another if everyone else has gone on to a Jaguar. It is a matter not just of fighting inflation, but of the technological advance in weapons systems. That is why I believe that we must spend much more than 3 per cent. in real terms. Unless we do that, we shall not be able to keep up, and if we cannot keep up, effectively and relative to other major powers, we must accept effective cuts.
    Where are the cuts to be made? Are they to be made in pay, in ammunition or in weapons systems? Are they to be made across the board in a general, quiet way, or will they be specific cuts in specific areas? I believe that we are already experiencing cuts in our relative military effectiveness, despite the increased expenditure in real terms. We must therefore reappraise our priorities in our defensive plan against what we as a nation are likely to be able to afford in relation to the threats that we face. Our defence priorities are the defence of the United Kingdom by both nuclear and conventional means within NATO. We make a major contribution to NATO with our Army on the ground. We have three armoured divisions and a committed Territorial Army division. We have a maritime role in the eastern Atlantic and commandos on the northern flank. In principle, I support all of this.
    I believe that it is right to improve and maintain our independent nuclear deterrent, which I see as part of a modern integrated defence system. But I do have reservations about the balance between our armoured land forces on the Continent and our maritime role.
    The defence of the United Kingdom is based upon NATO, and I agree with that. We should look at where the threats to NATO lie. I see three direct, internal threats and one external. First, there is the threat of a direct Warsaw Pact assault on the central European front. Then there is internal subversion and the Russian use of the peace offensive which is focused upon organisations such as the CND and the talk about nuclear-free zones. Hiroshima was an atomic-free zone, but that did not prevent the Americans from dropping an atomic bomb on it. Internal subversion is also aimed at creating divisions between the Governments of NATO by fostering mutual suspicion and mistrust. However, I believe that the external threat is more active and serious because NATO has vital interests outside its land mass. An example of that is the Gulf whence Europe's oil lifeblood comes.
    546
    Although a direct assault across the land mass of central Europe is a threat, I believe that it is one of the less serious threats. The Russians are cautious and would be most unlikely to attack a defended Europe, even if NATO's forces were not as sophisticated or numerous as their own. The Russians would not be likely to attack a Europe that was defended by both nuclear and conventional means.
    Although central Europe is the least of our priorities, it draws most of our defence resources and the bulk of our Army. The external threat, on the other hand, is more serious. Yet NATO is neither prepared nor equipped to meet it. That is a serious fault, and it is our duty to ensure that it is corrected. The Foreign Office must help by bringing diplomatic pressure to bear so that NATO reassesses its resources and the threat that it faces. NATO should reallocate its forces to meet today's threats rather than those of the 1950s.
    NATO must decide which nations are prepared and best equipped to accept a role external to NATO to meet the external threat. Great Britain is a prize contender for that role. Our history and present capabilities show that we are, if not the largest, the finest maritime nation. But even the battles of Crecy and of Agincourt, Marlborough's campaigns, the Napoleonic wars and the Second World War, continuing to Malaya and Borneo, and then to the Falkland Islands, show that we have never had a successful large Continental Army. When we tried to fight as a large, Continental Army in the First World War and in the Crimean war, we were relatively unsuccessful. The greatest strength of our Army lies in its infantry and its special forces under British command. Indeed, even our cavalry and more recently our armour have never been outstanding when measured against those of other major military nations. Yet the bulk of our Regular Army is deployed as a major Continental land force of three armoured divisions and we even thought of disbanding the commandos and the Parachute Regiment.
    In addition, the bulk of our Army is deployed to meet the least likely threat to NATO on the central European front.
    There is another problem—that of local NATO strategy. It is a strategy of forward defence. For political reasons, it is too far forward. The West Germans find it hard to accept the yielding of land in central Europe as a method of absorbing a Russian attack. I understand their feelings, but I do not accept the error that it causes in our defence strategy. First, it means that our forces are deployed so close to the East German border that we are within initial gun range of the Warsaw Pact. It does not have to move massive stocks of ammunition to its gun sites. It is already there, and we are within its range.
    Secondly, we do not have the ability to manoeuvre to absorb the shock of a Warsaw Pact attack, to channel the attacking forces and to deliver a counter-stroke. An indirect approach in the defensive battle is denied by the very far forward defensive strategy. It renders our expensive armoured forces unnecessarily vulnerable to a Warsaw Pact attack. We must bring political pressure to bear on NATO to accept a more flexible land battle strategy.
    Would it be possible to concentrate more on developing and building-up an effective battlefield strength in infantry-launched anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapon systems? We could avoid much of the massive expenditure on tanks by doing that. If, with reasonable accuracy, an infantryman could knock out an enemy tank at 1,000

    547
    metres to 2,000 metres we could reduce the number of tanks. We could reduce one of the prime reasons for having such a massive weight of tanks relative to our land forces.
    We should match our resources to the true needs of NATO. I agree with our basic defence strategy and that it should be based on NATO. Keeping a British force in Europe is vital to NATO's morale, but does it need to be an armoured force? If we concentrated on more sophisticated infantry weapons, we could divert the force from being effectively armoured and have one armoured division, two mechanised divisions and a TA division, with considerable cost savings.
    I am totally opposed to withdrawing the Army from Europe. As I said, that would have a devastating effect on NATO morale and the cost saving per soldier would not be much. But converting from armour to an enhanced mechanised infantry capability would save money that could be used to meet an external NATO threat.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Nott): My hon. Friend makes an interesting point with which I partly agree, but at present there is no better anti-tank weapon than the tank. In 10 to 20 years' time we may have invented new missiles that can penetrate the Russian armour that is being introduced, but it is a technological gap that we are at present trying to fill.
    The weight of fire power that could come down upon the infantry from the current generation of weapons is so huge compared with anything we may remember in the Second World War that it is difficult to conceive how to protect it unless it has armour to cover it and it is mobile on the battlefield. The point was made earlier about being tied into the fever at the front, but it is too involved a subject to deal with now.
    Mr. Browne: I accept that, but surely we should be concentrating our minds more upon research and development. We should be developing infantry-launched missiles instead of concentrating solely on an updated tank. More resources and energy should go into the development of an infantry-launched system.
    I accept my right hon. Friend's views on mobility and protection, but the modern armoured personnel carrier is a sophisticated vehicle and, at present costs, is a relative luxury. I believe that it can be slimmed down considerably and still give acceptable protection.
    We should work much harder towards a NATO standard weapons system, especially in aircraft and tanks. If each nation wants to build its own equipment, why not have an agreement whereby weapons accepted by NATO can be built by each country to the appropriate specification and be interchangeable? The R and D costs could be paid back under a licence agreement, either to the country that carried out the research or to the multinational company concerned.
    Ammunition and logistics should be set in supply for more than a short battle. It would be devastating to have an enormous expenditure on armoured equipment and armoured divisions in Germany only to find that there is only one week's supply of ammunition.
    More use should be made of the Territorial Army. It is a highly efficient and cost-effective organisation. Its members have outstanding morale and dedication. In some senses they are more used to exercises than certain elements of the Regular Army. More attention should be
    548
    paid to recruitment in the Territorial Army. I know that it is up to establishment, but this is an area that would give a good return on increased expenditure.
    As its cost is so high the Regular Army should be an elitist force. The officers, non-commissioned officers and soldiers must all be made aware that they are the elite on the positive and on the cost side. Each individual in the Army should be made aware of how much it costs to put him in uniform and into an armoured personnel carrier, and of the value of the kit entrusted to him. This is done in civilian life. Men and women are made to realise what everything costs. That would be beneficial in the Armed Forces, too.
    I urge increased expenditure on defence. However, in the absence of increased resources, we should amend our present plan in central Europe and concentrate more on the external threat to NATO. I see that threat as much more sinister and active than on the central front. At all costs, we must maintain our independent nuclear deterrent and our civil defence.
    I wish my right hon. and hon. Friends good luck in fighting these battles at home.
    10.3 pm
    Dr. McDonald: By leave of the House, I should like to comment on some of the interesting speeches that have been made during the debate.
    I note with interest the remarks of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). I note that his views are shared on both sides of the House. Those views were also expressed by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), the vice-chairman of the Conservative Defence Committee. They believe that, of the so-called threats facing NATO, access across the central front is the least likely.
    Mr. John Browne: The hon. Lady should not misunderstand what I was saying. I was saying that the least likely threat is against a defended Europe, but we must still defend the central front.
    Dr. McDonald: The Opposition Front Bench have never suggested that there should be an undefended Europe, still less an undefended United Kingdom. I underline that point, because it is important for consumption not only in the House but outside. The Labour Party is certainly not a pacifist party. It has stressed the need for adequate conventional defences. It is on that basis that we are examining the most effective deployment of the conventional forces that are available.
    We believe that it is misplaced to emphasise the central front. The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that that is the least likely of the threats. In the debate on the defence White Paper hon. Members insisted that there are problems and conflicts in which we may have an interest and there are Third world countries that it may be necessary to defend because of their past associations with us. Therefore, events and conflicts outside the NATO area are also important. It is therefore vital that the forces at our disposal should be sufficiently flexible to meet any such problems as and when they arise.
    Other hon. Members have rightly drawn attention to the fact that faced with a defended Europe and the problems within its own empire Russia is unlikely to embark on an adventure into Germany and to advance west. After all,

    549
    Russia has problems holding Poland and Romania, and belatedly it has tried to influence Yugoslavia, which it has already lost.
    The central front is the least likely threat, and it is for that reason that in his radical review we wished that the Secretary of State had given more attention to that fact. He should have questioned the underlying presupposition of NATO's organisation of its defence forces. All that the Government have done in these debates has been to reiterate the threat to the central front. There has been no analysis—political, economic or military—of how that threat may have changed and developed, as we believe it has since the Second World War.
    Mr. Nott: It is the one area in the world where we are most heavily outnumbered by the conventional forces of the Soviet Union. We are outnumbered 3 to 1 in armour, 3 to 1 in aircraft and 5 to 1 in missiles. It may be the least likely threat, but it is the one place in the world where we face ready forces that hugely outnumber our own.
    Dr. McDonald: That poses two questions. First, there should be a proper assessment of the imbalance between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that there is more than one assessment of the relative balance between the two. I shall not develop that argument now, but what he says is open to question.
    Secondly, the conflicts that have arisen since the Second World War, of which there have been more than 140, have occurred outside the central areas. Many experts believe that a third world war is more likely to occur by the involvement of the great Powers in a conflict, very likely outside, or on the border of the NATO area. Some of us have argued from the Opposition Front Bench that the borders of Turkey are perhaps more vulnerable, bearing in mind the conflict between Iran and Iraq, Israel and the Lebanon, and so on. There are serious problems in that area. The great Powers have been drawn into conflicts, directly or indirectly, in those Third world areas. Such a conflict could lead to world war three, and that is the area of greatest concern. So the Government would have done well to present a more up-to-date analysis of the threat on the central front, in spite of what the Secretary of State has just said.
    In my opening remarks I referred to the possibility of withdrawing the British Army of the Rhine. I want to point out that I was, of course, referring to the non-German standing armies. We come second in line to America in having the largest standing Army there. I think that there was some misunderstanding earlier in that regard.
    It was suggested by the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) that our NATO Allies were waiting for us to withdraw our troops from the Rhine so that they could reduce their troops. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we make the greatest contribution from our defence budget to NATO, and that we are therefore in a position of some strength in negotiations with our NATO Allies. I said that this would have to be a matter of negotiation. One could not simply withdraw troops and leave a vacuum. There would have to be agreement with other member countries of NATO to fill the vacuum, thus distributing the burden more fairly. When one is the paymaster, one can lean on people.
    Mr. Jim Spicer: How does one lean on people? What does one do when one is up against some of these
    550
    countries? It is perhaps not fair to mention them by name, but they are already welshing on their existing commitments. They are already pulling back. If the hon. Lady believes that we have the wherewithal to lean on them, that we are the paymaster, she lives in cloud-cuckoo-land.
    Dr. McDonald: The hon. Gentleman should consider the facts, and the facts are that our contribution to NATO from our own defence budget is over 90 per cent. We pay the highest proportion of our budget to NATO. There would have to be a discussion, and we should have to point out that we were reducing, or further reducing, or withdrawing our troops. If people in NATO were worried about a possible gap on the central front, some arrangement would have to be made, some compromise would have to be reached over a fairer distribution of the expenditure.
    The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) asked whether we envisaged replacement by German troops. I entirely appreciate the political problems that are involved here. Such a move would be provocative not only to Russia, but to the countries of Eastern Europe, whose memories of the Second World War remain strong. Plainly, that would not be the way to approach the matter. One would have to look to other Continental countries which were perhaps in a better position to perform that task more cheaply.
    In the course of the debate hon. Members have rightly expressed their concern about nuclear weapons. There was concern about the use of nuclear weapons by the armed forces on the central front. That was related to the need for adequate supplies of ammunition and conventional weapons there. That concern underlines the need to maintain adequate conventional forces, any reduction of which greatly increases the nuclear threat by lowering the nuclear threshold. The Opposition believe that strong conventional forces should be maintained to ensure that the nuclear option is not one which anyone would wish to exercise in the event of a major confrontation.
    Mr. John Browne: The hon. Lady raises an interesting point, but by how much would our conventional forces have to be increased to equal our nuclear deterrent?
    Dr. Mcdonald: Trident is not an independent nuclear deterrent. We could not use it on our own against Russia. It could not be accepted as a serious deterrent by Russia because a threat would invite annihilation by the Russians. It is unbelievable that the Russians could take up a threat by us alone—if that were possible—to use a weapon such as Trident.
    Each Government must examine its needs for conventional weapons according to the nature of the threat and determine expenditure accordingly. That is why we have expressed our policy in the way that we have.
    I want to reiterate some of the important questions that I raised in my opening remarks. What will be the cost of maintaining the British Army of the Rhine, of German civilian support, of variations in the exchange rate, of the need to modernise barracks, and of providing ourselves with adequate ammunition, storage and so on? We should like to have the details of those costs.
    We are also concerned about equipment. There was an interesting exchange on one of my points about tank warfare. The Minister referred to the Rapier missile and he is aware that concern has been expressed about the

    551
    Army and the RAF having different specifications for that weapon? We must ensure that the Services have compatible systems.
    The Royal ordnance factories merited one sentence and a list of the ammunition that was provided during the Falklands campaign. That was a passing reference which hardly compensated for the redundancies that were announced during the Falklands campaign and the resulting continuing uncertainty. The Government announced on 20 May that they plan to go ahead with privatisation in the future, which does nothing to allay the fears and anxieties of workers in those factories. They do not know that that will ensure the stability that they have enjoyed as a separate trading company for the Ministry of Defence in which capacity they have succeeded in faithfully meeting the Army's needs for such a long time. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will reconsider those plans.
    I trust that in his reply the Minister will be able to answer some of the questions that have been raised, and tell us that the Government are now prepared to reconsider their overriding commitment, and the importance that they give to BAOR, and to look again at the view expressed by both sides of the House about the possibility of further reductions. Perhaps they should even consider ultimate withdrawal.
    10.20 pm
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): In the course of today's debate, and during the course of the debates that we have recently had on the White Paper, our Service men in Germany and our NATO allies on the central front have, I am sure, been listening carefully as various hon. Members have sought to place in their minds a new threat. I do not mean the threat from the Soviet Union, which having occupied Afghanistan now supports the martial law subjugating the people in Poland and sits on NATO's eastern borders with its Warsaw Pact allies, outnumbering NATO by between two and five to one in tanks, artillery and aircraft. I am referring to the calls for massive cuts in BAOR, which must sap the spirit and confidence of our troops in Germany, and delight those in the East who wish to see this country's defence policy again characterised by cuts, cancellations and indecision, generated by an inability to decide what jobs we are to do properly with our finite resources.
    We should be delighted if the Opposition Front Bench could explain how, with their massive cuts in defence spending, they could meet the extra commitments that they seem intent on advocating. Let us be in no doubt that their levels of defence spending would leave us not only without Trident but without an Army as well.
    Therefore, I wish to make it clear that we shall not be reconsidering the option of withdrawing BAOR. The presence of our Army in Germany is vital for the political and military cohesion of the Alliance. That visible commitment to forward collective defence cannot be forgone.
    The hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) discussed the question of the costs of the British forces in Germany. They come to about £1,200 million, excluding equipment costs. As has been said on many occasions, this is 9 per cent. of our defence budget. Therefore, I am puzzled as to where the hon. Lady obtained the figure of 40 per cent. It could be that she is referring to the total cost
    552
    of European theatre ground forces, including those in this country, and all our air forces, and this strikes me as being a different figure from the cost of our forces in Germany.
    Dr. McDonald: I made it clear that I was referring to precisely that. The 40 per cent. refers to the division of defence expenditure in terms of its principal roles. Defence of the central front, which obviously involves forces here as well, can be viewed as one of the principal roles. It was in those terms that I expressed the figure.
    Mr. Wiggin: It is a fairly confused line of argument. At the end of the day, we are interested in the defence of the United Kingdom, and we believe that the greatest threat to us lies principally on the central front, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his intervention.
    The hon. Lady asked me many detailed questions. It is not appropriate to discuss the Select Committee report tonight, but I can tell her that the cost of the barracks programme is about £90 million and that we do not have massive quantities of empty accommodation. I have been discussing that matter this morning. We have adequate storage for our ammunition in Germany, although some of it is not located quite where it ought to be. Therefore—we hope with some NATO infrastructure help—to be relocating some of our ammunition storage.
    The question of the Royal ordnance factories is a semantic one. However, I believe that everybody has been thanked. If anybody, by some mishap, has not been spelt out, I cannot comprehend that people do not realise the gratitude that the Government have for all sections of the community and the vast numbers of people involved in all aspects of this operation.
    I assure the House that it is not only in Germany where we are striving to keep our support organisation as lean as possible. We have reduced our costs there from about 11 per cent. to 9 per cent. We are doing this everywhere to enable us to invest our resources to the greatest extent possible in the teeth arms. We intend to avoid wasting resources on duplicating those support functions that the civil sector can provide. This is reflected in our White Paper, which this year includes an essay on the use of national resources in defence designed to stimulate thinking about how we should plan to harness the whole of our national resources to defend ourselves. The Times called this
    "the most important section"
    of
    "an attractively presented defence White Paper."
    One way in which the military and civilians come together is in the Territorial Army. This makes one of the most cost-effective contributions to our defence. The Government are determined that this contribution should be increased. The measures that my right hon. Friend announced earlier in the year are intended to achieve this aim.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) raised the question of regular reserves. It is a fact that those who have most recently retired from active service are the most likely to be able to return to active service. We have therefore established the individual reinforcement plan whereby, for some years, those who have recently retired will report annually. We keep their addresses. We can get to them quickly. They have some uniform and equipment and we pay them a bounty. Of course, we should like to be able to send them to Germany, but there has to be some limit on expenditure in this area. Their role in war will be

    553
    as casualty replacements. It is therefore not always possible to see a way of training them in the precise regiment in which they will serve or in the precise role that they will have to carry out in wartime.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Sir N. Bonsor) mentioned the reserve commitment. I join him in saying that we in this country understand the requirement for the average citizen to contribute something in time of war. We saw this national virtue during the Falklands crisis. I hope that we are taking the necessary staeps to channel that virtue in the event of war.
    The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) cast some unhappy aspersions on various aspects of the welfare of our forces. I accept that there can be improvement in community relations and domestic welfare. I am, however, happy that the Services work enormously hard on these aspects. I refer not only to the Army. All three Services go out of their way to mix with the community, to make their contribution and to be good neighbours. The hon. Gentleman said that they should be rich good neighbours. I am not sure about that. At least, they work hard at being good neighbours.
    An enormous amount of time and trouble is spent on welfare. This is not always easy. There are problems. In all the organisations with which I have been connected, I do not believe that the Services can be surpassed in this matter. The hon. Gentleman's final contribution related to Number 2 dress. He recommended that the Army should make it more charismatic. This remark shows an element of ignorance about what happens in the services. There is to be a modified Number 2 dress. I was at the stores and clothing research and development establishment yesterday. It has done a large amount of work. An experiment has been carried out on this.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey, in an excellent philosophical speech, mentioned a number of points on disarmement and gave an analysis that I would commend to those who did not hear it. He talked in a learned manner about the regular reserves.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich also mentioned defending the home base. United Kingdom Land Forces recently did a study on that matter. We are basing our current plans on the assumption that, taking into account the Regular Forces stationed in the United Kingdom, plus the Reserves that will be allocated to UKLF, we shall have more than 80,000 troops equipped, trained and ready to go at the outbreak of war. I hope that that goes some way towards answering his point.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) asked me about parachuting. I have heard him ask that question before. He will find that the White Paper, in page 19, deals with the fact that we shall install the radar that is necessary for that capability. He rightly paid tribute to his regiment, and I join him. The Parachute Regiment was wonderfully brave and did a terrific job.
    My hon. Friend also mentioned Northern Ireland. I went into more detailed comment on the Northern Ireland operations last week, so I shall not dwell on them now, but I should say that while the spotlight has been focussed elsewhere recently, our Forces in Northern Ireland have continued to carry out their duties in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—duties which are often every bit as dangerous and difficult as those undertaken in the South
    554
    Atlantic—with their customary gallantry and dedication. I know that the House will wish to join me in reassuring them of our continuing gratitude and support.
    The security forces continue to achieve notable successes and there have been some good finds of arms and ammunition on both sides of the border, while a welcome development in the campaign to bring men of violence to justice through the courts has been the successful prosecution in the Republic of Ireland of terrorists for offences committed in Northern Ireland.
    The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) mentioned his concern for the widows of Service men killed in Northern Ireland in the light of the success of the South Atlantic fund, which has now reached about £5 million. Separate charitable arrangements exist through the Army benevolent fund for troops in Northern Ireland and their dependants. The fact that the South Atlantic fund will remove the burden on those Service charities means that those who serve in Northern Ireland and their dependants will receive the same as or rather more than those who serve elsewhere.
    The Army Dependants Assurance Trust provides funds for the dependants of those who are killed, and about 50 per cent. of the Army personnel killed in the falklands were members of that trust. The Army Board negotiated the scheme in 1972. It provides a tax-free benefit to dependants of soldiers who die, regardless of the cause, whether on or off duty. Over £10 million will be paid during the next 30 years to dependants of those who died in the Falklands who were members of the voluntary scheme.
    The payments are in addition to the benefits payable under the Armed Forces pension scheme, which is the occupational scheme for all the Armed Forces. It provides pensions and lump sum grants for those who retire or who are invalided from the Services. In the case of widows, it provides for the continuation of the husband's full pay for three months from his death, if there are no children, after which the widow receives a pension from the Ministry of Defence and a war widow's pension from the DHSS, both tax-free and index-linked. In addition, she would be paid a substantial lump sum by the Ministry of Defence.
    In cash terms the benefits payable under the Armed Forces pension scheme will vary according to individual circumstances, but, for example, a sergeant's widow with two children would receive a pension totalling more than £8,000 and a lump sum of more than £10,000. The details have now been put before the House, and there should be no criticism of the way in which we treat the bereaved.
    I have picked up as many points as I can in this good debate, although the hon. Member for Keighley seemed to stray into the wider areas of disarmament and nuclear weapons, with which my hon. Friend the Minister of State dealt extremely well last week. While I share the hon. Gentleman's desire for peace, we differ in the method of obtaining it. I believe that strength and deterrence is the way to peace, but he believes that total disarmament is the way to it. History shows that in an ideal world he could perhaps obtain what he wants, but, sadly, we do not live in an ideal world. We both seek peace, and I acknowledge that.
    Mr. Cryer: I do not seek total disarmament. I recognise the need for a conventional Army, Navy and Air

    555
    Force. Will the Minister answer my question about Menwith Hill? Is his section of the Ministry responsible, or is it the responsibility of the Navy or the Air Force?
    Mr. Wiggin: While the hon. Gentleman was talking about Menwith Hill, he had the courtesy to admit that it was unlikely that he would obtain an answer. He will not obtain an answer from me now.
    We have said much about the role of the Army and its equipment during the debate, but I should like to conclude by paying tribute to that most valuable and vital resource—our Service men and women. Their high standards of training, expertise and morale are the envy of other nations. We intend to ensure that none of those attributes is undermined.
    Mr. Allen McKay: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

    TRADE UNIONS
    That the draft Funds for Trade Union Ballots Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.— [Mr. Thompson.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thompson.]

  Royal Dental Hospital, Tooting
  10.36 pm
  Mr. Thomas Cox: I seek to try to find out from the Minister what is to be the future of the Royal dental hospital and whether it is to move to the facilities that exist for it at the St. George's hospital, Tooting. The issue is of great concern to that part of South London. I have the full support of the Wandsworth health authority and of the South-West Thames regional health authority for my case.
  With the rebuilding of the St. George's hospital in Tooting we thought that we would in time see the development on this site of the Royal dental hospital and a move from its present home in Leicester Square. It is only following a report by the University of London working party of dental deans concerning the future of dental services for London that the future of the Tooting development has been put in doubt. It is a recommendation that is not accepted by many members of the medical profession and it is certainly opposed by large numbers of the general public as they become aware of the recommendations and their effects on dental services in South-West London.
  It is my view, having become very involved in the issue as the local Member of Parliament, that a decision has been taken without consideration of the medical needs of the area that would have been covered by the dental school on the ground of possible—I stress the word "possible"—financial savings.
  The stupidity of that line of thinking is that already within the St. George's hospital complex are the buildings in which the dental school can be developed. How often do we hear hon. Members saying to Ministers "What we need in our constituencies is the allocation of more money to rebuild or develop new services". St. George's hospital is not asking for that because we already have the facilities in terms of buildings. It is my understanding that no other use is envisaged for these buildings. They were built with this transfer in mind. I ask the Minister how much real consultation there has been with the region and the district health authorities on the issue. I think that there has been very little.
  I ask that question because if one lists the reasons why the suggested move to Tooting should be supported, one finds it unbelievable that a recommendation could be made not to move to Tooting. No one can doubt that the present facilities at Leicester Square will not be adequate in the long term, but they would be at Tooting. Dental services in South-West London would suffer considerably if the move did not take place. The people affected would be children, the less well-off members of the community, the elderly and the physically handicapped who make use of the services either at Leicester Square or at Tooting.
  If the move does not take place, there will be no major dental hospital in the whole of the South-West Thames region. It will be a departure from the policy of the DHSS to move hospital services from central London to other parts of the capital. The Charing Cross and St. George's hospitals are examples of that policy. If the move does not take place, people who need treatment will have to make long and costly journeys into Central London to get the
  558
  dental treatment that they need. No one can dispute that that could deter many people from getting the treatment that they need.
  That is relevant when I point out that, unfortunately, we already have the worst dentist: population ratio of anywhere in Western Europe. At present, at both Leicester Square and Tooting about 150,000 patients are seen annually. In what is, unfortunately, a relatively poor part of London, we should do everything we can to provide services, not cuts or restrictions.
  In 1979 the Flowers committee was asked to recommend what redevelopment of resources should take place for medicine and dentistry to maintain their present standards. In its report of February 1980, it said that the planned move of the Royal dental hospital and school from Leicester Square to Tooting, alongside St. George's Hospital, was to be welcomed and had its support. It believed that these arrangements should be implemented as quickly as possible. What has gone wrong with those proposals? They are just over two years old. They were suggested in February 1980.
  The recommendations that the Flowers committee made must have been based on the fact that about £8 million had already been spent on providing the buildings in the new hospital complex at St. George's, Tooting. The British Dental Association report entitled
  "Dental Manpower Requirements for the year 2020"
  stated—it was considering population trends, among other things—that the conclusion which emerged from these projections was that the number of dentists now being trained was probably not excessive in relation to projected levels of need and demand.
  No one can dispute that there is a need. The dental deans said that there could be a merger with Guy's and the resources and students of the Royal transferred to other dental schools. That neither faces the facts nor gives them. It says nothing about the extra accommodation that would be required to take the extra students.
  The dental deans at King's are faced with an increase of students from 48 to 64 by 1986. In March they said:
  "This—
  the increase in the intake—
  "would create many accommodation problems. Even Guy's said in April 1981 that there would have to be some minor alterations to the buildings if they took more students."
  What will be the cost of those alterations and adaptations? Provision already exists at St. George's in Tooting.
  Successive Governments have presented proposals that have not been thought out properly or costed. The dental deans' proposal comes within that category. Their case for making savings by not moving to St. George's has not been proven. There would be no long-term savings, for the reasons that I have given. One could not provide extra dental chairs per clinical dental student without incurring costs in expanding dental facilities. What would that cost be? Will the Minister give me some idea of it?
  I have tried to outline why our dental hospital should go to Tooting, as everyone has been led to believe that it would. It is an excellent opportunity to complete the redevelopment of the health services of that hospital. Both the Wandsworth and the South-West Thames health authorities are prepared to meet their share of the costs involved. It would be extremely short-sighted of the Minister and his Department not to allow the development to occur.

  559
  The Minister should examine every aspect of the issue before making a decision. He should ensure that all the facts about costs and the needs of the areea ar fully considered. I invite him to visit St. George's to meet the senior medical practitioners so that he can familiarise himself with all the issues before taking a final decision on something that is crucial to South London.
  10.49 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) has spoken with his usual vigour about a matter which I know concerns him greatly. I am also aware that a number of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have received representations about the future of the Royal dental hospital and school. I am therefore glad to have this chance to clarify a number of the issues that have been raised.
  The Royal dental hospital of London school of dental surgery is the oldest dental school in the United Kingdom and the second oldest in the world. The school was opened at 32 Soho Square on 1 October 1859, following the formation three years earlier of the Odontological Society of London and the concern about the problem of dental education and the need for a qualification in dental surgery. The House will recall the pictures that one occasionally saw of rather strange, unqualified people with pliers pulling out teeth.
  In 1874, the hospital and school moved to larger premises in Leicester Square, but the growth of the two institutions soon necessitated the provision of a new building on an adjacent site. That building was opened in March 1901 and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is still used for the treatment of patients and the education of students. The hospital, which has 90 chairs, provides out-patient services in all the different specialties in dentistry. The School of Dental Hygiene is also based at Leicester Square, together with departments of prosthetics and an emergency day clinic.
  Pioneer work carried on in association with the Royal dental hospital included the use of nitrous oxide anaesthesia, radiology and electrotherapy in dental surgery and, in later years, the application of clinical photography as an aid to dental education. A further innovation introduced by the Royal dental hospital was the provision of separate wards for dental patients in general hospitals. I understand that the school has always stressed the great importance of providing a general medical background for the study of dentistry.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for having spent a minute or two describing briefly some of the history and achievements of the hospital and school. At a time when the future of both the hospital and the school is in doubt, it is important that we reflect on what has helped to give those institutions the name that they have justifiably earned. With this long history of tradition and service to the public, it is quite understandable that people who are or have been closely identified with the hospital and school should be concerned about its future.
  To some extent, staff associated with the hospital and school have lived with uncertainty about the future for many years. Plans for the rebuilding of both St. George's hospital, Hyde Park Corner and the Royal dental hospital and school go back as far as the early 1960s. Before I discuss the immediate future, it is important that I trace the development of plans for the rebuilding.
  560
  Following the publication in January 1962 of "A Hospital Plan for England and Wales", formal proposals were submitted to the then Minister of Health for the rebuilding of St. George's hospital and the Royal dental hospital, together with their associated medical and dental schools, using the combined Grove and Fountain hospital sites at Tooting.
  This proposal envisaged rebuilding in four phases, extending over the period 1967–78, the accommodation for the dental school's pre-clinical departments being included in phase 1, with the main dental hospital and school accommodation in phase 2, which was scheduled for completion in 1970–72. It was agreed with the University Grants Committee and my Department that the school's intake of undergraduate students would increase from 45 per year to 64 per year when rebuilding was complete. In the event, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, planning, contract and financial difficulties extended the programme so that phase 1 was not completed until 1975–76. The pre-clinical school at Tooting provides accommodation and facilities for an annual intake of 64 students, which is in accordance with the plans to increase the size of the dental school.
  The dental school's pre-clinical departments moved to Tooting in September 1976, and the pre-clinical course for dental students has been held there since October 1977. The original intention was to re-provide on the St. George's hospital development site all the facilities currently available at the Royal dental hospital in a separate phase starting simultaneously with phase 2A. In 1976, however, further financial restrictions necessitated a re-examination of the plans for phase 2 of the project, in the course of which it was decided that the dental hospital and school could not be incorporated in phase 2 and that no timetable could be decided for succeeding phases.
  I can well understand how extremely frustrating this delay must have been for all those whose hopes rested on the original plans. That is not to say that my Department failed to recognise the difficulties under which staff were working at Leicester Square, and in 1978, at the request of my Department, the South-West Thames regional health authority undertook a study of the hospital's premises. Part of its report read as follows:
  "The premises are outdated, overcrowded and inadequate for their present functions. The services are old-fashioned and difficult to maintain. By modern standards of health and safety, working conditions, fire precautions and amenities for staff, students and patients are unacceptable.
  The study noted a number of essential requirements: the creation of additional clinical space, the improvement of working conditions generally but particularly in technical laboratories; the improvement of facilities for the storage and handling of patients' records; the need for adequate fire precautions, including the provision of storage for flammable materials and gas cylinders and proper protection of means of escape; and extensive overhaul of the building itself."
  It was estimated that at the then current prices the work would cost £2·75 million and would take about eight years to complete. As I ant sure the hon. Member will recall, in 1979, following further discussions between representatives of my Department, the school and hospital, the UGC and the regional and area health authorities, it was agreed that the financial and other implications of up-grading the Leicester Square premises to an appropriate standard were unacceptable, and that ways be examined of accelerating the move of the dental hospital and school to Tooting.

  561
  In March 1979, as the hon. Gentleman reminded us, the University of London's working party on medical and dental teaching resources was asked to recommend what redeployment of resources available for medicine and dentistry should be adopted to maintain the standard of medical and dental education and research in London. In its report, published in February 1980, it stated:
  "The planned move of the Royal Dental Hospital and School from Leicester Square to Tooting alongside St. George's Hospital is to be welcomed and has our support. We believe that these arrangements should be implemented as quickly as possible."
  The hon. Gentleman asked "What has happened as a result?" The report was superseded by events.
  A further report in October 1980 by the joint planning committee of the university court and senate led to a working party on medical costs which reported in February 1981. The report was translated into recommendations by the joint planning committee and was accepted by the senate and the court as univerity policy for medical schools. Among other proposals, it was decided to continue the expansion of St. George's hospital and medical school at Tooting. The future of the dental schools was referred to a separate working party on dental education in the University of London which reported in June 1981 with a series of options for the university for the re-organisation of dental education in London. Following that report, the joint medical advisory committee of the university set up in July 1981 another working party consisting of the dental deans of the university.
  The working party produced a majority report recommending the merger of the Royal dental school with Guy's hospital medical school, redistributing some of the student load to other schools of the university. There was a minority report recommending the maintenance of the policy of rebuildng the Royal dental school at Tooting in association with St. George's hospital medical school. I understand that the university is likely to reach a final decision soon and that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is where the matter rests at the moment.
  The hon. Gentleman has made it plain that he feels that, had certain recommendations in the past been acted upon more quickly, we should not be debating this evening the future of the Royal dental hospital and school. But knowing the hon. Gentleman fairly well, I believe that he will recognise from the background information that I have given him the complexity of the issues and the need to ensure that whatever the decision, it is taken against the background of the need to ensure the best possible use of scarce capital and revenue resources and the changing needs of dental education.
  My Department's position is, I hope, clear. During discussions last year with the South-West Thames regional health authority, it was impressed on my officials the difficulty that the regional health authority would be in
  562
  without some indication from the Department that it would be able to give more than the normal 35 per cent. of the capital cost of a teaching hospital scheme.
  Recognising the region's problems, my Department agreed to increase its contribution to 45 per cent. or 50 per cent. provided—I stress that—that the University of London decides to confirm its original decision to transfer the school to Tooting. Dental hospitals exist primarily to provide facilities for dental education. I am sure that the hon. Gentlemen is well aware that in this country all dental hospitals, with the exception of the Eastman, are associated with undergraduate schools. If the University of London decides not to proceed with the transfer of the school, the need for a dental hospital in Tooting must also be questioned. We have not been convinced that there is a service need for a dental hospital on its own in an area where the ratio of general dental practitioners is really no worse than in other parts of London.
  I recognise that if the university decides not to proceed with the transfer of the school, a number of additional important decisions will have to be taken. Arrangements would have to be made to ensure that satisfactory alternative use be found for the space already in use at Tooting by the dental school; and both the South-West Thames regional health authority and the Wandsworth district health authority would need to reconsider their strategy for the provision of dental services in that part of London. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that will be done, and I will ensure that because of the university's key role in this matter—I cannot stress that too strongly—his anxiety and what he has said during this debate will be brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
  From what the hon. Gentleman has said and from what I have said, no one has pretended, or will pretend, that this is an easy decision to make. I have been impressed by the immense personal efforts that have been made by senior staff associated with the hospital and school to ensure its future and by the testimonials from patients, both past and present, to the skilled treatment that they have received there. Whatever the decision, I hope that it will be the right one which serves best the future needs of dental education and of the patients.
  That is all that I can say to the hon. Gentleman. He has clearly laid out before the House the problems that he sees arising in his constituency and in his part of London. I have tried to paint for him the wider picture to show him that the decisions are being taken in the light of the University of London's proposals and its belief in how the policy should operate. I have undertaken to see that my right hon. Friend's attention is drawn to what he said, and I hope that what I have said will be of some comfort to the hon. Gentleman and that he will feel that the decision will not be lightly taken.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Eleven o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER
  Falklands Casualties (Burial)
  Falklands Casualties (Burial)
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Disarmament
  Disarmament
  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Argentina (Arms Supplies)
  Argentina (Arms Supplies)
  Mr. David Kitson
  Mr. David Kitson
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Trades Union Congress
  Trades Union Congress
  Swalecliffe (Coastal Protection)
  Swalecliffe (Coastal Protection)
TRANSPORT
  British Rail (Grant)
  British Rail (Grant)
DEFENCE
  Service Personnel (Leave)
  Service Personnel (Leave)
  HMS "Endurance"
  HMS "Endurance"
  Argentina (Order of Battle)
  Argentina (Order of Battle)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  South Georgia (Argentine Prisoner)
  South Georgia (Argentine Prisoner)
  Direct Entry Officer Cadets.
  Direct Entry Officer Cadets.
  South Atlantic Fund
  South Atlantic Fund
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Aircraft (Cost)
  Aircraft (Cost)
  Type 23 Frigate (Design and Development Cost)
  Type 23 Frigate (Design and Development Cost)
  Military Personnel (Secondment)
  Military Personnel (Secondment)
  Hatfield and Dunscroft (Low-flying Aircraft)
  Hatfield and Dunscroft (Low-flying Aircraft)
  Departmental Land Purchases
  Departmental Land Purchases
  Falklands Garrison
  Falklands Garrison
  Career Information Offices (Wales)
  Career Information Offices (Wales)
  Research Contracts
  Research Contracts
  Radio South Atlantic
  Radio South Atlantic
  Royal Marines
  Royal Marines
TRADE
  Bankruptcies
  Bankruptcies
  Copyright
  Copyright
  Eurocontrol
  Eurocontrol
  Power Boats (Safety Training)
  Power Boats (Safety Training)
  Aviation Security Fund
  Aviation Security Fund
EMPLOYMENT
  Skillcentre (Charlton)
  Skillcentre (Charlton)
  Unemployment (Derbyshire)
  Unemployment (Derbyshire)
  Public Sector Employees (Disablement)
  Public Sector Employees (Disablement)
  Trade Unions (Political Funds)
  Trade Unions (Political Funds)
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Lost Working Days
  Lost Working Days
INDUSTRY
  Nuneaton and Bedworth
  Nuneaton and Bedworth
  Computer Aided Design Centre
  Computer Aided Design Centre
  Member's Correspondence
  Member's Correspondence
  Steel Prices
  Steel Prices
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid Criteria
  Aid Criteria
SCOTLAND
  Grey Seals (North Sea)
  Grey Seals (North Sea)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Juvenile Court Rules
  Juvenile Court Rules
  Motoring Offences
  Motoring Offences
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  London Probate Office
  London Probate Office
  Mr. Michael West QC
  Mr. Michael West QC
  Rent Assessment Committees
  Rent Assessment Committees
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Argentine (European Community Embargo)
  Argentine (European Community Embargo)
  SWAPO (Financial Support)
  SWAPO (Financial Support)
  Missing Persons
  Missing Persons
  Argentine (Human Rights)
  Argentine (Human Rights)
WALES
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  O-level Examinations
  O-level Examinations
  A-level Examinations
  A-level Examinations
  Community Task Force Projects
  Community Task Force Projects
  Departmental Maladministration
  Departmental Maladministration
  Apprentices
  Apprentices
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  British Petroleum
  British Petroleum
  Job Losses
  Job Losses
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Health and Personal Social Services
  Health and Personal Social Services
  Mental Health (Amendment) Bill
  Mental Health (Amendment) Bill
  Depo Provera
  Depo Provera
  Junior Doctors
  Junior Doctors
  Widows (Benefits)
  Widows (Benefits)
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Benefits and Pensions (Giro Payments)
  Benefits and Pensions (Giro Payments)
  Toxic Waste (Dumping)
  Toxic Waste (Dumping)
  Health Education Councils (Resources)
  Health Education Councils (Resources)
  Mrs. L. Brock
  Mrs. L. Brock
  National Health Service (Pay)
  National Health Service (Pay)
  Medical Students
  Medical Students
  Pensioners (Incomes)
  Pensioners (Incomes)
  Young Persons (Court Proceedings)
  Young Persons (Court Proceedings)
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  Hepatitis
  Hepatitis
  Deprivation and Disadvantage (Report)
  Deprivation and Disadvantage (Report)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Student Doctors
  Student Doctors
  Overseas Doctors (Training Costs)
  Overseas Doctors (Training Costs)
  Sixth Form Colleges
  Sixth Form Colleges
  Health Boards (Doctors)
  Health Boards (Doctors)
  Patients Prison Officers (Casualty Statistics)
  Patients Prison Officers (Casualty Statistics)
  Lisburn Police Station
  Lisburn Police Station
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Terrorism (Explosive Devices)
  Terrorism (Explosive Devices)
TRANSPORT
  Severn Bridge
  Severn Bridge
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Bridges (Safety)
  Bridges (Safety)
  East London River Crossing
  East London River Crossing
  British Rail (Job Losses)
  British Rail (Job Losses)
  Motorways (Costs)
  Motorways (Costs)
  M1 (Repairs)
  M1 (Repairs)
  Hit and Run Accidents (Compensation)
  Hit and Run Accidents (Compensation)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Crown Agents
  Crown Agents
  Civil Servants (Dismissals)
  Civil Servants (Dismissals)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Pensions (Price Index)
  Pensions (Price Index)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Pensioners (Taxation)
  Pensioners (Taxation)
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Invalid Care Allowance
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Trees and Hedgerows
  Trees and Hedgerows
  Sheepmeat
  Sheepmeat
  Hill and Marginal Land Farming
  Hill and Marginal Land Farming
  Beef Variable Scheme
  Beef Variable Scheme
  Agricultural Land (Ownership and Tenancies)
  Agricultural Land (Ownership and Tenancies)
  Colorado Beetle
  Colorado Beetle
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Sheep Scab
  Sheep Scab
  Less Favoured Area Support
  Less Favoured Area Support
  Fishing Co-operatives
  Fishing Co-operatives
  Farm Borrowing
  Farm Borrowing
  Meat (Inspection and Control)
  Meat (Inspection and Control)
  "Food from Britain"
  "Food from Britain"
  Farmed Fish (Diseases)
  Farmed Fish (Diseases)
  Live Animals (Exports)
  Live Animals (Exports)
  Thames Barrier
  Thames Barrier
  Landlords and Tenants (Agreement)
  Landlords and Tenants (Agreement)
  Milk (Co-responsibility Levy)
  Milk (Co-responsibility Levy)
  Forestry
  Forestry
  Labelling of Food Regulations 1980
  Labelling of Food Regulations 1980
  Food Exports
  Food Exports
  Food, Feed and Live Animals (Exports)
  Food, Feed and Live Animals (Exports)
  Farming (Young Entrants)
  Farming (Young Entrants)
  Tea (Control Standards)
  Tea (Control Standards)
  Eggs (Battery Production)
  Eggs (Battery Production)
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
ENVIRONMENT
  Rent Officers
  Rent Officers
  Special Development Order Procedure
  Special Development Order Procedure
  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  Acid Rain
  Acid Rain
  Swalecliffe
  Swalecliffe
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Tortoises
  Tortoises
  Homeless Persons (Housing Costs)
  Homeless Persons (Housing Costs)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

UN Assembly on Ageing
Baroness Trumpington: 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 proposals they will be making to the United Nations World Assembly on Ageing, in Vienna during July, to improve conditions for the aged in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the assembly, whose main business will be to discuss and approve an international plan of action, will provide an opportunity for an exchange of views between delegations representing Governments of member states of the United Nations Organisation. Her Majesty's Government are marking the assembly in this country in two ways: by sponsoring an award scheme aimed at encouraging local voluntary initiatives by or on behalf of elderly people, and by mounting a major seminar on research relating to elderly people in the community.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his very courteous reply and I am relieved that he did not mistake my Question for ageing in Vienna! Will the Government give practical application to Help the Aged's recommendation that the massive transfer of resources from the industrial nations to the developing countries, as proposed by the Brandt Report, is essential so as to enable impoverished nations to have resources available for programmes for the elderly?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Brandt Commission report was, of course, a very wide-ranging document, but it is perhaps worth remembering that in the United Kingdom we spend something in excess of £12 billion a year on retirement pensions and other benefits for elderly people, and we have a record of which I think we can be proud.
Lord Banks: My Lords, has the noble Lord's attention been drawn to the report in the Guardian today to the effect that, in the opinion of the Expenditure Steering Group for Personal Social Services, which comprises representatives of Whitehall and the local authorities, the Government are demanding cuts in the social services which would mean the loss of 11,000 residential places in old people's homes, 80,000 fewer meals on wheels and 70,000 fewer people having home helps? What is the noble Lord's reaction to that
892
assessment and, if correct, would it not be discouraging news for the United Nations World Assembly on Ageing?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if that report were correct, it would indeed be discouraging, but I would advise the noble Lord not to believe anything he reads in the newspapers.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, following on the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, will my noble friend not agree that the hospitals are having to accommodate a number of elderly people who could more happily and better be cared for in the community were the resources available?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly agree that it is an important feature of our policy to get all people who are unsuitably accommodated in hospitals into community homes of every kind, whether they are handicapped people, elderly people or infirm people in some other way. We have an order of priority in that regard. We are particularly concerned at the present time with mentally handicapped people and wish to get them out of long-stay hospitals. I certainly agree that the other categories of people who are inappropriately housed in that way ought to be seen to, and we shall do so just as soon as resources permit.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, further to my noble friend's question, if the cuts which are stated to be planned by the Government in the Guardian are not correct, will the noble Lord say what cuts there will be in the services for old people? Will he not agree that it would be more likely to convince the House and the country that there will not be any cuts if statements of policy were made by the Government, instead of simply denials of assertions made on the basis of thorough investigations by a newspaper?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, policy statements will be made in due time.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that it is through voluntary organisations that great steps have been taken towards helping the aged to lead happy lives?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, yes, I agree with that. The voluntary agencies certainly play a very important role in this matter and, indeed, we provide help from central Government sources to quite a number of them.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, may I be allowed to express my gratitude to the noble Baroness for her interest in helpless people like me?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have never regarded the noble Lord as helpless, but then he might like to go to the conference himself.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, will the Minister agree that there has been general disappointment as a result of the replies which he has made? If I heard him correctly, in his first Answer he said that British proposals would be limited to encouraging voluntary or-

893
ganisations and an educational seminar. Is not that entirely inadequate for a Government to propose to an international conference on this subject?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with respect, I think that the noble Lord slightly misunderstood the Answer. Perhaps I did not make it sufficiently clear. The two matters to which he referred are things which we shall be doing in this country to mark the convention in Vienna, but what actually happens at the convention is different. It will be a forum for discussion. There will be a number of major proposals put forward. I think that a draft document has already been circulated for consideration by delegates informally before they come to the conference. I was particularly asked what we would do in this country, and those were the items to which I referred.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he can have the best of both worlds? Local authorities can make a massive contribution by providing old people's homes in their areas. At the moment these homes are constructed and older folk move in; they seem to attract the attention of a proportion of our youth who indulge in a great deal of voluntary help to aid the old people. Will the noble Lord also take into consideration relieving local authorities from any cuts that prevent them from building old people's homes, which then prevents local authorities attracting voluntary services to assist them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said earlier in answer to my noble friend Lady Trumpington, we greatly welcome the activities of the voluntary agencies in this sector. But, with respect to the noble Lord, the main thrust of his supplementary question went slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, with reference to the noble Lord's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, he said that he had been asked what we would do here. Surely the question of the noble Baroness is what proposals we shall make to the assembly?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the assembly is not actually one in which proposals are to be made by individual delegates. We estimate that there will be 100 or more delegations at the conference. Anyone who is a member of the United Nations is, I understand, entitled to send a delegation. As we understand it—the conference is still some weeks off—the principal work of the conference will be to consider an important document which, as I have said, has been circulated in draft.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, will the Government consider increasing attendance allowances and back-up services to enable old people to be kept more in their own homes rather than be sent to institutions?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with respect, that is another question.

UNESCO World Heritage Convention 1972
3.8 pm.
Lord Duncan-Sandys: 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 will explain the reasons why they have so far not acceded to the UNESCO World Heritage Convention of 1972.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, accession to the convention would entail an obligation to contribute to the World Heritage Fund. This would currently amount to about £39,000, based on our annual assessed payment to UNESCO, which could involve reducing the provision made for other work in developing countries to which Her Majesty's Government attach higher priority.
Lord Duncan-Sandys: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some 60 other countries have acceded to this convention, including most of the countries of Western Europe and the United States of America? Considering the outstanding record of Britain in the field of natural and architectural conservation, is it not strange that we should decline to play our part at international level, since it is likely to cost only £39,000?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend on the figures of those who have acceded, and also the remarks that my noble friend made about the part that we have played in our contribution to conserving the natural and cultural heritage of this country, and indeed internationally. Indeed, my noble friend played his part only seven years ago as chairman of the International Organising Committee of the European Architectural Heritage Year, Having said that, the fact is that, although the World Heritage Fund is set up to provide support for projects, no direct benefits are likely to come to Britain even if we ratify.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, agree with the preamble to this UNESCO Convention that the cultural and national heritage of the world are increasingly threatened with destruction? Is there not a certain risk of that happening even in this country? Is this failure to take any part in this attempt at preservation of a culture which is under threat a remarkably un-British contribution, if I may dare use such an adjective, at this time when the amount involved, £39,000, is really a minimal amount?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord refers to the preamble. The noble and learned Lord may have also noticed that the two main aims of the convention are that each state should recognise the duty of looking after its own cultural and natural heritage, and each state should take necessary steps to protect its own cultural and natural heritage. I think we have been leading the way in the world in doing

895
that. We then have to look at the third step, which is what happens if we accede to the convention. We find that some interesting pieces of heritage, such as the Grand Canyon in the United States, are apparently on the list of those places which ought to be preserved, but I think it is doubtful whether there would be any heritage places in the United Kingdom which would figure on the list.
Lord Renton: My Lords, with regard to my noble friend's answer to my noble friend Lord DuncanSandys that this would not benefit the United Kingdom, if I understood him rightly, would he bear in mind that there is great scope for international action in these tasks of preserving the world's heritage and that the international action is not likely to be effective without the full support of our country?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we have not closed the door on this matter. We have decided simply to defer ratification at present. It is not possible to say when ratification will take place, but the question is being kept under review.
Lord Oram: My Lords, if this country made more resolute steps to an aid programme such as we are committed to in the United Nations, would not that sum of money easily comprehend the small amount of money that would be needed to meet the noble Lord's request in his Question?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the aid programme of this country is directed primarily towards the poorest countries. I very much doubt whether they would benefit from this convention.
Lord Duncan-Sandys: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that one of the basic principles of the convention is that we all accept and recognise that the heritage of the world, whether natural or architectural, is the joint heritage of all mankind and that we all have a part to play in trying to preserve it? As for any benefits to us, the Minister said that he did not think we had anything sufficiently interesting to feature on a world list of objects which needed preserving. I have no doubt that Stonehenge would be one of the first on the whole of the list. Does he not really feel that, in view of the serious criticism being expressed internationally of our failure to accede, the Government should give not only consideration but urgent consideration to this matter?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, really one has to look at the facts. The total sum available to the fund is going to be very small indeed. One had to look carefully to see what the future of the fund would be in view of the enormous demands which will undoubtedly be made upon it. One has to look with some self-interest to see whether it would be of use to this country. It is on that point particularly that we have our doubts.
Baroness White: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his answer is not concerned solely with cash, but that it makes some of us feel rather ashamed?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if we are talking about
896
swapping part of the aid programme which goes towards the poorest countries to this fund, then I have no shame at all in saying that I believe that it would be wrong to make that swap. If, on the other hand, we are talking about providing new money, then I am afraid the new money is not there to be provided.

South Africa: UN Oil Embargo
3.15 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their attitude to the United Nation's embargo on oil supplies to South Africa and whether they have any evidence that this is being evaded by British companies.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there is no mandatory United Nations oil embargo against South Africa. The question of British companies evading such an embargo therefore does not arise.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, if the noble Lord the Minister will read my Question again he will see that the word "mandatory" does not appear in it. Is he aware that last December the United Nations General Assembly passed by 126 votes to 7 a motion for oil sanctions against South Africa? Is he further aware that the British Government themselves prevent North Sea oil being sent direct to South Africa? Has he, or his department, studied the Amsterdam-based Shipping Research Bureau Report which states that between January 1980 and June 1981 32 tankers with British managers or British charters, 21 of which were from Shell or BP, were presumed to have delivered oil to South Africa? Has the noble Lord studied these figures, and does that equate with the Answer he has given?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is a fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has said, that the Government have made clear to companies exporting North Sea crude oil that they expect them to do so to the markets only of the International Energy Agency and our European Community partners. The oil companies are well aware of this and that the Government attach considerable importance to it, and I believe that these are guidelines which are working. So far as the report of the Shipping Research Bureau is concerned, certain countries have indeed imposed a unilateral oil embargo against South Africa. It is not for the British Government, however, to enforce embargoes by other countries.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, is it not a fact that British oil companies have to give returns to the Department of Energy as to where the stocks of oil are, and including stocks actually carried on the water? Therefore, is the noble Lord in a position to say whether any British oil companies hold stocks of oil in South Africa?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords, I am afraid I am not.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the noble Minister not agree that we in this country have a specific interest in matters of these kinds that refer to South Africa'? We are the mother country of a great, multiracial Commonwealth which could not stomach the views of South Africa and she was ejected out of that Commonwealth. If we do not stand fast by its great principles, all that we shall be doing is giving succour to opponents of ours from Communist regimes who cash in on anything like this. Would the noble Lord make a statement beyond any peradventure that Great Britain, as the head of a great multiracial Commonwealth will do her utmost to see that in no way does she collaborate with the appalling racialist regime of South Africa?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this is because we have firm guidelines about where the oil which comes from our own oilfields should go. These are the guidelines about the selling of crude oil from the North Sea, and I repeat we have no reason to believe that those guidelines are being breached.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Minister, with respect, has not answered my question. Has he, or his department, studied the findings of the Shipping Research Bureau? If he has done so is it, or is it not, the case that 32 tankers, British owned or British managed, have been shown to have delivered oil over this 18-month period? Does he agree that British oil companies should carry on this trade or not?
Lord Belstead: I repeat, my Lords—in a slightly different way as the same question is being asked for the second time—that the Government expect British companies to observe the laws of other countries within whose jurisdiction those companies trade. It is not however for the British Government to enforce embargoes imposed by other countries.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that British companies should defy a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am delighted that we have at last come back to the original Question, the reply to which the noble Lord seemed not to listen to when I gave it. With respect to him, there is an inherent flaw in the original Question; there is no mandatory embargo by the United Nations on oil to South Africa. Therefore there is no question of evasion.
Lord Soames: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are a number of Commonwealth countries in Southern Africa who are supplied with both crude oil and refined products from South Africa?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I understand, for instance, that Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland are dependent on South Africa for their oil supplies.

St. Thomas' Hospital: Mail Delay
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: 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 are aware that the delivery of mail to St. Thomas' Hospital was recently held up for 10 days and what action they propose to take about it.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand that arising from the health service dispute, there has recently been some delay in getting mail to St. Thomas' Hospital. It is for the Post Office and the institution concerned to take the necessary steps to resolve difficulties of the sort being experienced at St. Thomas' Hosptial. The Post Office is treating this as a matter of urgency and has already offered the hospital alternative arrangements to get its mail.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that as letters delayed by this despicable means add quite unacceptable dangers and anxieties for patients and cause unnecessary problems for overworked doctors, all effective steps really must be taken to prevent this from happening again?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I absolutely agree that it is most deplorable that this obstruction has occurred. It does, if I may say so, give the lie to the union assertion that you can conduct industrial action in the health service without affecting patient care.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to give full support to trade union leaders like Mr. Albert Spanswick of COHSE, who has gone out of his way to condemn absolutely this sort of behaviour by members of his and other unions? Is the noble Lord aware that what the Government should be doing is not trying to fight those who are completely raping the agreements of their own union—but are giving them support in this way—by indicating that all the trade unions involved are behaving in an irresponsible manner, when the fact is that they themselves have condemned wholeheartedly this form of repugnant behaviour?
Lord Trefgarne: It is a pity, my Lords, if that is the view of the trade union leaders, that they do not do more to control the actions of those whose actions they say they deplore.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this is by no means an isolated case; that there is a large mental hospital in the Thames Valley where exactly the same problem is arising? Does he accept that there are some wider implications, so far as this question is concerned, about the need to safeguard the delivery of the Royal Mail, when the position is that the safety of the lives of many patients is clearly involved?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I agree, as I said earlier, that it is deplorable that this obstruction to the mail

899
should take place. The duty of the Post Office in this matter is to provide its service where reasonably practicable—I understand that is the wording of the Act in question—and I think that has been construed so far as not forcing their way through picket lines.

Northern Ireland Bill
3.24 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Northern Ireland Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time. The Bill seeks to give effect to such proposals in the Government's recent White Paper as require legislation. The Government's policy is summed up in the title of the White Paper, Northern Ireland; A Framework for Devolution. I stress the word "framework". This is essentially enabling legislation. It is designed to offer to all the people of Northern Ireland and their political representatives the chance of taking back more responsibility for their own affairs. It sets out the broad terms under which the Government and Parliament of the United Kingdom would be likely to devolve back more powers and more responsibility. It is therefore firmly based on the principles of free will and consent, which principles are of course the bedrock of modern democracy. It is our view that any hope of political movement and development in Northern Ireland, with all that implies for peace, stability and the economy, must rest firmly upon such principles.
Our proposals are being made in the context of direct rule of Northern Ireland. Direct rule from Westminster goes on while the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives decide whether they wish to work what has rather pithily been called "do-it-yourself devolution". Direct rule goes on if they decide not to take up the offer of devolved powers or to take back only partial responsibility. But the opportunity on offer at least has the valuable secondary effect of creating a focus for political activity in Northern Ireland. It is irresponsible for successive British Governments to urge the people of Northern Ireland to make a greater political effort to resolve some of their special political problems without at least offering them a forum in which they can try to do so.
I therefore ask your Lordships to recognise most clearly that these proposals do not in themselves end direct rule. Direct rule has served Northern Ireland well. Anyone who visits Northern Ireland today, and compares it with the situation there eight to 10 years ago, will find a much calmer surface and much more evidence of ordinary life. Direct rule has provided greater stability; it has been successful in lowering the temperature there; and it has redressed some old grievances. But it is not, and it was never designed to be,
900
a substitute for seeking longer-term stability. As the House will know, it is subject to annual renewal by Parliament; and later this afternoon I shall be asking for your Lordships' consent to a renewal. There is, simply, a central problem to direct rule. Because Northern Ireland politics operate in a completely different context and along different lines to politics in Great Britain, it means in the end that neither the unionist nor the nationalist community in Northern Ireland can identify with the succession of British Ministers who govern them or with the political parties in the House of Commons who send us across the sea to do so.
The aim of policy, therefore, is for direct rule to continue to hold the ring, as it were, while at the same time the Government offer the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives a chance to hammer out together just, durable and practical institutions. In our analysis, these alone can isolate and defuse the politics of violence and restore the confidence of the world outside Northern Ireland in the Province.
We should make no mistake about it—the confidence of the world outside is essential to arrest the frightening economic decline of Northern Ireland, let alone to start to reverse it. We are heading for a permanent level of male unemployment of about 25 per cent. of the workforce; and that means well over 40 per cent. in some areas. More people in the manufacturing sector of the economy are now out of work than in work. There is greater private investment from Great Britain in the Republic of Ireland than there is in Northern Ireland. Proportionately to Great Britain, 6 million people are unemployed. Per capita spending by Government is higher than in any other part of the United Kingdom, but as fast as the Government pour money, as fast does it drain out the other end as the bedrock of the economy crumbles. The erosion is despite what has been described as the highest educational attainments of a physically comparable part of the United Kingdom, despite an excellent and expensive industrial infrastructure, a tradition of manufacturing skills, enviable industrial relations, and a very strong social morality of hard work and thrift. This erosion is despite the efforts of my honourable friend Mr. Adam Butler, who I think works harder than any Minister whom I have ever met, to sell the Province in Great Britain and abroad; and despite the equally tireless efforts of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
The economic problems are twofold. There is of course structural decline. Even without world recession, there would be formidable problems of transition in the economy. But the second difficulty, the troubled image of the Province in a world where marketing is so important—I do not mean only the marketing of goods, but also the marketing of the places to make the goods—makes it excessively hard to get on with the job of making the transition from an old to a new industrial society.
Of course the troubles are not only a matter of image. Things have improved, thanks to the fundamental steadiness of the Ulster people, thanks to the RUC and its good security co-operation with the Garda in the Republic—to whom all credit—thanks to the expertise

901
and the discipline of our long-suffering troops. But murder, heartbreak and tension have not been driven from the land. Time after time politicians in the Province criticise our security effort. We understand why they do this. We have not denied men, money, or material to the security effort. Our only constraint is that in a free society law and order must itself be subject to law.
But it is only fair to us, and only fair to the British taxpayers who put British Governments in office, to ask that Northern Ireland also tackles the alleviation of its own suffering. That effort requires a recognition that the special political circumstances of the Province need a special political response. We want to see political movement, however slow or frustrating; and movement must be with the grain of Northern Ireland, rather than against it.
The central political problem of Northern Ireland is not complex. I apologise to the many noble Lords here who are very expert in Northern Ireland affairs if I go over fairly simple ground. The central problem is that there exist there two communities which have separate and strongly felt identities. Over hundreds of years there has effectively been no intermarriage. The children do not share the same system of education. There is no reasonable or foreseeable prospect of this changing.
The majority see themselves as British, and aspire to continued union with the rest of the United Kingdom. Their loyalty is to the Crown. Their social and cultural values are linked with Britain's, although there is of course sometimes a distinctive local and fundamentalist character. By and large they are Protestant, and their religion is a mark of identity, as well as a matter of conviction.
There is also a substantial minority, about a third of the whole population, who see themselves as Irish. Many of them aspire to Irish unity, or elect representatives who do so. Their social and cultural traditions are Irish; by religion they are Catholic, and again religion is a mark of identity, as well as a matter of conviction.
I do not want to over-emphasise the divisions between the communities. Personal relationships can be very friendly indeed. There is a body of law to tackle discrimination. Voluntary organisations rooted in a community effort to reconciliation do excellent work. I am thinking, for instance, of the admirable Housing Executive, under the inspired guidance of Mr. Charles Brett, which has successfully taken the sectarian sting out of housing issues, though of course it is usually, and inevitably, not able to cross the sectarian boundaries in physical terms.
Lines of division do not always coincide exactly. There are Protestant nationalists, and Catholic unionists. Nevertheless, they coincide more than sufficiently to strengthen and perpetuate identities which are at once a source of pride as well as a source of division. The divisions are all wrapped up with the fundamentals of human life: religion, patriotism, marriage, education, politics, culture, shelter, and work. As the White Paper makes clear, these differences simply cannot be ignored or wished away. Differences on this scale, and affecting the deepest levels of identity of people, simply do not exist in the rest of the United Kingdom.
902
In my view, that alone should reassure those who are anxious lest devolution for Northern Ireland re-open devolutionary politics in Scotland or Wales.
If Northern Ireland is to know peace, stability and economic improvement, there must be found, sooner or later, a political structure which is suitable to Northern Ireland's unique and, foreseeably, unalterable circumstances. It must be a structure within which the two identities can respect and accommodate each other; not compromise, not change these deep convictions, or change them only at a pace which suits those who hold them, but respect and accommodate them. The White Paper and the Bill provide the structure or framework for such a policy. In essence that is all that they do.
It may well be that the devolution of powers on offer will not be taken up, or will be taken up only partially. It may well be that the Anglo-Irish parliamentary institutions, which might be of special interest to nationalist members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, will not immediately come into being, or will not immediately be used. The Government can only provide the framework within which the two identities can respect and accommodate one another. The Government cannot provide the will.
All policy in the respect of Northern Ireland affairs must ground itself in the realities of Northern Ireland, its history and demography. I believe that that means considerable humility and modest expectations for policy. We are not here unveiling the Mark IV or the Mark V model for a solution of the Northern Ireland issue. We are offering the people of Northern Ireland themselves the opportunity of devising political structures to cope with the demands of the realities of their own situation and to cope also—which, in my view, is equally important—with the demands of the realities of the sovereign Parliament at Westminster.
My Lords, I can give the essence of the proposals in the Bill very quickly. I shall be delighted to go into any points of detail, if asked, when I come to wind up. The Bill gathers together the necessary legislative provisions for a Northern Ireland Assembly, and if the Bill is passed there will be elections to this Assembly, probably before the end of the year. The Assembly could then decide to propose full devolution of powers under which all the existing Northern Ireland departments would come under the control of a Northern Ireland Executive; or, if they found it too difficult to secure the necessary wide acceptance throughout the community, they might propose partial devolution, under which one or more departments about which there was broad agreement could be devolved while the rest stayed under the Secretary of State's control. For example, both communities have a clear mutual interest in agriculture and commerce.
Such partial devolution could lead on later to further or full devolution. Conversely, if the arrangements lost the broad support of the Assembly, the devolved powers could return to the Secretary of State until fresh proposals were agreed. If full devolution is agreed, an Executive would be appointed. Provided it retained support within the Assembly, it would retain power subject to Assembly elections every four years. However, if the Executive lost the broad support of the Assembly, devolved powers could again be "rolled

903
back" and the Assembly would revert to its earlier consultative role, or be prorogued. Or it could be dissolved and fresh elections held. The essential point is that there will be no breakdown of government if either full or partial devolution breaks down, as the umbrella of direct rule remains at hand. This has been called "the un-boycottable framework".
Whether or not devolution takes place—and the vast majority of representations made to the Secretary of State and myself have asked for it—I must stress that from the beginning the Assembly will have an important scrutinising and deliberative role. It is easy enough, of course, to deride this role as nothing more than a talking shop. There has been no proper focus for political activity in Northern Ireland for nearly a decade now. It is surely inconsistent for the sovereign Government and Parliament to ask for political movement in the interests of security and the economy and not provide the focus where this could take place. The Assembly will be required, before devolution, to establish committees in relation to each of the existing Northern Ireland departments. Since the membership of these committees will reflect so far as practicable the balance of parties in the Assembly, there is, I think, at least a reasonable chance that the system will accustom members of various groups to get into the habit of working together constructively.
These, broadly, are the constitutional arrangements which will be set up by the Government's Bill. They may seem novel, but they are at least flexible; and they do not impose a solution which would require anyone to compromise fundamental and probably irreconcilable principles, be these unionist or nationalist.
My Lords, before I sit down, may I deal quickly with the principal objections which have been made to this modest Bill—modest though not uncontroversial; but I do not think anything in relation to Northern Ireland is ever uncontroversial.
There is the objection about majority rule: the objection that democracy means that the will of the majority prevails. This leaves out, I think, the central truth that in modern democracies the role of opposition is in many ways as crucial as the role of government. As the White Paper puts it in paragraph 19:
" Given the importance of the two identities and traditions in Northern Ireland, the application of simple majority rule would (as in the past) leave the minority in perpetual and ineffectual opposition where they can become prey to those who seek change by violent means."
Nor is it conceivable, in my view, that Parliament would restore simple majority rule in Northern Ireland.
Then there is the objection to devolution based on the premise that what is needed is the total integration of Northern Ireland into the administrative system of the United Kingdom: a plan involving enhanced powers for local government. This is superficially attractive until one gets to know Northern Ireland and tries to get to grips with its special difficulties. In no way would integration accommodate minority aspirations or enable them to find legitimate expression. Legitimate nationalist politics would be weakened, and the beneficiaries would not be unionists but the men of violence on both sides. In my judgment, too, Roman Catholics who do not support nationalist politics would mistrust the additional powers for local government likely to accompany such an arrangement.
904
Whatever the rights and wrongs about alleged abuses in local government before direct rule, the fact is that the present troubles started with perceptions of abuse at local level. And how can one imagine local government along British lines without housing or without education? What would happen if, with a strong unionist majority of Ulster Members in the House of Commons, a Prime Minister from another party, say, appointed a nationalist politician as Secretary of State? Northern Ireland is of course part of the United Kingdom, and it will remain so until its inhabitants freely determine otherwise. But it is not geared to the British party political system, and I believe that it is a dangerous fantasy to suppose that it is ever likely to be. In simple terms, its colours are not blue and red, but orange and green.
The mirror image of full integration is, of course, an imposed Irish unity. That, too, is a very dangerous fantasy. Even from a nationalist perspective, the idea that a fifth of the population of the whole island could come under Dublin administration without their consent is total folly, and in my experience that idea has very little support indeed in the Republic itself.
Last of these principal objections is one from the minority side. It is the objection that the Irish dimension to the White Paper is nebulous, that it does not go far enough. I have heard this objection from politicians, but most people from the minority community to whom I have talked, and indeed most serious commentators on Ulster affairs, have recognised that this Government have gone a long way, further than previous Governments, formally to recognise the legitimacy of a political tradition which aspires to Irish unity. Both the White Paper and the Bill recognise that accommodations to this tradition are important to political progress in Northern Ireland and to the progress of relations between the United Kingdom as a whole and the Republic.
We have said that we would be happy to see inter-parliamentary institutions in which the Irish tradition in Ulster could play a part if it wanted. So, too, of course, could the majority tradition play a part, but there would be no question of coercion. It all conies back to the same thing. The growth of stable political accommodations must depend on the exercise of free will and self-determination. In respect of the minority we have made it quite clear that a co-,herent policy for Northern Ireland cannot ignore the susceptibilities of the Republic—and that is a considerable step forward from their point of view.
My Lords, given the common security threat and the land border, it is surely also a fantasy to suppose that the Republic has no proper concern with Northern Ireland affairs. There is the effect of the troubles on internal security and on the Irish judicial system. There is the huge cost of the security co-operation with the RUC. Southern Irish politics, no less than Northern Irish politics, hinge on the 1921 partition settlement: all credit, therefore, to people in both parts of the island who are attempting to escape from the prison of history. Then there is the very physical presence, as well as the political issue, of the land border. Above all, there is the inalienable fact that a third of the population of Northern Ireland consider themselves Irish.
That is why the Government have tried to recognise

905
and honour the minority identity as being in the main Irish, just as they recognise and honour the majority for being British. The one recognition in no way threatens the other, and to suggest otherwise is a mischievous and wilful misreading of the White Paper. If I may put it another way, this recognition of the minority is the other side of the coin to the constitutional guarantee to unionists of their position as part of the United Kingdom. Some commentators have complained that there is no such recognition of the minority in the Bill. Surely this ignores the way devolution hinges on proof positive of its acceptance across the whole community. But I acknowledge that the Bill is a legislative instrument of an internal, limited and essentially enabling kind. The policy of the Government is contained in both the Bill and the White Paper.
Thus we have sought to establish a framework for Anglo-Irish relations in which representatives of the minority, as well as of the majority if they wished, could, in time, take part. As with our plans for devolution, the speed at which things develop is a matter for the sovereign Government and their Parliaments. You cannot force the pace of growth if you want the roots to go deep and the soil to endure. Anglo-Irish relations—like Northern Ireland devolution —can roll forward or roll back. At the moment—and I much regret having to say this—they are not as close or good as they might or should be.
This has been rather a long speech and I must make an end. I have talked such a lot about the British and Irish tradition that perhaps I could close by letting the English tradition get a word in. Our policy is firmly in the English empirical tradition of starting with the facts as you find them and then building step by step, slowly and often painfully, on foundations of patience and tolerance, not expecting too much, pleased with the progress that is attained. For what my personal views are worth—and I had the startling experience for a Member of your Lordships' House of listening to these discussed in another place not always with unconditional approval—I believe strongly that good policy starts from the real rather than the ideal world.
I believe that for the foreseeable future neither the British community in Northern Ireland nor the Irish community there will be in a position where one can refuse to recognise the other or accommodate the other in any stable political system. There are few signs that the unionists wish to sever their British connection; and why should they? There are few signs that the nationalists will give the United Kingdom the deep-seated allegiance which all other political groups in the Kingdom do give. The reality of this divide does not, in my view, exempt either community from taking on greater political responsibility, responsibility which taxpayers throughout the United Kingdom may reasonably ask Northern Ireland to start trying to undertake.
Northern Ireland and its people form one of the most attractive parts of the United Kingdom and one of the most attractive parts of the island of Ireland. Its record of achievement over the centuries is quite out of scale with its size. Except for this ancient, intractable and, from both points of view, fundamental divide, it is a marvellous place to live, or raise a family or work. Surely, we should not in the 1980s continue
906
to be wrangling over one of the great political issues of the 1880s. We need the plural and secular structure appropriate to our own times. The people of Northern Ireland deserve them. This Bill offers a choice and chance to the people of Northern Ireland to fashion a system appropriate to their special excellences and to their special difficulties. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
3.54 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for his very lucid, comprehensive and detailed introduction to this Northern Ireland Bill. The noble Earl has said that it is a modest Bill. In text and in drafting terms, the Bill is a comparatively small one. It consists of seven short clauses and three schedules. However, it is hardly necessary for me to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in legislative terms, in constitutional and political terms, this Bill looms large to the citizens of Northern Ireland and is considered by them to be of crucial importance to their future happiness and wellbeing.
There is little doubt that the Bill presents the Northern Ireland people with an awful dilemma, the dilemma of a political crossroads, a crossroads where they earnestly look for signposts which show the way to democratic and political stability, to a soundly-based economic future and to the end of the communal strife and politically-inspired terrorism. It is not the fault of thousands of peaceable and law abiding citizens in Northern Ireland if it appears to them that the signposts created by this Bill are clouded by anxiety and fear, by political mistrust and by years of social deprivation. These fears, this mistrust and the loss of political direction and vision were clearly manifest and expressed during the debates and the proceedings on the Bill in another place.
During its passage in another place, my rough calculations are that the Bill had 10 days for debate, some of the day and night sittings lasting over 15 hours, with a total of 109 hours of debate with 62 Divisions.
As a citizen of Northern Ireland, I readily appreciate and understand the concern about this Bill. This concern was marked by the protracted nature of the debates in another place and the ongoing public debates throughout the Province. The problems of Northern Ireland are a legacy of history and are emotionally deep-seated. It is right and commendable that our elected representatives should extensively debate, probe and question every proposal and issue in the Bill which may affect the people of Northern Ireland. It is right that all concerned about the intractable nature of the division in Northern Ireland should approach the Bill with a degree of scepticism; but let it be scepticism with an openness and a frankness which is ready to listen and be influenced by fairness, by facts and a commitment to the ideal of social justice and for the common good. Surely, there is nothing useful to be achieved in the long term for the people of Northern Ireland by attitudes of negativism or by actions for mere party political advantage.
Personally, I am pleased by the number of speakers listed to take part in this debate on Second Reading. Many noble Lords who are to take part have considerable experience and knowledge of government in

907
Northern Ireland and I shall look forward with interest to hearing their part in the debate. I believe, and have every reason to think, that this House will give the Bill the attention, scrutiny and sense of commitment that is demanded and which it warrants. It should have priority of attention not only because of the relevant constitutional matters but because of the need for a real sense of response to the Northern Ireland people at this time, a response to show that the efforts of this House are earnestly and genuinely directed towards positive and constructive ways to a real hope of promoting justice and peace and to pave the way forward for a better Northern Ireland for the people.
During the Committee and Report stages in this House there will be an opportunity to debate and probe in detail the proposals and policies in the Bill. The Bill raises a number of issues. There is the question of the franchise under which the elections for the Northern Ireland Assembly are to be contested; matters arising from ongoing Anglo-Irish studies and their relevance to Northern Ireland; the existing domestic and international relationships between the two sovereign Governments and Parliaments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland; and the respective roles and functions of the new Northern Ireland Assembly under devolved powers. There are the beneficial aspects of the cross-border co-operation at present proceeding and operating at various levels, including Government administrative and non-government levels, and particularly the crossroad co-operation on security and economic affairs; there are the questions about possible changes that may arise concerning the European Economic Community and regional affairs. These are some of the matters which I am sure this House will wish to consider during the Committee stage.
In considering the Bill, we have the advantage of the Official Report of the lengthy debate in another place. We also have the White Paper that the noble Earl has mentioned, Northern Ireland: A Framework for Devolution, Cmnd. 8541, and a considerable number of press reports and comments arising from public discussions of the proposed measures and the side-issues concerned. There is also the extremely useful comprehensive outline to this House which was given by the Minister in his introductory remarks.
During the debate in another place, there was a considerable input by honourable Members of a wealth of consitutional expertise. There was also a welter of probing arguments, with reasoned and informed response from experienced Parliamentarians and with the very helpful views and opinions expressed by Members of Parliament who have gained direct knowledge and experience through ministerial and official Government duties in Northern Ireland.
Arising from all this, it appears to me that already we have such a surfeit of works surrounding this Bill that the real issues affecting the lives and future wellbeing of the people of Northern Ireland are in danger of being buried in verbiage. I want to assure the House that I am not in any way suggesting that we should curtail discussion or debate. Indeed, I consider that political debate and parliamentary democracy should be upheld and be seen to succeed against those who
908
adhere to the policies of physical force, tyranny, terrorism, death and destruction. But surely there is a time when Parliamentary democracy must decide on a consensus and take suitable action to promote progress on actions to strengthen parliamentary principles and procedures and to fill the political vacuum. Of course, I must heed my own words and I do not wish to add unnecessarily to this Second Reading debate.
The position of the official Opposition as regards this Bill was made clear by my honourable friends in another place, the right honourable Don Concannon and Mr. Clive Soley, the official Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland affairs. During the debate they indicated that, in spite of its inadequacies in certain areas, the Bill is broadly in line with the policies of the Parliamentary Labour Party for devolving power back to Northern Ireland. It was stated by my honourable friends that the provisions in the Bill for rolling devolution could succeed if they attained the maximum measure of cross-community support for the relative administrative and executive matters.
In my opinion, the merits of this Bill require to be appraised in the light of the claims made in the White Paper, which I have mentioned earlier. I should like to quote from page 17, paragraph 66, of the White Paper as follows:
"The proposals offer an opportunity to move forward from the political sterility of recent years to a system of devolved government, with all the benefits which such a system could create for the prosperity and stability of Northern Ireland."
On page 4, paragraph 11, the report states:
The Government believes that an elected body in Northern Ireland is the right forum for the Province's special problems to be tackled. That is why there is an urgent need for an elected Assembly. The Assembly must have substantial functions so that it can inject an important element of local responsibility and influence in the day-to-day conduct of business. Although political differences in Northern Ireland centre on constitutional matters, the people are no less concerned about jobs, wages, schools and health than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The Assembly should enable them to influence such matters."
I fully realise that a number of those matters which have been referred to in the White Paper require to be dealt with in some detail during the Committee and Report stages, but I should like briefly to deal with two further issues. They are the constitution and security. As I understand it, the Bill leaves unchanged the constitutional position of Northern Ireland as a constituent part of the United Kingdom as is provided for in Section 1 of the Constitution Act 1973—that is, that there can be no change in the status without the consent of a majority of the Northern Ireland people voting in a border poll.
The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, mentioned in his introductory remarks matters concerning the two traditions in Northern Ireland. It is my view that each of the traditions must seek to reach an understanding on how to work together for the common good and to see how far it is possible to compromise, to respect each other and to find an accommdation without making an unaccceptable sacrifice. I believe the Bill is an honest attempt to give the Northern Ireland people the opportunity to control their own destiny, in so far as that is possible in a world that is becoming more and more interdependent.
Within the context of the Constitution Act, responsibility for dealing with political terrorism and security must remain for the foreseeable future as a

909
reserved matter. However, in the context of this Bill and the effect of the functioning of the proposed Northern Ireland Assembly, we must not rule out the possibility of a continuing resurgence of terrorism and violence, nor of the need for the prevailing role of the security forces. This certainly raises within Northern Ireland matters concerning the security, the fears and anxieties of all people in the Province and of the brave boys who come from this part of the country to Northern Ireland.
I should like to quote from a book entitled Foundations of Peace and Freedom, the foreword to which was written by my noble friend Lord Caradon. He says this:
"Violence is evil but one of the main lessons I have learnt is that a worse evil is fear of violence. If there is a fear of violence then the effect of violence is multiplied. It is a positive duty to us all to do what we think is right and not allow violence, so often mean and cruel, to dictate what we should do. We cannot just hate violence and hope that it will go away: we must advocate and work out practical and constructive policies for peace. The more we hate violence the more we must have the will to work for conciliation, for settlement, for agreement."
As the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said, what we lack is the will.
We on these Benches believe that this Bill represents an effort by the Government to give the people of Northern Ireland a chance to develop a form of devolved government that is best suited to the needs of the Northern Ireland people. There are four elements which I consider help to meet these needs. The noble Earl spoke of a framework and I believe the four elements are cornerstones. There is flexibility of the provisions which provide for the choice of devolved matters to be decided by the Northern Ireland people in agreement with the United Kingdom Parliament. Flexibility—there is the fact that the Bill is concerned with practical matters affecting the lives of people and it gives them opportunities to join and share together in doing something rather than talking at arm's length through press statements or press announcements. It is the practical matter of getting together and trying to accomplish something for the Northern Ireland people that is important.
The Bill provides for decisions and action about devolved matters to be influenced by cross-community support, which I believe will work for the common good, and the legislation and the changes that may emerge through these devolved powers will be underpinned and subject to the approval of both Houses of the United Kingdom Parliament. So these four elements—flexibility, pragmatism, cross-border consensus and United Kingdom approval—convince me that they pave the way forward for the people of Northern Ireland.
Already we note that the political parties in Northern Ireland are in the process of selecting candidates and organising themselves ready for the possibility of an October election for the Northern Ireland Assembly. Considerable activity has already taken place in most of the parties in Northern Ireland. It would be foolish and misleading to give the impression that the Bill will dramatically and suddenly bring about change in the political and economic affairs of the Province. But I am convinced that the Northern Ireland people, and their elected representatives and community leaders, will react wisely to these provisions and accept this
910
responsibility to restore dignity and self-respect to the Northern Ireland people, and secure a happier and more peaceful future for the present generation and their children. I believe that this Bill gives us that opportunity.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I rise with some embarrassment to apologise to the House, because the only way I can get home today is by accepting a lift from somebody who refuses to stay to the end of the debate. So that I shall find myself not staying to the end of the debate and I am very sorry about that. Also, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for letting me come on in front of him—he usually comes on in front of me—so as not to be delayed.
Having said that, I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Earl on his opening speech. I thought that it was a particularly vivid picture of the problems, as one sees them from over there as a member of the Government. I was very much impressed by what he said. I also found his comment about the need for Government to have an Opposition, and the hopelessness of a permanent minority as an Opposition, to be a very strong point which I have not heard made before.
One of the things which most of us find most important about this Bill is that it would give professional politicians the chance to behave like professional politicians. This is something which, apart from the Members of the other place, they simply do not have at the moment in Northern Ireland. I was very pleased that my old colleague and friend, if I may so call him, Lord Blease was able to give such an ungrudging welcome to the Bill, and it is very important to remember that, if we can all move forward together, so much the better.
We on this Bench fully support the Government in their efforts to make a limited move towards devolved government. Direct rule is a sensible and practical way of keeping the wheels rolling and, at the same time keeping the lid on the tensions and violence which seem to be indigenous to the Province. What a marvellous place it would be without them. But direct rule carries with it no solutions. It is essentially a holding operation and, sooner or later, some way must be found of persuading the 1½ million inhabitants of the Province to work together enough to have their own devolved government. Only then will they be able to make their own arrangements with the South, and, indeed, with us over here, and until such arrangements are, in fact, made by them, and not by us for them, they will never hold. But the devolved government that we look forward to must be one that takes proper care of its minorities. So any British Government must keep trying, must persevere in persuasion and suggestion, until some agreement is reached on this question which will make devolved government possible.
It will be attacked—indeed, sabotaged—by partisans from one side or the other But anyone who has read the nine issues of Hansard on the Committee stage in another place will have read the same arguments so often that he will hardly want to hear them again. We have no desire in this House to delay the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Blease, spoke of the danger of

911
its being buried in verbiage, and I think that he was on to a real risk. We abhor anything that sniffs of filibustering, and I have no doubt that the Bill will go through this House without too much rancour.
I repeat that we on this Bench support the Government unequivocally and consider the present team a pretty good one. I may say that we do not support it with a great deal of optimism, but on the simple ground any Government must keep on trying. Our reasons for this rather defeatist attitude are obvious, but had better be stated. Any British Government are under pressure, as the noble Earl said in opening this debate, from the majority faction to set up a Stormont-like Government with simple majority rule. This would not satisfy the minority and never could. On the other hand, from the minority faction there is always pressure for a move towards further integration with the South. We reject both courses and, in each case, we find them unacceptable to the other faction.
If we were to suggest, as the Labour Party is too apt to hint— and the noble Lord, Lord Blease, did not hint today— that, sooner or later, integration with the South is the only sound policy in the long run, no Protestant would negotiate with us. And if we were inclined to pursue devolved government, without some measure of power-sharing, we should find that no British Government could ever agree to the desertion of the minority. So there is only one way forward. This is the way that the Government are trying to go and we must support them in doing so.
I suppose that the worst inequalities between Protestants and Catholics have been greatly reduced in the last 20 years and the noble Earl made some reference to this. The noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, made some important innovations— too many, in fact to keep his seat— and there have been more under the Sunningdale Government and then under direct rule. Things are legally and technically better, though, doubtless, there is still some way to go. It should be possible, now that the worst abuses have been ironed out, to work out a modus vivendi under which the Northern Ireland people could govern themselves and this is what the Government are trying to do.
About 10 per cent. on each side are unreasonable and the danger is that the other 90 per cent. should begin to lose interest. The result of this will be that direct rule will continue and the worst outbreaks of violence will be contained, but no move towards a solution will take place. This is why we urge any Government to go on trying. I know that this sounds very defeatist. I think that any other attitude is so optimistic as to be unreal.
Meanwhile, we want to be very careful to avoid reference to political relations between the North and the South. Changes here can come only after there is some degree of devolved government and will, for many years, at least, almost certainly be confined to trade and security relations. But, on the other hand, we do not support the right honourable gentleman Mr. Enoch Powell, either, in his demand for further integration with the mainland. We believe that Northern Ireland's problems are so different from our own, as the noble Earl said, that they require different and special treatment.
We believe that the ordinary people of both corn
912
munities long for peace and will support the British in our efforts, through the RUC backed up by the Army, to defeat the terrrorists. We also believe that the sharing of responsibility, implied in devolved government, will do much to encourage ordinary people on both sides to work with the security forces against all terrorists, from whichever side they came; and that, of course, is the biggest weapon that the security forces have can.
As to security itself, we believe in no quarter for the terrorists. The IRA commits its beastly crimes in favour of an objective which is unobtainable, contradictory and incomprehensible. They kill and maim for the cause of a united socialist Ireland. The North will die rather than accept unity and the South will fight rather than accept socialism; at any rate, in the very odd form put forward by the provisionals. They want the troops out and so do we, but the only way to get them out is for the IRA to stop their atrocities; and one of the saddest features is that their atrocities provoke equal atrocities from the Protestants, by way of retaliation. In all history, there has never been a sillier, crueller or more futile terrorist movement, and we shall continue to fight against it until it is extinguished.
This Bill is not directly concerned with economics or unemployment. As the noble Earl pointed out, unemployment is the worst evil in Northern Ireland, even including terrorism—25 to 40 per cent. is the figure quoted and it is a terrible figure. But though we need much more to be done to cope with it, this is a subject for another day.
I should like to end by echoing a word of warning, given in another place by my right honourable friend Mrs. Shirley Williams. It is essential that the proposed Assembly should very quickly be given some real power. Otherwise, it is likely to become a very tiresome talking-shop, criticising everything that the Government do or propose, and eventually, deservedly, being shut down. The only way to avoid spectacular failure of this kind is to make sure the Assembly has some real responsibility quickly. We learned how responsible Northern Ireland politicians on all sides can be during the brief period of the power-sharing Government and we admired their achievements. But we also know that, without some responsibility, their natural independence turns them into filibustering critics, and that must be avoided at all costs. We shall look at the machinery for this more clearly in Committee. We warmly support the Second Reading of this Bill.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, the noble Earl the Minister has introduced the Bill with his customary skill. May I congratulate him on his versatility after his duties last night on the Employment Bill. I have listened with interest and encouragement to what the noble Lord, Lord Blease, has said, and to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, on the Social Democratic Party Bench. I shall attempt to show why we on these Benches and our colleagues in the other place support the aims of the Secretary of State in what has been dubbed a "package of rolling devolution." We believe this to be a brave attempt that deserves every encouragement.

913
The Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973 laid down the conditions for an Assembly in the Province of 78 members, but the Northern Ireland Act of only the following year, 1974, was passed to dissolve that Assembly and— let me quote the exact words—
"to make temporary provision for the government of Northern Ireland".
I emphasise the word "temporary", as others have done before me. It is noteworthy that eight years later we in this House shall shortly be debating yet another interim period extension order on that Act. I believe that this re-emphasises the importance of the Bill we at present debate.
Few responsible people would probably challenge the view that direct rule from Westminster has served a necessary purpose as a temporary expedient but it is now often said that it is most people's second best answer to the problems of today and not their first choice. Nor was it able to prevent the bitter divisions and strife of the hunger strikes last year which demonstrated so well the background of frustration and fear. And at the back of many people's minds is the perhaps not fully realised view that direct rule is acceptable just because it is not intended as a permanent arrangement.
Whatever we may think of the actions of opponents of this Bill in the Commons, and I deplore them, they cannot be accused of apathy. To attempt to talk out a Bill by a series of exhausting and quite unproductive all-night Sittings seems to me to be a totally negative procedure, but I grant that they believed in what they were doing. In contrast, I support wholeheartedly the idea that the people of the Province should work towards resumed control of their own affairs "by agreement amongst themselves and subject to the workings of Parliament at Westminster."
The search is for an acceptable alternative to the continuation of direct rule. This has often been discussed in your Lordships' House (and referred to today), as elsewhere, and I shall only briefly reaffirm my position. It is perhaps the easiest to "take the medicine as before", but I hope I need not repeat here my distrust of such a course. How much better, if it can be happily arranged, to have a local forum in which elected representatives can express their opinions and present advised policies to West-minister for implementation, pending the day when the Assembly itself resumes legislative duties.
A second option would be full integration of Northern Ireland into the United Kingdom. Opinion polls have been quoted to suggest that a remarkably high percentage of both communities would favour such a course. But opinion polls can be notoriously misleading and I am sceptical of the suggestion that there would not be much bitterness against such an irrevocable step. A third option is complete independence, but I just cannot see this other than as a woolly refusal— and a dangerous one—to face facts. There may be generous help coming from the EEC, but Ulster owes a lot to the financial support coming from Britain, quite apart from all other ways in which we seek to help.
Fourthly comes the highly controversial aim of reunification with the Republic. I would not rule
914
this out as something that might in time be mutually advantageous to both North and South, but it is something that we have guaranteed that the people of the North should be allowed to decide for themselves. What better place to discuss the matter freely in than an independent Assembly? The sooner that the people of Eire realise that they must offer carrots and not sticks, the better Nor is it remotely possible that any such arrangement, imposed by a Government at Westminster, would do anything but build up a mountain of resistance and rejection. But it is perhaps worth recalling here the words of Dr. Garret FitzGerald in this year's BBC Dimbleby lecture. I quote:
" For most people of this Northern Irish Protestant tradition, the sense of being British does not exclude a feeling that they are also Irish."
Englishmen must feel some diffidence about suggesting solutions to the problems of Northern Ireland across the sea, and it would surely be advantageous that the people over there should have a greater chance to voice their views in an influential forum, and then have to stand by them. It is much less tempting to criticise others when your own actions are open to comment. But the basic, vital, indisputable essential is the will and the goodwill to take up the challenge. One point that is indeed, it seems to me, going to test this attitude is the election of a presiding officer who will be responsible in his turn, I quote:
" for the appointment of the members of each committee and of a chairman and a deputy chairman (or two deputy chairmen) of each such committee, from among its members."
He will have to be a very remarkable person, trusted and respected on all sides. But I believe he can be found and an Assembly satisfactorily launched. I sincerely hope that that is so.
I have heard this Bill called a "strange Bill". It enforces nothing; it offers so much; it is left to the people in the Province to elect their chosen representatives to an Assembly and to those representatives to decide just how far and how fast to proceed. Subject to the approval of the Secretary of State in Parliament, considerable power and responsibility could lie ahead. Alternatively, they could refuse to co-operate among themselves and the whole thing could come to nothing. The parties have to demonstrate their co-operation to the satisfaction of Westminster.
Perhaps I could end on a personal note. Two evenings ago I decided to forgo the pleasures of a late night sitting on the Employment Bill and attend a performance of the "Dream of Gerontius"—purely as a penance, of course—in Westminster Cathedral. I was rewarded for my virtue and found the process not entirely unpleasurable. Afterwards, my mind returned to the affairs of Northern Ireland and I found myself drawing a parallel between the demands of an excellent concert performance and the demands necessary to get a successful assembly off the ground. In each case there has to be a respected leader or conductor, and in each case there has to be wholehearted teamwork and co-operation and the happy elimination of differences of opinion. Hopefully, there is enjoyment in the work and a sense of fulfilment in the best use of considerable talent.
Subject to the Committee stage, I wish the Bill well and the people of Ulster God-speed. I trust that this action will avert the dangers which have been

915
referred to, of the gradual slide into semi-permanent violence and economic ruin.
4.29 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, being a bishop in the Church is a bit like working for a trans-national corporation. You have the opportunity of getting around and seeing events through the eyes of your brother Church leaders in other parts of the world. Nevertheless, I find myself in these debates on Northern Ireland always acutely conscious of the fact that I shall be followed by three former Prime Ministers of that Province My credentials to speak are these. For the past six years I have been meeting regularly with representatives of the principal Churches in Ireland. Alas! except on particular occasions, these meetings have not included Roman Catholics. The meetings have given me a sobering insight into the depth of the historic divisions which still set Catholic and Protestant over against each other. They have also offered a glimpse of the really heartening initiatives which are taken to bridge those divides by couragous pioneers for peace on both sides of the divide.
My colleagues and I began to meet on a regular basis shortly after the constitutional convention met and had experienced the ignominy of having its proposals turned down by Parliament. I recall that at that time our Northern Ireland colleagues warned us that the people of the Province would put up with direct rule for a period—was it 18 months or 2 years?—so long as the violence was reduced, but that no one should expect them to accept colonial status indefinitely. As we know, direct rule has gone on now for over six years. Some commentators have even suggested, and without cynicism, that it is the one form of rule that can succeed in Northern Ireland. One can recognise the force and sincerity of such a judgment, but we are bound to reject any approach to the problems of the Province which dismisses the issue of participation so completely. For this reason I welcome the Government's initiative in bringing forward this Bill and shall give it my support.
We have said for long enough that there is a political vacuum in Northern Ireland, but I am assured by some of my Irish friends that, with a local mandate, worthy people will come forward and responsible co-operation will emerge. One trusts that they are not too optimistic. I recognise that the Government's proposals deal only with structures and possibilities; they offer, in the words of the White Paper, a "framework for devolution", and not the reality. But that is, surely, a wise approach. As the White Paper makes clear, it must be for "the politicians of Northern Ireland…to work out an acceptable scheme for themselves".
I recognise also that these proposals, even if fully implemented, will not of themselves deal with the pressing and tragic matters of unemployment and violence which loom so large in the Province, or dispel overnight the deep-rooted suspicions which are a feature of the religious and communal life of the Province. These are but first steps on the road that we are taking, in the realistic recognition that there are no instant solutions to such intractable and longterm problems.
916
Realism is necessary in everything to do with politics —but so also is vision. The American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, himself a strenuous critic of all forms of unrealism, in religion or politics, spoke of "the relevance of an impossible ethical ideal". Without such an ideal, without a vision, our politics becomes simply a matter of keeping out of trouble; of standing pat. In the setting of Northern Ireland, our ideal, the goal for all of us, must be the gradual development of self-governing institutions which have the support of the whole community there. The people of the Province have been remarkably patient over the past six years, but I do not think we can reasonably expect growth in political maturity, and the development of democratic instincts, if they are not given the opportunity to exercise those skills in a local setting, which this Bill will provide.
Before I finish, I want to reflect on one aspect of the Government's proposals which has been the subject of criticism—that is, the requirement of special majorities and the participation of minority parties in any devolved institutions. It is asked: Are these requirements not undemocratic in bypassing the will of the majority? I recognise the force of this criticism, yet the willingness of a minority to abide by a democratically-arrived at decision is one of the marks of a mature democracy, as it is of the local darts club. Nonetheless, it is not the only expression of the democratic principle. In the tradition of the Society of Friends, for example, there is another, yet more demanding practice, whereby discussion goes on and on until a consensus emerges which all can freely accept. Do not let us therefore idolise majority rule as though it were of the essence; it is not. Our concern must be, as I have said, with what is most likely to contribute to the development of democratic instincts. Given the past tragic history of Northern Ireland politics, where the minority felt itself to be systematically excluded from decision-making, it is essential that the institutions of devolved government offer real opportunities for the sharing of power, and political responsibility between the majority and the minority.
Now it may be in due course, if and when it appears that a willingness to work together in this way has become ingrained in Northern Ireland politics, that more conventional institutilons relying on majority-decisions will take their place. May I however, at the risk of straying out of order, suggest that a Northern Ireland which had learnt the lesson of shared decision-making would have much to teach the rest of us; and that a resolution of many of the dilemmas which face us in British public life might come about if we were to move in the same direction. It is just a thought.
4.36 p.m.
Lord O'Neill of the Maine: My Lords, I would like to start by congratulating the noble Earl the Minister on the span and width of his speech. I have not previously heard speech quite like that one from the Front Bench in your Lordships' House. I welcome it and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blease, that it was very wise of the Minister to speak in this way.
I have found that there is an understandable tendency for people in Britain to find it very hard to under

917
stand the situation in Northern Ireland. Therefore I welcome the noble Earl's remarks very much indeed. For myself, I must admit that, to anyone in your Lordships' House who has asked me since I came here in 1970, I have always said that there was no solution of this problem. But despite the fact that I am on record as having said that, and despite the fact that I still believe it to be really true, nevertheless I support the proposals put forward to this House by the Minister.
Direct, rule is fair, but it leaves local politicians without a platform. It has in my view encouraged Protestant extremists and it has led to a certain disintegration among the SDLP. Both Paddy Devlin, in the first place, and then Gerry Fitt broke away from that party, to some extent, admittedly, because they disagreed with its policies, but also because—certainly in the case of Paddy Devlin—there was no platform on which to operate. This must be a bad thing, and if for no other reason, I would support the Minister in his proposals.
The two things which have been talked about most in the past two or three years are total integration and the possibility of restoring power to the local authorities. In my view, both would be absolutely fatal. In so far as total integration is concerned, the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland would never accept this. To a lesser extent, we have to bear in mind the views of the Dublin Government as well. When I was in office, I was always told that the population figures were approximately two-thirds Protestant and one-third Catholic. But I have read recently that these figures are now starting to change and at the next count they will be more like 60 per cent. Protestant and 40 per cent. Catholic. To carry out a policy of total integration with 40 per cent. of the population against you would be an act of total folly.
In so far as restoring power to local authorities is concerned, many people in my day, many Catholics, would say to me privately, "We really have not got anything against Stormont. We do get fair treatment from the administration here in Belfast. But what we object to, and with good reason, is our treatment by the local authorities". Of course, it was the original squatting by Austin Currie that really started this whole business. So to restore power to local authorities who have a history of denying houses to people, denying jobs, and boasting about it, would be an act of total folly; and yet it was one of the possibilities being suggested not so long ago.
May I remind your Lordships' House of some of the actions of a previous Conservative Administration between 1973 and 1974. Almost incomprehensibly, just before the Sunningdale Conference Mr. Whitelaw was whisked back to London and Mr. Pym, knowing nothing whatsoever about Northern Ireland, was pitchforked into the conversations at the Sunningdale Conference. This, to my mind, was extremely unwise. And not content with this, an election was called, which killed off the tender plant of power-sharing government, because, as some of your Lordships have tried to explain this afternoon, politics in Northern Ireland are totally different from politics here. While the election here might have been fought on who governs Britain, the election in Northern Ireland was fought on the usual basis of Protestant and Catholic. I am not saying that
918
the power-sharing Executive would have survived in the long run; all I am saying is that it was killed off by the calling of that election.
So I would like to be so bold as to suggest that, bearing the folly of these actions in mind, the present Administration should not follow in those footsteps and should not remove Mr. Prior from office just as the new Assembly is starting to come into being. These things have happened before. They could happen again. While I am not suggesting that the noble Earl should comment on these remarks I am making, I am making them with good reason. The people of Northern Ireland have suffered by being treated in a kind of colonial way over these matters. It takes one back to the ruling of Ireland when the Lords Lieutenant and the Irish Secretaries were changed whenever the Government changed in London; a policy was being pursued, and then three years later it was all changed again. So I hope that this will be borne in mind and that wiser counsels will prevail.
My Lords, I do not wish to weary the House any longer; there are many others who wish to speak. I feel, on balance, that another effort should be made, and I wholeheartedly support the Secretary of State in his action. I was in another place and heard the support he got from Mr Concannon, quite rightly, and I feel that we must support him. If, however, again looking into the future, once again extremists bust up the new Assembly, then London may be faced with the problems of ruling a part of the United Kingdom which requires thousands of troops to maintain the peace, assuming that the people of Britain have the patience and the desire so to do. I have much pleasure in supporting what the noble Earl said, and also the ideas he has put forward for the formation of a new Assembly in Northern Ireland.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, it is with some considerable diffidence that I follow a former Prime Minister of Northern Ireland in the remarks I have to make. I also appreciate that there are other noble Lords in our House today with considerable experience of Northern Ireland, direct, personal and almost daily involvement in Northern Ireland. But I think it is also important, particularly in view of what the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said about the responsibilities placed upon the rest of the people of the United Kingdom and the burdens which the rest of the people in the United Kingdom have to bear, that others than those directly connected with Northern Ireland should say something on this important matter. I speak also to support my noble friend Lord Blease, who has this unique connection with the trade union movement in Northern Ireland, which also has a unique connection with the trade unionists of Southern Ireland, with a common organisation.
Listening to the noble Earl, one was almost disposed to say, "Excellent, I will sit down and say nothing more", because I think the noble Earl reflected in his speech everything that I feel about the situation and about this particular Bill. I referred on one previous occasion to the reasons why I was interested in Northern Ireland problems. If I may just introduce a personal note, I remember the number of Labour Party visits that I made to Northern Ireland before 1968 and the

919
number of visits subsequently. Nothing will ever eradicate from my memory taking part in a delegation only a few days after the terrible burnings and bombings of 1968, and seeing, as one who was a fireman in London during the blitz, the state of Bombay Street, talking to the people of the independent state of Bogside in Londonderry, and above the wall talking to the other community. Those thoughts will never leave my mind, and that is 14 years ago. Therefore, we must ask, how much longer? It is now 10 years since we have had direct rule, except for a short interval of some months which everybody thought would be temporary, only just an interim measure.
Although there are differences, I believe there is a pretty widespread desire that there should be some form of devolved administration in Northern Ireland. At present there are important issues on which elected representatives of Northern Ireland ought to be declaring their views and taking decisions. But these remain with this Parliament. There are many Orders in Council dealing with important issues of Northern Ireland for which there is little or negligible accountability. I believe it is essential that there be some machinery, an opportunity for the people of Northern Ireland to help to decide those issues.
I recognise that over recent years there have been efforts to try to seek solutions, White Papers, proposals, consultations. But this does not mean that we should clutch at any straw. Another failed move could have most unfortunate consequences for Northern Ireland and, I believe, for the United Kingdom in general. There will be people who will say, "What, yet another effort?" But, when I saw the White Paper which was published in April, my immediate reaction was that the proposals in the White Paper deserved most serious consideration, the approach based on the importance of cross-community support which appears in the White Paper.
The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, quoted one paragraph in the White Paper. My noble friend Lord Blease quoted another paragraph. Strangely enough, I wish to quote two further paragraphs in the White Paper. Therefore, there must be a number of good paragraphs in it:
"Paragraph 13. The Government adheres to the view that in any administration in Northern Ireland there must be reasonable and appropriate arrangements to take account of the interests of the minority which are acceptable to both sides of the community. This is no more than a recognition of the reality that in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland nothing else can provide stable government on a lasting basis."
Paragraph 21 says:
"The Government's proposals accordingly embody the principle, shared by the main parties in Parliament and recognised internationally, that any new structures for the government of Northern Ireland must be acceptable to both sides of the community. This is the prerequisite for setting up a devolved administration and restoring responsibility to Northern Ireland for the conduct of its own affairs. In the Government's view this principle is both right in itself and unavoidable in practice; no system of government which is unacceptable to either side of the community will work effectively."
I believe that the rules of your Lordships' House do not permit any quotations from anyone other than
920
Ministers in the other place However, I am allowed to paraphrase. Gerry Fitt, for whose common sense and courage I think there is general and widespread respect, has said that he passionately believes that the only hope for Northern Ireland is a devolved governmental structure that will receive the support of a cross-section of the people of Northern Ireland. The Labour Party's policy document dealing with Northern Ireland affairs states:
"The success of devolved Government depends on it receiving the confidence and the support of a substantial cross-section of both communities".
For that reason, straightforward majority rule must be rejected. I believe that the issues are as follows: Is devolved administration desirable? How is the devolved Government to be set up? How can we ascertain what is acceptable on a cross-community basis? The Government could easily have decided to put forward direct proposals as to what they believed should be the actual proposals for devolution and for the functions of a devolved administration. I believe that they have wisely decided not to do that. For myself, I could not have supported any proposal which would have relied solely upon the views put forward by a majority vote of the Assembly. It is essential that there should be proposals put forward to Parliament, to both Houses, which command the wide respect of both communities.
Therefore, I was very pleased that, at the Report stage in another place, an addition was made to Clause 2, which already said that:
"No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty … unless each House of Parliament has passed a resolution approving a draft of the Order,"
and then the following words were added:
"and stating that its provisions are, in the opinion of that House, likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community".
Heavy responsibilities will fall upon the Assembly for putting forward proposals which it thinks are in the interests of the communities of Northern Ireland. Heavy responsibility will fall on the Secretary of State faithfully to report to Parliament on proposals that he feels have cross-community support. I am satisfied that the Secretary of State and his team of Ministers are competent, with their advisers and all the contacts that they have, faithfully to report to Parliament as to whether the views being put forward have strict cross-community support.
The Assembly, as has been stressed, will have other responsibilities. It will have to determine not only what it suggests should be the functions but also the question of the composition of the executive. The important provision has been stressed that, pending devolution decisions, there will be opportunity for the Assembly to consider important issues affecting Northern Ireland and to establish committees for that purpose. The Government may have to give some assurances in that direction.
I want to see the Assembly discuss the very matters about which the noble Earl spoke. I can recall a debate which I was asked to initiate in your Lordships' House dealing with the economic and social problems of Northern Ireland which, as the noble Lord has said, remain terribly intense. If the Northern Ireland Assembly when it is set up and before there is a decision

921
on what will be the devolved functions, sets up committees to consider economic matters, social matters and industrial matters, it is important that there is the feeling that the views that they express and the decision that they reach will receive the full attention of the Government in Parliament. Unless that is done, cynicism could grow that again it is being treated merely as a talking shop, and that I believe would be wrong.
There are othe matters that I could refer to, but I do not want to take up the time of the other speakers. Any final proposals must be by consent. The Bill provides for a treble basis for consent: first, proposals from the Assembly itself; secondly, the need for the Secretary of State to say that they have widespread community support; and thirdly, the consent of both Houses of Parliament must be given. I believe that the Bill moves in the direction of giving the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity themselves to decide what form of Administration they want and therefore I give it sympathetic support.
4.56 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I should like to begin by paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Gowrie on his presentation of the Bill. I have never heard a Bill about Northern Ireland presented with greater breadth. The noble Earl mentioned the achievements of Northern Ireland. I feel that it would be right at this moment to refer to the achievement of the football team in Spain when we equalled the football team of England.
My noble friend mentioned the differences between England and Northern Ireland. That was brought to my notice at quite a young age when I was at school in England at the great college, Eton. In a general knowledge question I was asked, "The 12th of what month is important and why?"—to which I replied, "The 12th July, Orange Day". I got nought; the correct answer was, "12th August, grouse shooting". So my noble friend will understand exactly why I accept the proposition which he has put forward.
I should like to pay tribute to the Secretary of State and to his team. I think that Northern Ireland has been very lucky as regards the Ministers who have been sent from these Houses and in the way in which they have worked and the way in which they have adopted the Province of Northern Ireland and fought for it. Our present Secretary of State speaks with plain unequivocal and clear language which is much appreciated by the people in Northern Ireland. His abhorrence of misery, whether it is the misery of violence or whether it is the misery of unemployment, is plain for all to see and he has earned himself a place in the hearts of Ulster for that reason.
I should like to raise a question which does not directly fall within the Bill, but the Bill is against a background of guarantee to Northern Ireland of its position within the United Kingdom and it is, therefore, relevant. There are three British territories, not identical, but with identical guarantees, which have been given by the British Government. The guarantee is that they can remain British as long as the people so wish. The people in all those three places—Gibraltar, the Falklands and Northern Ireland—although they are not identical types of places, believe that under the
922
voice which has given the guarantee, somebody is saying also, "We hope to goodness that it will not be long before all you people wish to leave". That is the result of about 10 years of plain statement of that guarantee. I believe that it has been one of the unsettling factors in the political situation in Northern Ireland.
There is a general feeling that "they", the bureaucracy, are now so powerful that they can manoeuvre Ministers into a position where there is no alternative but to get rid of those three territories in some way or other. The Falklands issue has a material effect. Everybody denies that there is a Falkland factor in Northern Ireland or in Gibraltar. But there is no doubt that the people in Northern Ireland felt that Governments over long periods of years were trying to get rid of the Falklands and since the guarantee for Northern Ireland is the same guarantee as was given to the Falklands, it has had an unsettling effect.
Therefore, I should like the Government to say that they have faith and attach importance to the union as it stands at the moment. I should like them to make it clear that they will govern Northern Ireland so well and create such prosperity that all Ulster—whatever the community, whatever their religion—will wish to remain within the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State—and he is the first Minister for many years to speak warmly of the union—went some way in another place to say this in answer to a question. But I should like the Government to go further because that is the question which produces rigidity in the election of elected members to Assemblies. I should also like the Minister to clarify the alleged interview of a Northern Ireland Office civil servant with someone else. This was raised in another place and a considerable amount of time was spent on it. I think that it would be very good for the Government if they could use this opportunity to clarify the position.
I should like to make it clear that I support absolutely the co-operation between the Garda and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Without that co-operation, we have no hope of defeating the IRA. Living on the border, as I do, I probably have a great deal more knowledge about what goes on almost daily on the other side, and I am aware of the standard of cooperation.
The stand taken by Dublin over the Falklands has justified our determination in Northern Ireland to remain British. Twice in my lifetime the South has failed to turn up when our civilisation or a major principle has been at stake. But I think that Her Majesty's Government, and especially the Government of the United States of America, would be quite wrong to think that if Fine Gael and Dr. Garret FitzGerald were in power, it would automatically follow that we would get support. What we would not get is anti-British viciousness, which we got from the present Dublin Government. But there is no guarantee that in time of war, no matter what major party is in power in Dublin, they would, in fact, support us. The neutrality factor is very deeply ingrained in Irish political life.
I should like to turn to the Bill, and here I strike a contrary note to every other speaker so far, in that I believe that the Bill is misguided and has dangers. My attack on the Bill is very definitely muted by my personal

923
high opinion of the Secretary of State and his team. As has been said many times this afternoon, the Bill has two parts to it—first, the establishment of an Assembly. The second stage allows the Assembly to be turned into a legislature and Executive. My problem is that I do not see the second step ever occurring. Therefore, my mind is examining whether an Assembly, either toothless or with practically no power, will be of any advantage. I know the Government will say that these committees will have power, but I am afraid that my experience of assemblies, conventions and other things is that they will really be toothless. It is to have 80 elected members who will be powerless, but all of them having a vested interest in bashing the Government. I believe that that will do an enormous amount of harm to our relations with the general public in the United Kingdom.
Noble Lords may ask: What do I believe to be the correct answer? I shall not go into that in great detail because it would take too long. I believe that we should wait until the next election, when 17 Members will be elected for Northern Ireland instead of 11. The political complexion of those 17 is bound to change from what it is at present, and at that point a political initiative could then start.
However, I should like to make it quite clear that I know the benefits of devolution. I shall just quote one man who is totally impartial, Sir Edmund Compton, ombudsman in Northern Ireland. In 1970, in his report, he said that the individual citizen in Northern Ireland gets a better service from the Northern Ireland departments than he gets from a United Kingdom department in similar cases. I absolutely agree with that. My experience bears that out completely, as does that of every citizen in Northern Ireland.
My experience is fairly long and varied. My noble friend Lord Moyola has a longer experience in Parliament than I have, but he did not have the advantage or the disadvantage, as I did, of certain other parts. I was a Member of Parliament; I was a Minister in both his Government and the Government of Brian Faulkner. I was an Assemblyman; I was elected for the convention. Therefore, in speaking on this matter, I speak as having seen an Executive with power, and also toothless wonders. At the moment my problem is that I have very close contact with people in Northern Ireland because I live there. But I have yet to meet anyone, except the politicians, who wants to go through the bitterness and backbiting of an election. We still have Owen Carron as the elected Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. It is only a year since he was elected. Anyone who has been through the traumas of that particular type of election will appreciate that I cannot understand why people want to have more elections at present. Those wounds are too recent to stand the bitterness of another election.
The majority want devolution. The problem is that each party and each person has a different interpretation of the word "devolution". The parties themselves are rigid and their opinions about what "devolution" means are opposite. Due to the method of election, members will be mandated and they will be delegates and not representatives. They will have no room to manoeuvre. I wonder whether the delegates in the Labour Party from the extreme Left will not
924
put their own members in roughly the same position as our people. People in this country disprove of the election of delegates and not representatives. What I think will be wrong is that they will be delegates.
I was elected as an Assemblyman and for some weeks we went without power, and I have never been through such a humiliating experience. At one moment we ended up with one of the elected members advancing towards my late friend Lord Faulkner, kicking and punching at him and then flying a spit, the like of which you have never seen.
If we have an elected Assembly, which has no power, and if it deteriorates into that situation, it will ruin the United Kingdom and relations between the English electorate and ourselves. I was elected on a manifesto which said that I did not approve of an executive being formed if the SDLP did not support the RUC and the Army. This support was not forthcoming. So when Brian Faulkner formed the Executive, in spite of his offer I did not think that I could take up a post within the Executive. However, I did support his attempt to run an Executive on the lines which is now known as power-sharing.
Everyone thinks that the power-sharing Executive fell for two reasons. One was the election in 1974 and the second was the strike. The facts are that the Northern Ireland electorate as a whole considered that the Executive was not legitimate. This failure to accept it as being legitimate was—as my noble friend Lord O'Neill said—underlined by the election, because it sent 10 out of 11 people to Westminister, not on the ticket of Unionism but on the ticket of "Down the Executive". Therefore, in the eyes of the people, they were illegitimate and so they were doomed to fail.
So many things are affected by so many small items of tactlessness. The SDLP used to go down every weekend in their official car to Dublin to get their orders from the Government there. That is how we saw it. That had a material effect on the legitimacy of the Government. The present position about the SDLP is that they are "greener" by far than they were. Indeed, Mr. Hume is considered by many people, including a lot of his own party, to be a messenger for the present Prime Minister in Dublin.
If the elected Members were delegates then, and they are going to be delegated now we have had many more years of violence, I have little hope of anything coming out of it except a talking shop. With the economy destroyed the 80 members will have a vested interest in slamming the Government, because that is the way they will be elected again if they want to be. The noble Earl said that the electorate here, the taxpayer here, had a right to expect that the Northern Ireland politicians would behave themselves. I agree with him. But if we had an Assembly in Scotland with the economy in the same state as it is in Northern Ireland, I wonder whether the effect would not be the same as I fear it will be in Northern Ireland with a toothless Assembly. But maybe somebody wants there to be a rift between the population of Northern Ireland and the population of England.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, mentioned the question of returning local government powers to local government. I would accept what he says on that but I wonder whether the Government should not include

925
in this Bill the power at some stage, if they wanted to, without the Executive being formed, of transferring to this Assembly, with committees elected in proportion to the members elected, with chairmen in proportion in the same way, local authority powers, and not back to local government.
After the last Assembly election, when there was talk of an Executive, I travelled back from the count with two honourable Members from the other place. One of them said to me, "You know, when the elected Members see the amount of money that there is going to be available from being a Minister, I believe they will compromise". I am quite certain that in the present situation of delegated representatives there is no question about bribery of the individual—sadly! But I wonder whether the Government should not consider offering £ 500 million to the Assembly for extra expenditure within the budget of Northern Ireland, because then the whole of Northern Ireland would know how uncompromising they are and what we would be losing.
I do not believe, sadly, that the Bill will add to peace or prosperity. I believe that violence is our main problem and it is at still too high a level, and I believe that we should wait until after the next election. I also fear that this Bill, if passed, could weaken the union.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, I must first apologise to the House. I have a charitable trust meeting at six o'clock to which I must go. I shall try to come back for the end of the debate. I would have scratched from the list but for the fact that I think it is important for those of us with experience of Anglo-Irish affairs to say why we support the noble Earl in the measure which is before us today. I should like to take the opportunity, since I am following my noble friend Lord Brooke-borough, to try to deal in some ways with the points he has made. This perhaps arrogates to myself some of the rights of reply which my noble friend on the Front Bench will have at the end of the debate.
The administration in Ireland has been devolved since the beginning of history. There was an Administration in Dublin before the 1922 Treaty, and there has been an Administration in Northern Ireland since then. In the United Kingdom we have never had an integrated Administration between the two islands. That is the central fact. It seems to me a separate and important consideration that it is wrong in principle to have a separate Administration without some form of legislative check on it, some kind of Assembly which will have a check on it. It is clear to those of us who take part in Northern Irish debates in this Chamber, or listen to them in another place, that we are in fact quite irresponsible. It is impossible for us, with all the best will in the world, without the detailed local knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland, to control the actions of the Administration in the North. That is the fundamental and central question, which will not go away however much one talks about direct rule.
The question that the Government have put to themselves is whether the administration locally in Northern Ireland should be Province-wide or should be local authorities. At the last general election for the United Kingdom the Tory Party, in good faith
926
and for good reasons, advanced the argument that the power should be devolved to the local authorities. But for reasons which have been given in the debate, notably by the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, that is not possible. So we are back to the question: is it worth trying to get a Province-wide local Assembly which will exercise some of the vetting powers over the local administration which we are unable to exercise?
There are three reasons which lead me to believe that there is a possibility, a chance, that it might work. It seems to me to be centrally the case that some administration of this kind is desirable. I do not think that anybody has for a moment seriously questioned that, except by putting forward the case for permanent direct rule, or unification in some way of Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom, which I have already pointed out is not practical. That does not correspond with the facts of seven centuries of history. It is desirable: the question is, is it practicable?
I cannot believe that in a Province of 1½ million there are not people who would be available and be prepared to hold office—including the noble Viscount himself who has many times stood for election locally in Northern Ireland. I cannot believe that the electorate is so continually tied up with sectarian politics and attitudes that it will not see that this Assembly is a possible way of exercising control over an administration which they ought to exercise control over in any society which claims to be a constitutional democracy. If we do not make the attempt to do that over the next few years, we are in fact professing that Northern Ireland is not governable except by some modified form of martial law. I am not prepared to make that particular statement, even after the last 14 years of terrible experiences which have taken place there and which have taken lives from every part of the United Kingdom.
The overwhelming argument for a local Assembly of this kind is that it corresponds to the local administrative reality. There are local departments, staffed by local civil servants, taking countless decisions every week of the year, and those decisions must be checked by elected representatives of the people, otherwise democracy loses its meaning. I cannot believe that the memory of the old Stormont is so deeply disliked by the Catholic people, who have now reached 40 per cent. of the population of Northern Ireland, that a sufficient number of them would not make a serious attempt to try to get this Assembly in some sense to work.
I admit that the experience of the past 14 years has been such that that is rather a difficult thing to hope for, but I cannot believe it is impossible, and it is important in saying that to emphasise what the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said about Government in the South. It is regarded in the South as totally proper to make extraordinary remarks about our Prime Minister, of whatever party, but if we start making remarks about their politicians, all hell breaks loose; they want the benefits of independence without paying the consequences. For example, it is ironical to read the television commentaries in Southern newspapers, where they do not pay a penny towards the licence, although they regard it as good practice to watch television and criticise it liberally.
It must be the case that the present Administration

927
in Dublin have thrown away years of patient work by both main parties in the Dail as a result of their intemporate attacks on the United Kingdom. These attacks do not come from any deep belief in neutralism or deep conviction that the Argentinians are right or anything of that kind. They arise simply because the Southern Government are in a difficult electoral position and there is a sufficient minority in the South who are prepared to vote for the party which attacks the United Kingdom most strongly. It is cynicism, the abdication of the rule of political leadership, seeking to pander to the worst possible instincts in the Irish electorate rather than trying to lead the Irish people.
After the experience we have had with that Government—their public statements rather than their private actions, because the noble Viscount was perfectly correct that, at the security level, the present Dublin Government have behaved extremely well—what they have said in public has, I believe, made it politically impossible for any Government in this country seriously to consider any attempt at a divestment of Northern Ireland into some kind of unified Ireland. That cause, if one believed in it, has been set back very considerably by the experiences in the South.
I believe that if the Protestant people could be assured that that is the case—that the North is part of the United Kingdom and will remain so for the foreseeable future—they would have every incentive to try to make the Assembly work. I believe, too, that there is every incentive on the part of the Catholic people to seek to make it work. An opinion poll commissioned by the Irish Times and published a few weeks ago was extremely important in this context because it showed that the great majority of Northern Irish people wish to have some sort of devolved Administration and are prepared to make it work.
I do not see that the present Secretary of State and the noble Earl, who so ably represents him in this House, could do other than to seek to proceed by some kind of devolved Assembly in the present circumstances. And every time it is argued that it should be put off—until after the next United Kingdom election or after this, that or the other—it makes it that much more difficult to get it on the road. At present in Northern Ireland it is very important to try to get democratic local institutions going again, and to see that, come hell or high water, they are kept on the road until at last they draw widespread support from the community.
Over the years that I have listened to and taken part in these debates, I have been to the North, gone to the South and talked to all manner of experts and participants in these affairs. It is a very difficult question, one to which there is no solution, and in that the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, is correct. But I cannot believe that in the United Kingdom it is not possible to get some form of agreement, and I think the balance of the argument must lead your Lordships to support the Government in giving the Bill a Second Reading and getting it through. Otherwise, if we are not prepared to take that type of risk, we shall be failing to give the lead to the people of Northern Ireland which as I said, the Government of the Republic are failing to give to the people of Southern Ireland.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, since the Act of Union of 1801, and increasingly during this century, it has become clear that there are no simple solutions either for Ireland in general or for Ulster in particular. Four major proposals have been floated in recent years, as others have said, concerning Northern Ireland. To run over them briefly, they have been a United Ireland, integration, a new kind of partition, or even independence for the six counties—but I suggest that, for various different reasons, each of those is a potential recipe for disaster. We are faced, as the Minister said in his introduction, with loyalties, identities and aspirations which are often incompatible. Strong national and religious feelings sometimes make compromise almost impossible to attain. It has been rightly said that the situation demands both political and theological techniques for any improvement.
I come to the part that we in Britain can perhaps play, faced with this situation. I suggest that we need to see that our own past and recent actions are part of the whole problem; we need to admit that we misused religion for a very long period for political and strategic ends. We have encouraged idolatry and we now suffer some of the consequences, and I think that current violence is not entirely unconnected with injustices that have taken place in the past. All of this demands deep changes of attitudes from people in Britain, and these changes are likely to be as great as those we may hope to see coming in the future among Irish political parties and Irish Churches.
In practice, we must understand that the British in Northern Ireland are not simply peace-keepers between warring Irish factions; neither are we arbitrators nor referees. Britain and Ireland are interdependent, and so are the North and South of Ireland. What we must try to do now is to replace a love-hate relationship with one of mutual respect based on mutual forgiveness for past wrongs.
What is the task facing any British Government in Northern Ireland? First, they should advance helpful constitutional forms that give practice in co-operative effort. Secondly, they should increase the amount of self-determination in Northern Ireland through a series of confidence-building steps. This Bill does both of those things, but by itself it is not enough. There is a third duty facing British Governments, and that is to find the resources and direct them towards widening the common ground in a much-divided land.
I appeal to the Government not to appease sectional interests but to foster normal community interaction. I am thinking, for instance, of such things as local community development and of the Belfast Areas of Need. I acknowledge that valuable work has been done in the past in some of these fields, but I fear that much of it may have become abortive. Above all, I suggest that Governments need to strengthen the creative minorities that exist in the institutions and communities of Northern Ireland. We should strive further to reach a state of affairs where law and the administration of justice begin to be seen as a chosen norm and not as a form of coercion. Any visitor to Northern Ireland, in my experience, can readily discover the wealth of creative talent there is in the place. As to resources, I will mention only the one somewhat vexed word "additionality".

929
The Bill is a small step forward in the whole process of change and adjustment. Already from many quarters it has had quite a lot of cold water poured on it, and the prophets of gloom and doom have been very active. I think that we should refuse to be downcast. To my personal knowledge, honest men who care for the common good in Northern Ireland will stand for election to an Assembly. Various other forms of encouragement have been mentioned today from different sides of the House. I shall add only the very positive statement that came from Mr. Haughey on 24th March, when he said that change in Northern Ireland could come about only with the consent of the people there. I am further encouraged by looking back to the Question asked in your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lord Dunleath on 1st November 1979 The words that he chose were almost prophetic. He asked for a framework for an elected Assembly as a first step towards devolution. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, took a very gloomy view of this and spoke of such things as "toothless wonders". I sincerly hope that he is wrong, and I feel that the times to which he referred—six, seven, eight years ago—were worse times than those that we are now experiencing. I incline much more to the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. I would argue that an Assembly will have a worthwhile job to do, even if it cannot agree on devolution.
I think it is a useful thing to make direct rule more accountable, to put questions to Ministers, to channel grievances, to meet European Members of Parliament, and even commissioners from the EEC. Other functions could include discussing draft Orders in Council, debating the annual reports of the numerous appointed boards, as well as the reports of commissioners and committees of inquiry. Another function for an assembly would be to draft a Bill of Rights. Curiously enough, this idea has received support from such varied quarters as the Standing Commission on Human Rights and a number of ex-paramilitaries. These useful functions have been so far largely neglected in a situation in which Northern Ireland Ministers are probably likely to change fairly regularly. From a narrow base of functions, much wider powers could, one hopes, develop.
I think it is important that today's debate should address itself to public opinion in Northern Ireland, and to its future elected representatives. It has been rightly said that majority rule in the sense that one community-of-identity permanently insists on monopolising public life at the expense of a smaller community-of-identity, is unacceptable. I trust that Northern unionists who wish to remain British will understand how strongly opinion in Britain feels on this very point. I appeal to unionists to explore constitutional means whereby the minority may feel truly at home within the state. I very much hope that unionist leaders will continue to educate their people in concern for justice for all in a mixed population.
It is equally important that we should address ourselves also to Catholic opinion, especially to those who incline to a nationalist or republican point of view. I do so having called already today for changes in British attitudes, and as one who hopes to see considerably more Catholics from Northern Ireland not only in your Lordships' House, but also in another
930
place after the next general election. To my brothers in the North I would say, please read the White Paper of April 1982, stand for the assembly, vote for it, and help to make it an instrument of peace and progress.
To all I think we should say that conflict in Northern Ireland may appear small in scale, but it is large in significance. The eyes of the world may be said to be on that country. I should like to quote from the report of 1976, which came jointly from the Protestants and Catholics, and which was entitled, Violence in Ireland. It stated:
"All political leaders should he encouraged to see their task as that of reaching agreement with their opponents, rather than achieving victory over them; and to this end they should he open to any reasonable settlement proposed".
This Bill in itself is not a settlement, but I believe that it can open the way to better times. That is why it deserves a second reading and a constructive Committee stage in your Lordships' House.
5.35 p.m.
The Duke of Abercorn: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Gowrie on the presentation of the Bill. However, is it not ironical that the Bill, which has been drafted with the important ingredients of maximum flexibility, sensitivity to political entrenchment, and recommending gradual evolution, should receive, even prior to publication—in fact even prior to conception—such a negative response? In fact it has received almost universal condemnation from Northern Ireland politicians and the media, when in my opinion positive thought has never been more opportune and important. I say that because the salient and stark fact of economic life in Northern Ireland today is that after almost 14 years, continuous years of violence and tragic loss of both life and property, the country has been brought to a state of severe economic decline which now threatens the whole fabric of society in Northern Ireland, since there are severe cracks emerging in almost every sector of the economy.
In this grave situation I cannot stress too strongly to the people in Northern Ireland the need to appraise the Bill, not in the narrow confines of political partisanship, but in the best interests of Northern Ireland. Again, it is important to assess the most likely remedy to improve social and political stability in Northern Ireland, which is crucial for the attraction of new investment. There is no doubt that many people in Northern Ireland, perhaps the majority, have become accustomed to direct rule and would prefer a continuation of this system which, as my noble friend has said, direct rule brought considerable benefits to the community.
Indeed, when this House two years ago last debated the merits of the previous White Paper on devolution, I advocated that a continuation of direct rule was preferable to a considerably less flexible framework for devolution than contained in the present Northern Ireland Bill. However, since that debate two important, and indeed encouraging, aspects have emerged. First, there is an increasing and welcome trend in Northern Ireland for its people to become more and more directly reinvolved in their own affairs. For example, the Royal Ulster Constabulary is more and

931
more taking over the role of the Army, demonstrating tremendous professional skill, dedication and courage. Secondly, during the last two years there has been a grave deterioration in our economy, and there is serious doubt whether the present deindustrialisation trend can in fact be reversed.
It should be remembered that between 1950 and 1975 Northern Ireland was extremely successful in attracting new industrial investment. Thus the total manufacturing employment in the Province was relatively stable, since growth in this new investment counter-balanced the continuous decline in indigenous industry. However, this in-flow of new investment has, sadly, come to a virtual halt, resulting in an appalling increase in unemployment. As this House is only too well aware, high unemployment invariably feeds discontent, and plays a significant role in providing fodder on which street violence breeds. Although there are several reasons for the halt in this vital lifeline of new investment, the paramount reason is that the outside perception of political instability is the most damaging and negative factor, which results in the tendency to rule out Northern Ireland as a place for plant location even without consideration.
Therefore, unfortunately, direct rule has failed to counteract this damaging perception of instability. Since clearly our economic, political and security problems are remorselessly interrelated, is there an alternative to direct rule or devolution which in the present situation would unlock these interwoven problems and create the right environment for stability, without escalating violence? I do not believe that there is an alternative. For example, from time to time there is vague talk (in my view, extremely dangerous) of a proposal for an independent Northern Ireland. This, I believe, is a total non-starter both politically and economically, and would result in emigration on a scale not witnessed since the potato famine, resulting in probable poverty worse than even the poorest areas of Southern Italy.
But I believe that the current situation calls for Northern Ireland politicians to participate more constructively and fully in the affairs of their country, and to concentrate their energies on matters of universal concern, such as schools, hospitals, jobs and wages. In recent years local politicians have tended to sidetrack these vital issues, not only due to a pre-occupation with the security situation, which in my view rightly is the most emotive issue in Northern Ireland, but also due to the fact that Northern Ireland people have not been in a position to influence policy more effectively, resulting in an unhealthy growth in bureaucracy.
It can be argued ad nauseam whether the timing for such an initiative as is contained in this Bill is right. Surely, in the prevailing economic climate, and as the proposals do not require any political group to compromise their deeply-held beliefs, the time must be right to offer Northern Ireland politicians the opportunity to gradually take over the administrative responsibilities, as outlined in the Bill.
Assuming that elections do take place, the elected members will bear the ultimate responsibility of the success or failure of the Assembly. The results of failure are only too obvious—not only an increase in uncertainty and instability, which could play right into
932
the hands of violence. It would also show a clear abdication by our politicians to act responsibly when the vast majority of the community have for so long demonstrated a remarkable degree of responsibility, resilience and, indeed, restraint.
In the event of failure, it is essential for the Government to act promptly and to accept that direct rule is and should be a long-term arrangement which is capable of much improvement in detail. Success would not only gradually establish a foundation for stability, but would also considerably assist in regenerating a feeling of hope, confidence and pride in the community; since there is the recognition, at times dormant, that ultimately we alone can solve our problems, but there is despair that the resolve, particularly among the politicians, is lacking. Surely Northern Ireland, more than any other part of Western Europe, deserves a better future, and it is for this reason that I support this Bill.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Moyola: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken before me, I should like to thank the noble Earl for the way in which he introduced this Bill and for the excellent assessment that he gave of the state of affairs in Northern Ireland. But saying that is not going to prevent me from being perhaps a little critical of the Northern Ireland Office. I have no fault to find with the Bill itself, or very little: the fault I have to find is with the timing. At this moment I just cannot believe that it is going to be given a chance to work, even when Royal Assent has been achieved.
I do not want to repeat myself too often—I have said this many times in your Lordships' House—but as long as violence continues there is going to be very little give and take between the two communities. I look at the thing pretty basically. I look at what I think is going to happen rather than what I should like to happen. I am afraid that what I think is going to happen, based on the political facts, is that when the Bill is law we are going to have an election, and it is possible—I will not put it any higher than that, but it is possible—that the Democratic Unionist Party, headed by the reverend gentleman who sits in another place, may be the largest party in this Assembly.
If that happens, there is no way, as I see it, that the SDLP, the party of the minority, are going to go along with the DUP and co-operate to form any kind of Administration. The DUP have said many times that they do not want any connection of this sort. I would not presume to speak for what the SDLP might or might not do, but I think it perfectly possible that there might be a boycott of the proceedings; and if that happens, the whole thing falls to the ground and the very party that the Bill seeks to embrace has gone from the scene.
Looking at it from the Unionist Party point of view, may turn out to be the largest party. That, I think, is the more probable, but it is at this moment competing with the Democratic Unionist Party for votes, and the result, of course, is a hardline attitude, hardline leadership and something which is going to be equally unacceptable, as I see it, to the SDLP. I would say in parenthesis that in my view, certainly, for the Unionist Party to try to beat the DUP at their own game is complete folly: they ought to be concen-

933
trating on the things that matter, such as the economy, employment, bread-and-butter issues and all the rest. But that is by the way.
The conclusion I come to is that while this Bill tries, and tries very properly, to provide the minority with a part in the Government of Northern Ireland, I think all that is going to happen is that our affairs are going to get into the hands of extremists who do not want the Assembly to work and who certainly give us little hope of agreement on anything. Having said that—I know it is very negative—many people will say, "If you do not try something how are you going to progress?" I accept that as a criticism, and I hope that in a minute I can come back to it.
But I think there is another aspect of the thing, and that is the effect that these proposals, measures or whatever you like to call them have if they fail. If they fail they do nobody in Northern Ireland any good because failure is straight encouragement to the terrorists, to the IRA or whatever you call them. They think that Her Majesty's Government have had another slap in the eye, that they have been defeated again, and that if they have another swing, perhaps the Government will pull out, which is of course what they want. Therefore, my feeling is that this is incitement to more violence and more loss of life.
I think, too, that if it fails it is encouragement to the political parties to be more extreme. Each of them will think that, if they can keep "upping the ante", then sooner or later they will wear down Her Majesty's Government into giving them what they want. If something of this nature is to be done, then it has to be absolutely certain that it is going to succeed.
That brings me to the point that I connot help but wonder who is giving the Northern Ireland Office the feeling that this is a sure-fire thing. I cannot believe that it was any of the Northern Ireland politicians after what was seen of the debates in another place. Many of us who have been involved in the politics of Northern Ireland will have told the Northern Ireland Office very much what I have said. I cannot help but wonder where they got their information from where they got the high hopes or beliefs that this thing is likely to succeed.
I still feel strongly that we should progress faster if there was more talk and if the views of the Northern Ireland people were gathered by the Northern Ireland Office rather more widely. I still feel, and I think most of my countrymen feel, that the Northern Ireland Office follows what the press put around 12 or 15 years ago: that everyone in Northern Ireland was totally prejudiced to their own point of view, strictly bigoted in favour of their own point of view and unable to give a fair assessment on anything. This is part of the problems with which we are faced and may well he the undoing of this particular measure.
Reinforcing that, nobody listened in 1973, at the time of the Sunningdale talks, to the noises that were coming out of Northern Ireland—and that, in itself, killed the Executive, which, at one time, looked as though it had made a promising start. Nobody listened then and I am afraid that nobody has listened over this particular measure.
My Lords, I said that I would try to say something about what you might do if this thing fails. I want to make plain that I am in no way an integrationist. I am
934
totally against that. I want a devolved Government and I should like to see it, but I do not think that this is the moment. I think we need it, for the adequate reasons given by a number of speakers, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson; but, having said that, the question is how one gets progress; and you get that only if you get the climate right.
There are three things to be said. First, one must reduce or end the violence. As soon as that happens, the power of the extremists to block measures like this will immediately disappear. You will get a different sort of person in politics and you will get people into politics who want to rehabilitate the country and make a go of it. The second point concerns the Dublin talks. The Dublin talks always seem to be associated with a blaze of publicity and, as we have many times discussed in this House, they also seem to be clothed in a great deal of secrecy. I never understand why there is so much publicity about them; because talks have gone on between the British Government and Dublin and Northern Ireland and Dublin for many years. It is nothing new.
Equally, I never understand why it has to be so totally secret. The real problem is that, by being so secret and giving the talks so much publicity, every sort of fear is stirred up in Northern Ireland. That, in itself, makes for distrust of any measure which the Secretary of State or the Northern Ireland Office may propose. People are afraid that somewhere at the back of any measure that comes forward is the influence of Charlie Haughey or whoever may be in power in Dublin. This is one of the things that I would stress strongly. If the Dublin talks are to continue, then let them be quite open and let everybody know what goes on, and a lot of these fears will be removed.
Lastly, I frankly think that, if this fails, the only thing that can be done is to make the best of the present situation and to say plainly that no further attempts will be made until the violence ends. I think you will find that, once there is no prospect of some form of Assembly, again the whole face of the political game in Northern Ireland will alter and it will make the whole scene easier. Having said that, I want to make plain that, so far as I am concerned, the Bill is here. The timing, I think, is wrong but in no way have I the smallest intention of obstructing it or of doing anything but trying to make its passage easier and making it easier in Northern Ireland.
I would mention one point of detail about it. In the schedule, it lists the number of members proposed for this Assembly. It is far too big, crazily big. I cannot remember whether it is 78 or 80 members. It opens the way for those large numbers to undergo the most desperate local pressures in small communities. All of us at Stormont suffered from local pressures. Some stood up to them better than others. They were always there and always very difficult to deal with. It is a problem which is created by tiny constituencies. Under PR it may be a tiny bit easier, but still does not remove the fact that whoever is elected will be subjected to very severe and heavy local pressure. I would certainly ask the noble Earl whether he would not have another look at this and consider reducing it. Fifty-two is plenty; that was the Stormont number. Personally I do not think it should be any more than that.

935
My Lords, there is nothing constructive in Northern Ireland politics at the moment; it is all destructive and largely valueless. For that reason, I give the Bill a cautious welcome. I only hope that, if it fails, before launching another initiative of this kind the Northern Ireland Office will bear in mind the fact that, if it goes wrong, then it is we in Northern Ireland who will suffer and face the difficulties.
5.59 p.m.
Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Moyola, although perhaps somewhat intimidating to find myself speaking among such a formidable array of distinguished speakers from Ulster: no less than two Prime Ministers and the son of another distinguished Prime Minister. It is with great regret, as a supporter of the Government on about every conceivable issue, that I cannot bring myself to support this Bill, which I look upon as dangerous, showing inconsistency and an irrelevance to Northern Ireland's present needs.
My attitude to this Bill is quite simply that of a unionist, not an Ulster Unionist, but as a unionist who wishes to keep all parts of the United Kingdom as one and who believes in the unity of the kingdom as our foremost concern.
Devolution for any part of the United Kingdom is a matter for us all and particularly for England, because England represents 85 per cent. or so of the total electorate of the United Kingdom. I have consistently opposed it, in common with many noble Lords, including many of my noble friends some of whom are now members of the Government Front Bench; in the case of Scotland and Wales. I do now so in the case of Northern Ireland, as I feel the principle is the same no matter how different is Northern Ireland internally from Scotland and Wales.
I look upon devolution as a dangerous game, as we all ought to remember from 1978 and 1979. After that experience I never thought to have lived to see the day when a Conservative Government and a Conservative and Unionist Party was so misguided as to introduce a Bill which provides for devolution as its goal. The Stormont Parliament was all right so long as it worked, but we are now in a totally different situation. The effect of this Bill, as I see it, will be to weaken the ties between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I very much fear, as do many others, that it will foster suspicion—and my noble friend Lord Brookeborough touched on this. Being of a trusting nature, I am sure it is probably a false and an unfair suspicion, but nevertheless there is a suspicion that there may just possibly be somewhere one or two members if not of the Government then tucked away in the Foreign Office who perhaps would not mind too much if gradually Northern Ireland could conveniently be allowed to slip into a United Ireland.
I do not see that this Bill will do anything to combat terrorism: in fact it might well have the reverse effect. The IRA's flagging hopes are always revived by political initiatives and encouraged by moves which separate and distance Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom. Certainly nothing can be done by initiatives, assemblies and devolutions to alter the ways of the hard-line criminal terrorists of the Marxist-oriented
936
IRA. As we all know, they can be dealt with and defeated only by the courage, resolve and expertise of the armed forces, to whom no doubt we would all wish to pay our tributes.
Why almost every Secretary of State feels he has to justify his existence by having a go at some sort of weird contrivance or concoction—a sort of witch's brew of devolution proposals—is quite beyond me. It unsettles everybody, arouses illegitimate hopes, legitimate fears and produces uncertainty and extremism. I feel that all that is needed now is a reaffirmation of continued direct rule with such improvements and modifications as are necessary: far better a generally accepted second best than a non-starter. Already this latest "rolling devolution" Bill, as it has been called, has fallen on somewhat stony ground in another place, involving two or three minor resignations of whips and PPSs. It has incurred some very strong opposition from at least a few, if not quite a number, of the more senior and respected Government Back-Benchers and it has involved the use of the guillotine on a constitutional measure. I suspect its demise will gather pace and that it will roll downhill fast.
"Integration" is a word which worries some people and sends others into a frenzy, but there has already existed a form of integration which has been in existence for several years. It is known as direct rule. But it has been direct rule without local democracy in a real sense. I would have thought it was far better to continue administering direct rule, improving local government with the necessary safeguards, increasing representation at Westminster, both in another place and in your Lordships' House, rather than setting up what may prove to be an explosive talking shop. If it is too difficult, and I do not understand why apparently it is, to set up proper local authorities with the necessary safeguards, then I fail to see what hope and point there is in setting up an Assembly as a step towards a devolved Parliament and have any hope in getting it to work. It really seems to me rather like sending someone to university before he has been to primary school.
The people of Ulster are more interested in security and jobs than in votes and constitutions. The danger is that this proposed Assembly, with little responsibility, will degenerate into a forum of dissent and a platform for criticising Westminster. Worse than that, it will highlight and emphasise that everyone in Ireland is either a Unionist or a Republican, Protestant or Catholic, Irish Irish or British Irish. It will accentuate all that is divisive in Northern Ireland politics, encourage bigotry and all the other evil things that we must try to eliminate if there is to be any hope for Northern Ireland.
It is my belief, and that of many others, that the minority groupings in Northern Ireland—I have said this before in other debates—would feel far safer and be able to lead a more normal life in the saner, wider context of the United Kingdom as a whole, where the bitter divisions and suspicions which, unhappily, divide Ulster do not exist. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, mentioned Dr. FitzGerald's recent lecture. Somewhere in that lecture he made the point that the millions of Irish who live in this country have integrated themselves perfectly happily.
One can make too much of opinion polls, and I think

937
the noble Lord also referred to an opinion poll: there was one recently which achieved prominence in February or March, 1982. It was taken by Ulster Television, and it did indicate that 88 per cent. of Protestants and 45 per cent. of Catholics would find integration acceptable. I feel it is essential to achieve a non-national basis; and this can only be done outside Northern Ireland at Westminster, where the two national traditions of Northern Ireland can somehow be merged arid integrated in the wider United Kingdom party political context and where the Northern Ireland representatives at Westminster would have the incentive to join in the party groupings here—indeed, it would be necessary for them to do so—to achieve influence and effectiveness. I do not regard this as a fantasy at all.
Moreover, any desire for devolution that may exist is entirely negative and divisive. It means different things to different people. This is fundamentally because the majority see devolution as a means of ensuring more vigorous security measures and of forestalling any move towards Irish unity that might be foisted upon them at some future date. On the other hand, the minority look upon such proposals, when combined with some form of power-sharing and a vague Irish dimension as an eventual road to Irish unity. in fact, as was stated so well in the recent book of the honourable Member for Epping,
"One side's devolution is the other side's poison".
I particularly dislike and find difficult to understand the cross-community formula in the Bill. It seems to me that this will merely accentuate further the differences between the two communities in the Province and make even more difficult the emergence of cross-community parties based on the approach to the different social and economic problems, as is the system in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I was going to ask two questions my noble friend Lord Gowrie. The first is: Why is there apparently no provision in the Bill for a referendum, as was the case in the Scottish and Wales devolution proposals? Secondly, why, if the Assembly is found to be unworkable and incapable of undertaking provisions that could be transferred to it under the Bill, should not the Assembly perhaps be allowed to transfer itself into a regional council?
Lastly—no doubt my noble friend will give some reassurance on this point later—I very much doubt whether the Government have fully considered the implications and dangers this Bill may have for re-kindling Scottish and Welsh nationalism. I would not wish to dwell too much on this at this stage, but one thing that cannot be glossed over is that if Northern Ireland is to have—as it will have—17 seats instead of 12 in the House of Commons at the next general election, sooner or later there will be objections as to whether it is proper for Northern Ireland representatives to vote on matters devolved to Northern Ireland's own Assembly or Parliament. The reason for the increase in the Northern Ireland seats from 12 to 17, which I remember I supported when the Bill came before this House, is that, since the abolition of Stormont and the imposition of direct rule, Northern Ireland has been grossly under-represented at Westminster. But now this reason is nullified if Northern Ireland is to have a devolved government. I should have thought that we all had more than enough of the insoluble so-called
938
West Lothian problem at the time of the proposals for Scottish and Welsh Assemblies. It may be convenient for my noble friend the Minister, and his Secretary of State, to gloss over this now, but the problem will not go away.
It may be asked, "Why worry too much about Northern Ireland's almost derisory 17 seats as compared with Scotland's 71?" All I would say is that, remember the general election of 1964 and, above all, the two elections of 1974, when another five seats would have made all the difference. In the half-century of Stormont's existence, it so happened that there were virtually no general elections which resulted in an evenly balanced House of Commons, apart from the close result in 1964. Northern Ireland then had only 12 seats and, although the matter was just tolerated, the then Prime Minister, Sir Harold Wilson, raised it on the issue of steel nationalisation.
In the finely balanced Parliament of 1974-79, Stormont had gone and Northern Ireland legislation was under the control of Westminster. But now, as from the next general election, Northern Ireland will have 17 seats and Northern Ireland constituencies will have achieved parity with the size of English constituencies. Let no one doubt, if and when there is a close result in a general election, it will be argued, "Why should the fate of the Government depend on the votes of Northern Ireland Members, who have their own Parliament and Government?"
So I regret that I simply cannot support this Bill, because it provides for devolution as its ultimate goal. I regard it as a retrogade step which is alien to the traditions and destiny of the party to which I belong to be creating assemblies, whether for Scotland, Wales or, in this case Northern Ireland, in which friction will inevitably arise and endanger the unity of the Kingdom.
6.13 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like first to tell the Minister how very much I enjoyed his introduction. I should also like to congratulate him and the Secretary of State on all the hard work and resolution which they put into bringing the Bill to this House. Secondly, I must admit to a great diffidence in speaking about Northern Ireland in the presence of those who not only live there, but whose lives have been very closely involved in its affairs. The fact that quite a few of them have now left the Chamber makes me feel a little better.
I thought that I would say a little about what seems to me to have brought on the need for these proposals, and a little about what the reactions to them appear to have been. So, first, and as the Minister so clearly outlined, I feel that it is not possible even to consider these proposals without looking for a moment at what has gone before and without looking at all the different options which successive Governments have had to face. Indeed, sometimes it has seemed that successive Governments have been tempted to try to use English logic in an Irish situation, forgetting that in Northern Ireland there has been a totally different situation, politically and historically, from that in any other part of the Kingdom, and forgetting that any proposals put forward might be viewed with infinite suspicion by both sections of a divided community, who have

939
learned by historic precedent that they cannot always accept at face value what is proposed.
The continuation of the option favoured in recent years—that of direct rule—is justified by many on the basis that neither side of the community is fundamentally opposed to it, and, understandably, there is a strong temptation among some to go on with it indefinitely, with but a few modifications. Yet to counter this, and so strongly, there is the unequivocal proof that, on the one hand, direct rule symbolises the total failure of Northern Ireland politicians to achieve agreement, bringing the whole political process itself into disrepute, and, on the other hand, it has resulted in further community polarisation and hardening of attitudes and, most tragically of all, it has failed to bring an end to violence.
There have, of course, during this period of direct rule, been many attempts to fill the political vacuum and, again, it is important to recollect them now, for these different options were not taken lightly; they were considered, discussed, disagreed on, fought over and discarded. They included the possibility, as has been pointed out, of carrying out a local government reform, of instituting another Sunningdale package and of settling for majority rule or total integration.
Thus it would be true to say that a great number of formulas have been mulled over; the reason against the implication of most of these formulas being that their introduction would have intensified the fears of the minority. So, finally, the objective—to contrive a partnership administration which is acceptable to the majority community, and which, at the same time, affords protection to the interests of the minority—has been formulated in the Northern Ireland Bill which is before us today and which, so far as I can see, the House has clearly welcomed. But, as I said at the beginning, it can be accepted only in the light of what has gone before.
May I now briefly refer to some of the reactions to the principle itself which appear to have been expressed in Britain and in Ireland, North and South? Starting with Britain, it is undeniable that a ferocious rejection of the proposals has come from a small group of Conservative parliamentarians. For them, the preservation of the union comes before all else. Possibly, this reactionary view has some following in the country, but, generally speaking. I would say that the proposals have been well received among those members of the public over here who, indeed, have been aware of their existence; for, from my experience, I have found that people on the mainland find it difficult to relate closely to those 1½ million of their co-citizens in Northern Ireland.
Nevertheless, it may well seem entirely appropriate to them that the small and somewhat remote community across the water should have a say in governing themselves. It may even have been discerned by many in Britain that such a proposition could provide the necessary minimum, flexible framework within which the people of Northern Ireland can at least make an attempt at solving their own problems. And most people over here would, I am sure, agree that their are problems which only they can solve.
In the Republic of Ireland, the reaction has been
940
more ambivalent. The present Irish Government, it would seem, has criticised the Government's proposals on two counts; first, that they do not contain enough safeguards for the minority community and, secondly, that such an Assembly would be unworkable. In my view, the first accusation appears to be totally unfounded, in that, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, the major purpose of the structure worked out for the Assembly was to ensure those safeguards. As to the other criticism—that it would be unworkable—all I can say is that we shall just have to wait and see. These proposals will, no doubt, be workable if elected politicians want them to work. Furthermore, surely, risks sometimes have to be taken and it must be true that, in the lives of both individuals and governments, decisions have to be taken which are not based on certitude. And, in this case, the risks involved in the alternatives seem to be greater still. So that is the rather pessimistic view of the present Irish Government.
But Dr. Garret FitzGerald, who has already been quoted today, has expressed another view and one that may well be shared by others in the Republic. He put this forward in his recent Dimbleby Lecture, and I will quote what he said:
"We all know that there is an urgent need for some kind of interim solution to provide a breathing space in which the people of the island can consider their longer term future, an objective towards which Mr. Prior's initiative is presumably directed. And we know that there is a need also to consider what kind of long-term future that might be; what kind of political solution can be devised that could give the Irish people and above all those in violence-torn Northern Ireland, a prospect for peace in mutual harmony in the 21st century, now not much more than 17 years away—only a little longer than the time that has elapsed since the present period of violence began".
That seems to me to be an entirely realistic attitude.
Finally, the reactions from Northern Ireland itself. First, for those of us who take account of the findings of opinion polls, there is, as has been mentioned, the Irish Times who reported that three out of five of those questioned in the Province were in favour of the proposals. Then there are the reactions of the people themselves. These, characteristically, have been both varied and voluble, which is not very surprising when you take into account that the issue crucially concerns them and that they are extremely politically-minded people. This in itself is, in my view, an overwhelming reason for the creation of a political arena in which to demonstrate this. But apart from that, the mood from the start appears to have been one of psychological acceptance. I have felt, from what I have heard from my friends over there, that thoughtful political leaders and members of the public wish to take it seriously. They do not want to confuse the proposals with extraneous issues. In other words, they wish to see it separate from unionism and the Irish dimension. They recognise the Assembly as representing a platform where moderate voices can finally deliver a resounding "No" to the acts of the paramilitaries on both sides of the argument.
As we have seen, this rather constructive attitude is not shared by Northern Ireland's political parties. As we know, only one of these four parties is in favour of these proposals. The Unionist side feel that the proposals do not respect the wishes of the majority and render the devolution of powers unachievable. The SDLP, on the other hand, say that the minority are

941
not being given adequate opportunity to participate in Government and that the proposals pay too little regard to its long-term aspirations. Thus, almost the same conclusions are reached by each side but on wholly different grounds. However, it would seem that this negative reaction is being strongly opposed by popular feelings.
Proof of this has come to me from an article in the monthly publication to the Peace People. This is an organisation with which I am involved. They are deeply engaged in community relations and the work of reconciliation. This is what the article said:
"At the moment most of the major parties seem determined to reject this opportunity to fulfil their basic function—the resolving of community problems by peaceful political means. But, whatever shortcomings Mr. Prior's plan may have, it opens the way for constructive dialogue, and the economic and social problems of Northern Ireland are far too pressing to tolerate any longer the irresponsible refusal of our politicians to get together to tackle them. The way is open, and if the politicians still refuse to take it, then it will be up to the people to make them or to replace them with others who will".
This highly positive attitude is also reflected by the frenetic activities of the selection committees which have already been mentioned. I understand that about half the candidates have already been selected. This can hardly be seen as representing a sense of apathy.
Finally, with the true interests of Northern Ireland's people in mind, what hopes can we place in this initiative? First, perhaps, that the Republic of Ireland, as Dr. Garret FitzGerald has said, will respect the initiative as providing that much-needed breathing space; second, that Northern Ireland's political leaders will seize this opportunity to influence their own future in co-operation one with another; and, third, that the Secretary of State, supported by the Prime Minister and Parliament, will continue to support the principle that the work of the Assembly should involve both discussing and influencing issues which are fundamental to life in Northern Ireland. I am sure that if the elected representatives find themselves in a position seriously to affect such priorities as Northen Ireland's economy, Northern Ireland's unemployment and Northern Ireland's housing problems, and if they feel that they really can exert some kind of influence then, instead of this proposed Assembly developing into a talking-shop, it will constitute a realistic forum for working out Northern Ireland's future. I very much support the Bill.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, first may I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, for having missed the first third of his speech, for unavoidable reasons. I think I can guess the substance of what he said in those first few minutes, although I missed his eloquence.
The noble Earl will not be surprised, I think, to learn that I cannot share the enthusiasm of many noble Lords for this Bill. If I were asked to explain why in one sentence, I should refer the questioner to paragraph 6 of the White Paper, Northern Ireland: A Framework for Devolution which foreshadowed the Bill. It states, among other things, that "Northern Ireland's 50 years experience of devolved government has shaped its politics". Just so. Year after year we have heard politicians and other commentators here in England say, "If only the people in Northern Ireland
942
would get away from national antagonisms, cultural antagonisms, and substitute class and social antagonisms, just as the rest of us do". Without necessarily endorsing the proposition that class and social antagonisms are good things, one sees what they are getting at.
If in 1921 and 1922 the Province had been fully integrated in every sense into the United Kingdom, which is what the great majority of people there wanted—Craig wanted it, and so did the vast majority of the unionist population; they did not ask for Stormont, it was foisted on them—is it not likely, though not certain, that today there would be flourishing Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties in the Province, and possibly some SDP branches as well? Of course there would be nationalists, just as there are nationalists in Scotland and Wales, but it is quite possible that the Irish nationalists would not be much more vocal or violent, after 60 years, than their Scottish or Welsh counterparts, particularly as one of the probable consequences of full integration would have been that the recommendations of the commission appointed to straighten out population anomalies along the Border would have been implemented and that there would then have been fewer disgruntled minorities left on either side of the Border. If this had happened, it is quite possible that "the plural and secular structures appropriate to our times," which the noble Earl said at the end of his speech are needed, might have been partially in existence already.
Of course, the myth of "Satanic Stormont", so cunningly fostered by the Left, mainly the extreme Left, and which is all too readily believed by many people who are by no means on the Left, is a preposterous myth. As many noble Lords have so often pointed out, notably the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, Stormont, by and large, provided efficient and effective government and, moreover, presided over long periods of peace and relative prosperity, allowing for the endemic economic problems suffered by the Province as a result of the decline in its basic industries. Nevertheless, the existence of devolved government, coupled as it was with totally inadequate representation at Westminster, and hence totally inadequate cross-fertilisation, was surely responsible for Northern Ireland becoming vastly more inward-looking and wrapped up in its own affairs than would otherwise have been the case. It prevented the Province from playing its full role on the larger United Kingdom stage, to which, apart from anything else, the gallant and disproportionate sacrifices made by Ulstermen between 1914 and 1918 surely entitle it, and prevented the psychological integration of the Province with the rest of the United Kingdom. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough, would appear, by implication, to assent to this proposition.
Of course one cannot claim that total integration 60 years ago would have been an automatic panacea for all the Province's ills, but it is certainly reasonable to assume that the end result would have been better than what has actually turned out. This much has clearly become obvious in recent years to most thinking Conservatives. They saw, among other things, that devolution was likely to weaken the unity of the Kingdom, which was why most of them opposed so strongly the Scottish and Welsh devolution measures. Hence, the sensible and logical steps promised in the 1979 Conservative Party's election manifesto; namely,

943
a promise to integrate Northern Ireland more closely with the rest of the United Kingdom by restoring the upper tier of local government, coupled with affording the Province full representation in the Westminster Parliament.
It is all the more astonishing, therefore, that the present Government have reneged on their promise. After all, every single one of the factors now being cited as a reason for opposing full integration—or harmonisation, as I prefer to call it—was present in 1979, and well-known in 1979; so why the sudden reversal of policy? It cannot merely be because the distinguished chief architect of the original policy was brutally murdered by a Republican terrorist group, which rightly saw harmonisation as a most potent threat to its long-term hopes. But what else has happened since 1979? By a process of elimination, one is driven to conclude that the only explanation must be—and I hesitate to say this—external interference in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom. In other words, threats by a foreign country or foreign countries to stop co-operation against terrorism and to stop action against the smuggling of arms and ammunition if the policy of full integration was pursued. If this is the case (and I am bound to say that no other explanation seems credible) then I believe that the British public should be told. At least we will then know who are our friends and who are our enemies.
Whatever the reason, the original manifesto policy has been totally reversed so that we are now presented with plans for a highly ingenious form—and I do not say that in any disparaging way—of heavily qualified devolution. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill cleverly, but I am bound to say some-what naughtily, describes its purpose as "the restoration of devolved government", thereby suggesting to the untutored that what is proposed is essentially no more than a reversion to the type of government which generally prevailed in Northern Ireland for the past 60 years, and thereby hoping to forestall any invidious comparisons with recent Conservative attitudes to Scottish and Welsh devolution. But there is no reversion to traditional devolution. What we actually have is best explained by an analogy.
It is as if one were to take a badly-damaged vintage Bentley to a bodywork repair shop for restoration, only to find when it emerged that it now had the radiator grille of a Mini Metro; the roofline of a Citroën deux-chevaux, and the rear end of a Volkswagen "Beetle". The garage proprietor might well claim that the rebuilt model was far more suited to today's petrol prices and traffic conditions than the original car—and he might well be right. However, it is only to be expected that the captive customer in Northern Ireland—and I say that because, let us remember, the Ulster people are virtually being forced to buy this particular model, quite unlike their Scottish and Welsh cousins who were afforded the courtesy of a choice when confronted with their own very different models—will want to test this unusual model very carefully indeed before setting out on a long journey.
What sort of features do we find in it, given that we, or rather the Ulster people, do not have much choice in the matter? In my estimation there are some good features, some highly radical but probably
944
acceptable features, and some other features which are not quite so good. Among the good features, one might instance Clause 4(2), whereby the composition of committees must reflect the balance of parties in the Assembly. This is no more than good local government practice in Britain, although not all local authorities follow it.
The most radical feature is the 70 per cent. majority provision, which has been much criticised because it does not conform to normal democratic practices. However, on reflection I believe it has considerable merit. I agree with the Government and with the Opposition—and they may be surprised at this—that there is no point in setting up a new system of government unless it gets fairly widespread support from the various groups and sub-groups in the Northern Ireland community. (Despite what the White Paper keeps on reiterating, there is no question of there being just "two sides". That is far too simplistic a description; there are many different and varying groups in Northern Ireland.) Also, it sets an important precedent. Once one establishes that widespread cross-community support is a moral prerequisite for devolution when devolving such relatively minor matters as, say, fisheries and transport, then it follows that no honourable Government can possibly fail to apply the same principles to the vastly more important question of national identity. I refer, of course, to the periodic border polls. This being an honourable Government, I am sure we can look forward in the next Session of Parliament to a Bill to amend the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 accordingly.
Now for the not so good features. When setting up a subordinate legislature or administration it is one thing to say, "You may concern yourselves with A, B, C and D. You may not under any circumstances concern yourselves with X, Y and Z. Understood? Very well, then get on with it," and then sit back and take the rough with the smooth, just as the present Government are having to take the rough over Mr. Ken Livingstone and the GLC. They have to grin and bear it, and that is democracy. However, it is a rather different matter when central Government reserve the right to interfere constantly with the subordinate administration whenever the latter does something that the former do not like.
In this Bill we have a rolling devolution which is primed to roll, if necessary, backwards as well as forwards. There appear to be at least seven aspects of the Bill in which the normal, standard forms of democracy are hamstrung. First, Clause 2(2) provides that Parliament may decline to sanction a transfer of powers even if all the stringent criteria set out in Clause 1(4) are fully satisfied. Secondly, under Clause 5, Westminster can dissolve the Assembly at any time "in the public interest", as the clause puts it. Thirdly, it can under Clause 5(3) revoke the transfer of powers. Fourthly, the Assembly cannot elect its Chief Executive Member; the Secretary of State appoints him. Fifth, the Assembly cannot elect the heads of departments; the Secretary of State appoints them. Sixth, the Assembly cannot elect the members of the Northern Ireland Executive; the Secretary of State appoints them. Seventh, the Secretary of State can appoint up to two non-elected members, although perhaps in this House we should

945
not make too much of the latter point.
Reverting once again to the motoring analogy, I can envisage a future where the Secretary of State would be acting rather like the late Henry Ford, who told prospective purchasers of his Model T automobile that they could have it in any colour they liked so long as it was black. All of those provisos impart a distinctly colonial tang to the Bill, reminiscent moreover not of one of the more sophisticated colonies, but of one of the more backward ones. Whether one takes much notice of it or not, there has been much criticism of colonialism recently.
Possibly, at Committee stage some minor improvements can be made. I cannot help but feel that the most worthwhile amendment we can make is to empower the Assembly, subject to the 70 per cent. majority rule laid down in Clause 1(4), with which I fully concur, to implement the restoration of the upper tier of local government—local government modified by retention of the twin safeguards of the Norhtern Ireland Housing Executive on the one hand and the Ombudsman on the other. The Assembly could then vote to dissolve itself, its mission completed. That, my Lords, would be true democracy and true self-determination.
6.38 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord Monson, into all the points, which I rather regard as Committee points, in the very excellent speech which he has just delivered. However, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Gowrie—who has just disappeared, but no doubt my congratulations will be passed on to him—for his very good exposition of the Bill.
It is always said that history repeats itself. It does not do so always, but my ancestor John Foster (which is the family name of Ferrard) was the last Speaker of the Irish House of Commons in 1800. In those days, and it is extraordinary really, the Protestants and Orangemen, and himself too, were not at all keen on the union. If he had been alive today, he would have been all for it. I just mention that by way of saying that Irish politics, for anyone who is not involved or who does not know anything about them, are extremely complex.
There is an old saying—not that I equate it with the Secretary of State at all—that fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Although I have a great admiration for the Secretary of State in regard to Northern Ireland, I did not have much admiration for him in regard to his Employment Act 1980, which I did not think much of. I have some admiration for him; he is courageous to bring forward this Bill. I hope it will succeed and I will support it. But I should like to say that it is very much a 50:50 chance.
If it does not succeed, we cannot go on having these attempts at power-sharing. If it does not succeed, I think the only answer is to have direct rule. This of course, will be a far tidier answer, a much neater package. It would be quite hopeless to give Northern Ireland independence because it would be non-viable. There are only two solutions, either some form of power-sharing or integration. I agree that integration would be rather like the peninsular war was to Napoleon. If we cannot conquer terrorism, it would
946
be a running sore. Even with power-sharing you will still get terrorism, because the militants, the extremists, obvouisly do not want power-sharing. What the IRA want is, of course, a communist satellite in Ireland. They are not really interested in the unification of Ireland for the love of the Irish people.
There is one comforting thing which has grown strongly over the last few years. The media have always taken great pains to point out, quite wrongly, that Northern Ireland is a religious question, Catholics against Protestants. There is an element of that in certain areas, but that is not the great cause. I know one cannot judge 100 per cent. by opinion polls, but there have been some opinion polls organised by Queens' University, Belfast. I have the figures here; I ought really to have memorised them, but if one memorises figures often one gets them wrong, at least I do. This poll showed that 75 per cent. of Protestants and 67 per cent. of Catholics wished to remain part of the United Kingdom with the North of Ireland having its own power-sharing Assembly. Those are very interesting figures. Another poll showing that even on integration with the United Kingdom quite a large percentage—not as large as for power-sharing, but quite a large percentage—of Catholics, and of course Protestants, also wanted that. So I think that is a very good pointer in the right direction. It shows that the religious question is dying down somewhat.
I do not particularly want to talk about finer points because that will conic up at the Committee stage. But I am not quite sure about this cross-community consensus. I understand that is a consensus of Republicans and Unionists. That is nothing to do with Catholics and Protestants. It would certainly make it a lot easier if it was to do with the religious question, Catholics and Protestants, because I think it will be very difficult to get consensus with Republicans.
One noble Lord, I think probably my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, said that in his opinion the evil genie was the Civil Service. He may well be right. Certainly, as regards the Falklands, which, I admit, is nothing to do with this Bill, they have a lot to answer for. But it is a fact that there appears to be in the Northern Ireland Office—I may be quite wrong; I merely say there appears to be—a desire to get rid of Northern Ireland. I do not know how right I am in saying that. Of course the North of Ireland anyway has such strong guarantees, through the Constitution Act, 1973, that there has to be a majority before they go into the Republic. The Republic of Ireland have now joined the EEC, which was an excellent thing, but by doing that they have lost some sovereignty. Why in heaven's name—it is so childish of them—cannot they come back to the Commonwealth, which I think they left in 1947 or 1948? They should come back to the Commonwealth, where they lose no sovereignty, which they have lost in the EEC. We have republics in the Commonwealth. If only they would do that it would make the task of those wanting to solve this Irish question so much easier. I do not understand why they will not do it.
My Lords, I will not go on any longer because we have heard this whole question ad nauseam in debates. I hope this power-sharing works, but I have great fears that it will not. It would be wonderful if it worked because it would be such a boost to the economy, and I

947
think it would bring great contentment to the North of Ireland. But the extremists are a tough nut to crack. When we have power-sharing security will have to be really tight; we must not let down at all on security.
6.47 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I would first like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, on the White Paper. It was badly received by everybody, but in fact it is the basis of this Bill and is a very remarkable and wonderful White Paper. It has been paralleled by the Dimbleby Lecture by Dr. Garret Fitzgerald, which is in a sense another White Paper because everything in this Bill has, so to speak, Dr. Garret FitzGerald's approval. Anyhow, it is a continuation of his thoughts. I had the privilege of giving him lunch the other day here in your Lordships' House, and he had no hesitation in saying that. He sees this Bill as being a wonderful step forward.
My Lords, when one speaks at the end of a long list of speakers one is very conscious that a great deal has been said. I do not want to repeat it. I just want to repeat what has been said often before, that there are three possibilities for Northern Ireland. The first, which everybody agrees is impossible, is for it to become independent. The second is for it to be unified with England totally and utterly, with the frontier redrawn, and having, so to speak, a frontier with the Republic of Ireland that was quite definite. The other possibility is to have integration of Northern Ireland with the Irish Republic. The Bill, and the solution that is being put forward, is masterly because it is a combination of the last two, which have been going on the whole time—namely, that Northern Ireland should be part of the United Kingdom and have a relationship with the Irish Republic.
Practically every speaker in your Lordships' House has supported the Bill; but there have been some diffident voices, notably that of my noble friend Lord Ellenborough, and to a certain extent the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Moyola. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, also did not seem to be too happy with it. The reason that they are unhappy with it is that they rather doubt the sincerity of the Government and your Lordships' House in saying that we are not going to give Northern Ireland away, as it were, to the Republic of Ireland. It has been said by my noble friend Lord Gowrie and it is in the White Paper. The whole point of the Bill is that it goes gradually forward, and if there is any awkwardness we can backtrack on it. As I see it, there is no intention of giving Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland. There is no such intention at all. I should have thought that it was extraordinary that noble Lords should doubt that.
Northern Ireland is to send 17 Members—which is an increase—to the other place. Another thing that could be done—and I mean this seriously—is for the Irish Peers who are connected with Northern Ireland, to be allowed to sit in your Lordships' House. There are a number of them—for example, Lord Antrim. I shall not quote them all, but I think it was a quite stupid state of affairs when, after the 1922 situation, we did not allow the Northern Ireland hereditary Peers to sit in your Lordships' House.
948
Such action might reassure some of your Lordships who are doubtful. Secondly, it would be a very happy situation if there were more Northern Ireland life Peers, such as the noble Lord, Lord Blease. Thirdly, it would be a great step forward in this direction, too, if the Anglican Church of Ireland was also represented in this House. I am even hearing "hear, hear!" from my fellow Duke, which shows that I am doing the right thing. It would show the complete commitment of your Lordships to Northern Ireland remaining part of the United Kingdom Parliament.
I add without question—and I have said it before—that I should like to see some Catholic bishops in this House; not, as it were, sitting on the Benches occupied by the bishops at present because that is part of the Established Church, but sitting as Catholic Lord Sopers, if I may put it like that. There could be four, five or perhaps six or seven—whatever the proportion—Catholic Lord Sopers and a Presbyterian Lord Soper too, for good measure, to represent Scotland. I would also have some Northern Ireland Catholic bishops or clergymen in this House too. Such a course might show your Lordships how completely committed we are to Northern Ireland remaining a part of the United Kingdom, as it is now.
The other aspect is that Dr. FitzGerald, who after ail represents 50 per cent. of the Irish vote and probably much more, said to me how immensely pleased he is at the progress that has been made, and he said that he sees this Bill setting up a constituent Assembly—it has been rightly described as a "do-it-yourself assembly", going forward and changing any piece of the constitution or the affairs that will be dealt with by it as it goes along—as being something which, as my, noble friend Lord Gowrie has said, should have no commitments and have great flexibility. When the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and others say that they do not see the need for it, I point out that the need for it is precisely that in Northern Ireland there are half a million Catholics, many of whom are nationalists—
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, will the noble Duke give way? I think that the noble Duke must have misunderstood me. I did not say that there was not a need for it. I made it clear that I was a supporter of devolution as such. I said that if this thing basically went wrong, then we would be far further back and in a far worse state—I think that my noble friend Lord Moyola said exactly the same—than we would be if we had not tried it. My problem is that I am absolutely convinced that the second stage will not occur. My conviction is based on my knowledge of the people to whom I speak and who I meet every single day.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount very much and I apologise if I have misquoted him. I also apologise to my noble friend Lord Moyola if I misquoted him. What I am trying to put to your Lordships is that when it was said that all we need—and it was said in the other place too—is to restore local government to Northern Ireland, I think that we must have an Assembly in Northern Ireland so as to deal with the "Irish problem", as it has been called, so as to deal with the Republic of Ireland's proximity, because the difference between Northern Ireland and

949
Lancashire is that Northern Ireland is part of the island of Ireland and there is an Irish dimension. For that reason we want to have a constituent Assembly, as this Bill suggests.
I see that already there is great progress being made with the Garda and the Royal Ulster Constabulary under Sir John Harman, who are doing a lot together; and Dr. FitzGerald has suggested in his Dimbleby Lecture that he would like to see those two police forces much more integrated, and he would also like to see even a common system of courts. That is wonderful; I see it as great progress.
In my view the end of the road—as I hope it will be—which is no doubt a long way off, is for Northern Ireland to remain totally and utterly, as it is now, part of England. But it should also have a relationship with Southern Ireland which will enable it to be friendly with Southern Ireland. Moreover, the citizens of Northern Ireland should have a dual nationality, as it were—they already have nationality here, and many of them have dual nationality with Southern Ireland—and the relationship of Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic should be a type of federal or confederate relationship.
I believe that as the Bill goes forward and as the Assembly gets into action, with all the caution that will take place and all the goodwill of people like my noble friends—particularly, my noble friend Lord O'Neill of the Maine, who I thought spoke tremendously about the matter and who has great experience, as does everybody else sitting on my right—we will possibly he able, in the not too distant future, to withdraw the Brtish Army supporting the police.
6.58 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk has, I think, unveiled—without any notice to me, unfortunately—a masterly plan for all Irish questions which is, perhaps, to have the Province governed by Catholic Lord Sopers! The Protestant, non-Conformist and Catholic traditions would, as it were, meet in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Soper, were he so constituted, and I am sure that that would be extremely well received. But I am grateful to my noble friend for reasserting very authoritatively the fact that nothing in the legislation or in the White Paper poses any threat whatever to the continued position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. The position of the Government about that has always been made clear: the constitutional future of Northern Ireland can only be decided and determined by the people of Northern Ireland themselves. That has always been the position and it remains the position.
I must say that I am very gratified by the way in which the debate has gone and by the way in which our proposals have been received. I thought—if I may say so to him—that the noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough, put the case against with great succinctness and eloquence. The fact that he was relatively isolated did not, I think, detract from the force with which he put his anxieties. He was reinforced, perhaps at a somewhat more philosophical level, by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. The noble Lord, Lord Blease—and, again, I am grateful to him for the way in which he received this on behalf of the official Opposition—put his finger on the need for an Assembly when he
950
said that we want political debate rather than physical force. The fact that political debate in Northern Ireland can be lively even by the standards of another place, let alone by the standards of your Lordships' House, does not detract from that at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, made a point which was echoed by my noble friend Lord Vaizey, which was that the Assembly can enable the people of Northern Ireland to exert an influence on matters that concern them and exert an influence on their politicians and their representatives. I do not see how we can get the character of the representation to change—and many noble Lords called for more responsible attitudes by Northern Ireland politicians—unless the people of Northern Ireland have a chance to put some pressure on them.
The Secretary of State, Mr. Nicholas Scott, and I appeared on a recent television "Question Time" programme in Northern Ireland, and we found out that that was the first time for nine years in which people have, as it were, had direct contact in Northern Ireland with their form of government. This is an astonishing state of affairs and one which we are determined to try to correct. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made that point succinctly as well. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson—who gave me notice that he could not be here—gave a welcome on behalf of the Social Democratic Party, for which I am grateful. He said that the Bill must not be buried in verbiage, and we shall certainly try to avoid that. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, was, likewise, welcoming on behalf of the Liberal Party. He said that opinion polls were misleading, and I agree with him that one must not always make too much of them. Like statistics, one tends to quote the opinion polls that fall in one's favour.
The word "integration" in Northern Ireland has, I think, somewhat different connotations from the way in which it is sometimes used here. Very often integration is simply an interchangeable term for a wish to continue the union. I have known people who have been arguing fiercely with me about the need for devolved government announce that they are also passionate integrationists. So obviously we must be very careful about our choice of phraseology.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford encouraged me very much because he said that he hoped worthy people would come forward as a result of this Assembly. One of the things that we would hope for from the Assembly would be one or two new faces and one or two new voices. I know several people—several unionists particularly—who were champing at the bit to try to get a different kind of articulation—a different kind of voice—out of Northern Ireland.
This is perhaps one of the reasons why I am rather prone to resist the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Moyola that there should be only 52 Assembly members, as there were in the Stormont Parliament. I think that one should give the opportunity for new people to come forward. But there is another reason for that. The figure of 78 is not created by this Bill, but was established in the Assembly Act 1973. There were 78 members of the first Assembly, as indeed of the Northern Ireland Constitutional Convention. Naturally, we have considered the argument for departing from the figure, but we remain of the view that an assembly of around 80 members, elected by proportional

951
representation, provides a body of the right size in can be which a full range of views represented.
I am most grateful for the authoritative support given to me and the Secretary of State by my noble friend Lord O'Neill of the Maine, who has played a very enduring and a very significant role in the history of this part of the Kingdom. Much of what he tried to do and much of what was perhaps not right for him to do at the time has informed the thinking of successive Administrations since his time. I certainly share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that it would be appropriate for the Assembly to try to get away whenever it can from the great fundamental constitutional wrangle about Northern Ireland and deal with the very much more pressing, urgent and—I hope—more soluble economic and social matters in the Province. Going round the Province, as we have met ordinary people, there have been representations to us that this is what is needed.
I should like to share the tribute of my noble friend Lord Brookeborough to the football team of Northern Ireland. They were cheered on in Madrid by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who found it most pressing and urgent to attend that particular function, and I am only sad that my right honourable friend's presence did not secure their victory. Nevertheless, they did exceptionally well to get as far as they did.
On the rather more sombre subject of allegations about a civil servant, which my noble friend raised, these were made in another place about a purported record of an academic researcher's discussion with a civil servant. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said in another place that the material on which the allegations were based comprised no official document or material authenticated by the civil servant, who has been named. My right honourable friend added that he would prefer not to comment on the politics or motives of the author of the document, and I think that it is right at this stage to follow my right honourable friend's reticence in that regard. Certainly it seems to me that some of the intimations about the document were pretty extraordinary and pretty hard to grasp.
I was glad that my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, with all his experience—and he really does know the border area in his skin and bones—remains a devolutionist. I am also glad to endorse the praise that he gave for the excellent Civil Service in Northern Ireland. I do not think that any comparable part of the United Kingdom has such a high quality of administration. That, again, is not one of our problems.
Of course, there can be bitterness and backbiting at an election. This was a reason that caused us a great deal of deliberation. We would argue among ourselves that Northern Ireland elections are fought along the characteristic tribal lines; people would get boxed into their old corners and bitterness could ensue. One is always liable to be vulnerable to the enquiry: why not leave well alone, why stir the pot? But the fact of the matter is that, without some political progress in Northern Ireland, the continued flight of investment funds, either inward or outward, can, in our judgment, continue, and it is too grave a situation for us to be able to accept that argument altogether. All democratic
952
procedures have their inherent risks, but my own view is firmly that the people of Northern Ireland deserve an opportunity to make their voices felt. It is up to them to put pressure on these representatives not to allow this Assembly to degenerate into the old tribal chamber.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for his welcome. I should like to pay a brief tribute to the noble Lord, in that, of all your Lordships, he has perhaps been most sedulous in making me attend to my constitutional duties as a representative of Northern Ireland in your Lordships' House. He has asked many questions and written many notes, privately and publicly; he has a very great deal of know ledge and a very great deal of expertise about this. But, again, it reinforces one of the things that we have consistently said. It should not be left to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—admirable though his efforts have been—to make the representations about Northern Ireland. It would be better for a Northern Ireland Minister, or someone from the Province, to take up these issues on the ground where they occur, as well as, of course, at the Westminster Parliament.
I am sorry to sound like a particularly benevolent headmaster in handing out all these prizes, but the fact of the matter is that I thought the standard of debate very high. Obviously the Government are gratified that the reception was, generally speaking, warm. I could not flaw the speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, in any way. He made the point that there had been a bad reception for the Bill by Northern Ireland politicians and by the media there, but he, along with the noble Lord, Lord Blease, pointed out cogently that, in spite of its bad reception, people are queueing up to get into the Assembly. I thought that that was a pretty telling tribute. I should like to pay tribute to his business experience. It was he, I think, who perhaps more effectively than I am able to do, answered Lord Moyola's anxiety about timing when he said that we had to get something moving fairly quickly.
May I answer the other chief criticism of my noble friend Lord Moyola? He was anxious about the effects on Northern Ireland if these proposals failed. In my opening remarks, I talked about our attempt to design them not to be boycottable—the "unboycottable solution." The fact is that direct rule goes on in an umbrella relationship, and an umbrella can be wholly or partially erect or wholly or partially furled. This is I think a great guarantee of stability, as nearly all noble Lords have said, with various degrees of conviction, that direct rule is the second best solution and that direct rule is widely acceptable.
If the Assembly breaks down, or if devolution is not taken up, and it is an entirely voluntary affair, of course direct rule will go on. It is simply our view that after nearly 10 years of direct rule it is the duty of the British Government at least to put more local democracy on offer to the people of Northern Ireland.
I do not think I will answer at this stage the criticisms of my noble friend Lord Ellenborough, because to some degree I tried to anticipate them in my opening remarks. I dealt with the integrationist argument as best I could. I have to say to my noble friend that it seems quite extraordinary to believe that there is a chance of integrating the nationalist tradition in Ireland into the United Kingdom structure, or into

953
British party political structure. That seemed to me as extraordinary as the view of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that Irish nationalism might simply wither on the vine in the way of Welsh nationalism or Scottish nationalism. It is a much more vigorous and enduring plant than that.
On the West Lothian issue, we have lived with it for 60 years and there are some compensations for being a region. To some degree one suffers in terms of additional electricity costs, or infrastructurally, and I do not see why one should not make up a bit of the ante at Westminster. The West Lothian question has never bothered me much, but perhaps it causes other noble Lords anxieties and we can return to it. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, put her finger on it when she said that the proposals were workable if people want to work them. Our duty is to impress on the people of Northern Ireland that it would he a good thing if they put pressure on their representatives to want to work them.
I should like to close a debate which I found most informative with a short word about the consideration of this Bill in your Lordships' House. It is a short Bill of only seven clauses, and from this Bench I would not for a moment deny that, short though it is and modest though the expectations are that we have of it, it raises extremely important and sensitive matters concerning the constitution. I hope the House will agree that the Government have allowed a reasonable gap between completion of the Bill in another place and Second Reading today.
Likewise we consider it important that the House should have a proper opportunity to consider the details of the Bill in Committee, and it is for this reason that we have deliberately allowed a period of nearly two weeks between the Second Reading today and the Committee stage on Tuesday, 20th July. But there are important considerations connected with the holding of elections which make it essential that the Bill completes its remaining stages and receives Royal Assent before we rise for the Summer Recess. I therefore think it right that I should inform the House that, having sought to allow a considerable gap between Second Reading and Committee, it will in our judgment be necessary to take the remaining stages after Committee fairly quickly. With those words, I once again offer my gratitude to the House for the generally favourable welcome that our proposals have received, and T beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down—
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Segal): The Question is that this Bill be now read a second time? As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"? To the contrary, "Not-Content"?
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I think the Question has been put.
Lord Wynne-Jones: My Lords, is the noble Viscount
954
not allowed to ask a question before the Minister sits down?
Lord Sandys: Yes, my Lords, of course the noble Viscount is allowed to ask a question, but it was not heard by the Chair and the Deputy Speaker in fact put the Question.
The Deputy Speaker: With apologies, and by leave of the House, if the noble Viscount would like to ask a question I withdraw the calling of the Question.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I think that the solution will be if the Question is put again after the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, has put his question to my noble friend.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I have a question before the noble Earl sits down, which he has now done, and I think my noble friend Lord O'Neill also has a question. I asked the noble Earl a specific question on the attachment of the Government to the union. Will he make it clear that the Government consider it their duty to govern Northern Ireland in such a way that it is their hope, will and pleasure that all members of the community, whatever section they belong to in Northern Ireland, would wish to remain part of the United Kingdom?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I certainly tried to deal with that question in my opening remarks in response to what was raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk. If my noble friend returns to Hansard on that issue, while I have not dealt with it perhaps in quite the way he would like, I think he will find it satisfactory enough.
Lord O'Neill of the Maine: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, what I was intending to ask was whether the Secretary of State would consider publishing the noble Earl's opening remarks as a pamphlet? I have never heard the situation in Northern Ireland better described, and so many people have come up to me in the corridors and suggested that a further publication should be made. Perhaps the Secretary of State would give this serious consideration.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1982
7.18 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1982 which was laid before this House on 8th June be approved. An hour or so previously in moving the Second Reading of the previous Bill in the previous debate, I reminded your Lordships of the need for continued direct rule, and indeed extolled the virtues and the necessity of direct rule. I have a

955
splendid and not very long speech here which says the same thing all over again. If it is the will of the House I will of course rehearse it, but in view of the fact that we have had a good debate it might be for the convenience of the House if I move it formally.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 8th June be approved.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
Lord Blease: My Lords, it happens that this order is closely interrelated with the debate we have just had on the Northern Ireland Bill. From these Benches we consider there is little useful we would wish to add at this time concerning the general views already expressed about direct rule introduced in 1974. We therefore are not opposing the order on this occasion.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, this is entirely consequential on what we have debated, and we too would like to support the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1982
7.20 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie The Earl of Gowrie rose to move, that the draft order laid before the House on 8th June be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already said this afternoon that progress on the political front is vital, in our judgment, to securing the conditions for a peaceful and stable society in Northern Ireland. But no less important—and I am glad to have the opportunity to reiterate this—is the ability of the security forces to maintain their relentless drive against violence. The climate of opinion in which reconciliation and political progress becomes possible is inextricably linked with our unremitting efforts to remove the shadow of violence and intimidation. We must eradicate the criminal activities of the men of violence in the Province, whatever their claimed political motivation, for no political motives can excuse violent crimes.
To enable the security forces to achieve this objective, I ask the House to renew for a further six months all the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act which are currently in force. In doing so, I pay tribute to the courage and tenacity of all members of the security forces who have continued to render unstinting service to the community in Northern Ireland. I ought especially to place on record the debt of gratitude owed to those members of the security forces who have been maimed or even lost their lives since your Lordship last renewed these powers and, on behalf of the House, to extend our sincerest sympathy to the relatives.
The Government's security policies continue to be based above all else on an unswerving commitment to maintain the rule of law in Northern Ireland as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The Government are committed to sustaining a society where members are able to go about their daily life without risk of violent attack and in which legitimate political beliefs and aims can be expressed freely and without fear. We will not allow political beliefs to be pursued, or to be opposed,
956
by violence or the threat of it. All too easily fundamental freedoms can be taken for granted in our democracy. These freedoms are threatened in Northern Ireland and it remains the aim of the Government, as I am sure it is of this House, to maintain them. The order at present before the House provides our security forces and our courts in Northern Ireland with the powers and means to do so
The prevention of crime and the maintenance of an orderly society depend as much in Northern Ireland as elsewhere on the community having confidence in the ability of the police and the courts to act impartially, enforce the law and administer justice fairly. The security forces, for their part, work towards a sustained improvement in relations with the community as a whole, and no-one recognises more clearly than the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding that they must not only enforce the law but be seen to uphold it. The police and the army in Northern Ireland are frequently asked to make agonising decisions—sometimes life or death decisions—in difficult and dangerous situations. They do so in the knowledge that they are answerable to the law for those decisions, and that an error of judgment or a rash decision on their part may only serve to exacerbate community tensions and generate support for those who advocate extremism and violence.
I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that the steady increase in community support for the police, and the progress which is being made in extending their role in the community, bears witness to their skill and determination in carrying out their duties, often at considerable personal risk. The army, while acting more and more in a supporting role to the police—this point was brought out in the previous debate by my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn—nevertheless continue to have many exacting and dangerous duties to perform in the Province. We have all had in mind recently the courage and skill of our armed forces and the sacrifices they have made in the Falkland Islands. But it has to be said that those virtues have been consistently displayed in Northern Ireland. Special resolution and courage is required from those who defend us against cowardly attacks by terrorists and, above all, a special quality of discipline and self-control is needed.
The powers conferred on our security forces to enable them to carry out their duties have been a matter for careful, balanced and continued examination both by Parliament and specially constituted committees of inquiry. It is right that this should be so. A fundamental element of our policy has been that while we owe it to our security forces to ensure that they have the necessary power to act against criminal violence, it is equally important that this House should be satisfied that each of the Act's provisions is necessary to meet the situation.
The availability of these powers has enabled the security forces to keep up the pressure on terrorist offenders. During 1981, 557 people were convicted of scheduled offences on indictment and 90 of them received sentences of 10 years' imprisonment or more. Up to the end of June this year, charges had been laid in respect of 395 serious terrorist offences, of which 32 were for murder and 55 for attempted murder. That record had been matched by a slight abatement

957
in the level of violence, I am glad to say, and fits a long-term trend that, with due caution, I can welcome as being broadly positive. But I must remind your Lordships that the hunger strike by prisoners in the Maze last year aroused deep emotions and the frequent and violent street disturbances with which your Lordships will be familiar considerably and inevitably heightened tension in the Province. Notwithstanding this, both sides of the community overwhelmingly demonstrated their rejection of violence, and I am grateful to the leaders of both communities for the part they have played in that rejection. We owe it to them not to become complacent because of a record of relative success; we have a very long way to go to eliminate violence entirely. Against this background and the particular repugnance of recent attacks in Londonderry and elsewhere in the Province on members of the security forces, now is surely not the time to divest ourselves of general powers and the means to continue this further progress.
But given the extraordinary nature of the powers in the Emergency Provisions Act, it is recognised that the House should satisfy itself that these are necessary to meet the situation in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the title of the legislation itself underscores the intention that the powers should be no more than temporary and should last no longer than absolutely necessary. The provisions themselves have been in force for many years now and were last reviewed seven years ago by the committee under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. The Government therefore believe that the time has now arrived when, to enable the House to take a balanced judgment on whether each provision of the Act is strictly necessary or whether any provisions need amendment, a further independent review should be conducted of the operation of the legislation.
The purpose of the review will be to check that the additional powers given to the security forces in Northern Ireland are still serving their purpose effectively, but with the minimum impact on the ordinary civil liberties of the subject. Your Lordships will be aware from recent statements in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that the precise terms of reference of the review and its composition have not yet been decided. But, given the nature of the subject, it is intended that a senior legal figure should take the leading part in it. As to the timing of the review, it would be unrealistic to review the Emergency Provisions Act without taking account of the conclusions of Lord Jellicoe's present inquiry into the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976, so far as they affect Northern Ireland. A practical and operational link exists between the Acts, and the timing of the review will therefore need to reflect this, but I assure the House that there will be no unnecessary delay in the conduct of either review.
The Government recognise that there are reasonable anxieties about the year on year renewal of the emergency legislation. We feel it right to try to meet those views by establishing the proposed inquiry. However, at the moment there is no clear evidence that any particular current provisions of the legislation are no longer necessary or are no longer used to significant effect in dealing with, or in deterring, violent activity in the Province. For the present, then, and since such activity continues in Northern Ireland, the order before
958
your Lordships tonight proposes that we retain for a further six months all the measures contained in the Emergency Provisions Act which are currently in force. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th June be approved.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
7.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Earl for just missing his two opening sentences; the previous order went through rather more quickly than I expected. I think that all of us who fairly regularly attend these twice-yearly debates are extremely grateful—I am sure that I speak for many—that there will be independent reviews of both the Emergency Provisions Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act. In addition, it is good to know that the Emergency Provisions Act review will be as wide-ranging as that carried out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in 1975. In the meantime, I should like to urge the Government to keep going with minor improvements to the system while the reviews take place. I say that because it is well known that the whole process of administration of justice in Northern Ireland, beginning with the investigation of a given crime, right through to the release of a convicted prisoner, has an immediate impact on community relations and on political confidence. Nowhere is this more true than in the so-called hard-line areas.
In speaking of minor improvements I am in particular referring to those which can be controlled administratively. I have in mind such matters as the time of day of arrests and the use of normal, rather than emergency, powers of arrest. I have in mind also even such matters as informing families rather quickly when a young person has been arrested, as well as the length of time that suspects are held, and indeed the question of bail.
In addition, I should like to refer to the possibility of descheduling some minor terrorist offences, and in particular the discretion that I understand lies with the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replied to a Question of mine for Written Answer on 24th June, and the Minister in another place referred to this particular point on 30th June, at col. 995 of Hansard. I should like to see not only all normal civilian crimes going for trial before a judge and jury, but also, as an experiment, some of the minor terrorist ones as well. I have in mind, for example, the possession of a weapon without making any use of it. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider this tiny step towards normality, despite the obvious possible difficulties.
It is I think well known that there is widespread concern in both Britain and Northern Ireland over the need to continue the two Acts. The concern has been expressed by members of the Law Faculty of Queen's University in Belfast, by the Conference on the Administration of Justice in Northern Ireland, and by other peace groups there. I share the concern, and in particular I am worried about the long interval that sometimes occurs between an unexplained death and the holding of a coroner's inquest. I am sure that all possible steps will be taken to minimise the delays. That would help to decrease the sense of

959
injustice sometimes felt by families who have had the misfortune to lose one of their members.
To underline these concerns I should like to quote from a press release, dated 21st June of this year, from the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights in Northern Ireland. This is a body appointed by the Government to protect both civil and human rights. The commission rightly pointed out the difficulty of dealing with this legislation under the order procedure, where, as we all know, there is no possibility of amendment. The commission went on to state:
"It may be seen that Parliament underestimated the resistance to changes of any sort, which was built in to the renewal procedure".
It continued:
"The fear has been expressed that the legislation is becoming entrenched and permanent"
Later the commission declared:
"It cannot be claimed that this legislation is perfect or could not be improved".
In this connection, I should like to put two questions to the noble Earl the Minister, and they arise from that statement by the Government's own watchdog commission. Will the Government place in the Library of the House the full text of the commission's submission to the Secretary of State made this year and in previous years? Secondly, will the Government make a Statement to Parliament on their response to the commission? I ask the Government in particular to reply to the points made in paragraphs 5 to 22 of the commission's press release.
My final point concerns exclusion orders made under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. It might not be generally known just how severe can be the impact of one of the orders on an individual or his family. The effect of the order is to subdivide the United Kingdom and to restrict movement and residence within it. It is thought by some that the orders might be contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. At any rate, an order might result in a person losing both his job and his home. As a result, families might become homeless, or be forced to live in a community which is either hostile or unsympathetic. The innocent spouses and children may thus have to suffer for what might be only a suspicion on the part of the authorities. It seems that exclusion orders offend against nearly all the norms of natural justice.
I am extremely grateful for a written reply which made clear that during the last three years there have been only 18 exclusion orders, and I believe that one of them might have been revoked by now. However, I am quite sure that the Government and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, will give these and related points the very serious consideration which they deserve.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a minute. First, I should like to join with my noble friend in agreeing that it is necessary to have the order. Secondly, while I support the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in his raising of problems about delays and such matters, I feel that it should not be forgotten that the suspension of certain civil rights is necessary to give the public confidence that the forces of law and order can operate.
960
It would be quite wrong to concentrate on the injustices which are occurring to people who are the subjects of exclusion orders without at the same time saying that in Northern Ireland there are 60 crimes of murder which have not yet been solved.
Without the powers which my noble friend is asking, there would be no possibility of those crimes being solved. One of the most significant factors of the last 12 months has been the ability of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to bring before the courts people who have committed crimes many years previously. In my view, for us not to support the Government at this point would destroy the confidence of the area that I know so well in the ability of the police to bring men to justice for very foul crimes.
7.38 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for presenting the order, and also to take the opportunity to express our great admiration for the way in which the security forces carry out their duties, in situations which are almost impossible. Furthermore, one should always take the opportunity to say how much one respects the efforts of the huge majority of people in Northern Ireland who, despite all the problems in their lives, carry on very constructive lives and contribute so much to the work of reconciliation and community relations which is vital to Northern Ireland's future. I, too, agree that in the interests of those people the continuation of the emergency provisions is necessary, for who, alas! can doubt that, without the powers, fewer terrorists would be convicted and the safety of innocent people would consequently be endangered. I feel very strongly that, when discussing this issue, we who enjoy the security of living in this island should never underestimate the horrific effect that terrorism has on the community in which it operates.
Thus the continued presence of violence in Northern Ireland demands the extension of the emergency powers. But there is no doubt that the existence and implementation of extraordinary powers require justification, and it is for that reason that we all welcome the announcement of an official review of the emergency legislation affecting both the mainland and Northern Ireland. The Minister must indeed be aware of the great relief felt by those of us on these Benches who have been consistently asking for such a review. We feared that through the review being so long overdue the emergency legislation might no longer relate to the changing circumstances in Northern Ireland.
Furthermore, it is essential to remember the other danger that such powers represent—the danger which is inherent in democracy itself. For it is evident that the terrorist can win his objective in two ways. One is by destroying his enemies, and the second is by destroying the very structure of law which democracy exists to defend. So it must be right in a parliamentary democracy to keep any legislation which is in essence hostile and alien to that democracy vigilantly under review. If this is not done, we shall allow the terrorist to win by the back door what he has not gained by the front door.
So far as the mechanics of the review itself are concerned, may I make the following two brief points. First, I hope that this review will be conducted in as

961
open a way as is compatible with the overriding requirements of security in the Province. I hope also that it will be possible for private individuals to submit their views to it. For there could be no better opportunity than this to try to justify and, indeed, clarify Britain's position vis-à-vis Northern Ireland to those in North America and in Western Europe who are so critical of our policies there—some of whom, indeed, go much further than criticism and give active support to the paramilitary groups.
Secondly, I hope that their view can do something towards restoring confidence in the Diplock courts. I know that one cannot regard polls drawn up by newspapers as being the absolute gospel truth, but, nevertheless, it is unusual for them to reflect the exact reverse of what is in fact the position. Thus, I do not think we can disregard the revelation by the Irish Times that only 6 per cent, of the people who were polled in the Roman Catholic district of Derry and Belfast and only 23 per cent. of Protestants in equivalent areas in Belfast believed that it was possible to get a fair trial under the Diplock courts. I fully accept the obstacles to bringing back jury courts, but I hope that through this review some way of restoring confidence in the system will be found.
I should like to make one more general point about this review, and that is regarding the importance of using such an opportunity to examine all the ingredients of our law-keeping apparatus, including current police methods. It is for this reason that I should like to bring up the subject of a Question I put to the Minister some months ago regarding the methods used by the security forces in riot control. The Minister then told the House that alternative methods to those at present used were under continuous review, and that if research revealed that the modern water cannon or, indeed, the return of the rubber bullet could effectively replace the use of the baton round, then this would be done.
Would the Minister not now agree that, in view of the welcome fact that the necessity for the use of the plastic baton round has shown a very sharp downward trend in recent months, it would be entirely appropriate for the review of the Emergency Provisions Act to go as wide as to include the practices of the security forces, whether it is the Army, the RUC or the UDR? Nobody could be more sympathetic to the Government's security problems in Northern Ireland than I, but in view of the community alienation provoked by the use of the plastic bullet, together with the build-up of international opinion against our use of it, to my mind this has now become a matter of serious concern.
Finally, I think it would be wrong to discuss these emergency provisions without mentioning very briefly two other frameworks, based on completely different international levels, in which the security of Northern Ireland and the safety of its people could, we hope, one day be safeguarded. These particular structures can clearly not be immediately achieved, but we should keep them in sight. First, following the advances recently made in policing and judicial co-operation between the North and the South, let us hope that one day an all-Ireland terrorist movement could be faced with an all-Ireland judicial or policing system.
As to the other framework in which to fight terrorism, I feel we must remember that it is not only in Northern
962
Ireland that the awful dilemma of terrorism has to be faced. There must be many of us genuinely concerned by the alarming rise in internationally-linked terrorist incidents in Western Europe, and the growing threat this will brine; to their democracies. Thus, the use of the European framework to devise ways of making all member states hostile areas for terrorists has become vital, for it is undoubted that the very nature of modern international terrorism demands an effective international response.
In my view there would be very much more hope of reaching agreement on extradition—a subject of European disagreement which assists the terrorist most —within the European Convention against Terrorism than bilaterally between, let us say, Britain and the Republic of Ireland. This, of course, is a vast subject, but I would merely say that if only Western European countries could confront the terrorist with a solid wall of opposition, rather than the present piecemeal one, then his task would be made infinitely more difficult and devices such as the Emergency Provisions Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act might one day become redundant.
So, I say thank you very much in welcoming the Government's commitment to a review of both these powers—reviews which I know will serve to demonstrate to the Northern Ireland people that the Government wish to maintain this forward look in their policies. There can be little doubt that the greater the effort to achieve a viable political framework, as we discussed in the previous debate, the more desperate will become the efforts of the men of violence to wreck the chances of stability and peace. Consequently, the need for the active support of the general public in Northern Ireland will become a vital necessity in confronting them. This support, I think, might well be more forthcoming with the creation of a system of justice and policing in which the whole community can have a respect.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, may I, too, thank the noble Earl for his introduction of this order, and acknowledge the particularly sincere concern of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Baroness who has just spoken. In speaking just briefly, may I start by welcoming the review of the working of the Prevention of Terrorism Act which has been put in hand under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. My party is doing all it can already to co-operate in its proceedings and investigations.
I spoke before he left to my noble friend on the SDP Benches, Lord Donaldson, and we are in agreement that pending the report from that inquiry this order for the continuance of the Emergency Provisions Act 1978 must certainly be passed. The provisions would certainly be undesirable in happier circumstances, and any abuse should be exposed; but for the present we do not see how, for instance, intimidation of witnesses could be prevented and terrorists brought to justice without the continuation of the Diplock courts—and I note here what the noble Baroness has just said. We pay sincere tribute, as always, to the security forces, who often risk their life and limb in the course of duty, and we support the Continuance Order at this time.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I wish to join with others in your Lordships' House in the tribute paid by the noble Earl to the security forces. Of course, we from these Benches fully acknowledge from time to time the tremendous work they do in Northern Ireland; and we know from those we have spoken to that the English, Scottish and Welsh boys would like as much as anyone to get home and to leave Northern Ireland as a place of peace. They are not there in any way to take control of the place; they are there in a peacekeeping role—and a very difficult role it is, vastly different from what it was in the Falkland Islands. I join, of course, in the other tributes which were paid from this side of the House in that respect.
We welcome the Government's decision to set up the two independent reviews into the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the one that we are considering this evening; that is, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. It has already been mentioned that there have been many approaches made to the Government, and advice, recommendations and proposals tendered in connection with the review of the operation of these terrorist prevention Acts, particularly from the official Opposition and from the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. We would wish to give support to the undertakings of both these review bodies.
We would hope that the review of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act will be undertaken with the thoroughness, commitment and skill with which, I understand, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is tackling the review on the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I would also hope that all organisations and individuals who have expressed interest and views on both these emergency measures will submit their views and evidence to both these independent bodies. I am assured that every facility will be given to them to do so. We are concerned, naturally, in connection with the Emergency Provisions Act, that accessibility in Northern Ireland is made easy for those wishing to give evidence. I am sure the noble Earl will understand that I make that point of view in the sensitivity of that area and of the arrangements necessary for such access.
The noble Earl will know that many are concerned about the legislation as well as the operation of the provisions. May I ask the Minister whether it is intended that the review report be published (particularly on the Emergency Provisions Act) and whether there will be the opportunity to debate the findings in both Houses of Parliament? With these remarks, I support the approval of this order.
7.52 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which the order has been received and I will try to answer some of the specific points put to me. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, made representations about descheduling some of the minor terrorist offences—possession of firearms et cetera. Under the present law, this is a matter for the Attorney-General, and therefore I must say to him that I would see some difficulty for the Attorney-General in picking and choosing between different cases in which he has to decide not only whether there is para-military involvement as at present, but whether there is a risk of intimidation.
964
It would be difficult for him to decide what factors to take into account. Would it be the notoriety of the defendant or his previous record? I think the subjective criteria involved could threaten justice in a way that perhaps the present procedures do not. I doubt the feasibility of such an experiment but I will see that it is reviewed and bear in mind what the noble Lord has said.
On the point of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, I should like to use this opportunity to express the Government's gratitude to the coin-mission for their constructive report, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. It will go forward to be studied in the review of the EPA which has now been announced. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was anxious over what he felt might have been an inconsistency between my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Patten's comments in Hansard on 30th June and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor's answer about descheduling on 24th June.
I can assure the noble Lord that there is no inconsistency. My right honourable friend the Attorney-General has to decide whether, in a particular case, to exercise his power to deschedule and thus to bring about a trial by jury instead of under the Diplock procedure. He does so where he is satisfied that there is no terrorists involvement and where the particular risks of intimidation of jurors or witnesses by terrorist organisations do not exist. That was the practice described by my honourable friend in the debate in the other place.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in his answer on 24th June referred to particular instances of mixed indictments of scheduled and unscheduled offences. By Section 7(3) of the EPA these are tried as if all the offences were scheduled offences unless the Attorney-General exercises his power to deschedule. The reason for that is obvious. If there is terrorist involvement in one of the offences on the indictment the risks of intimidation would extend to the other offences alleged against the defendant. In the cases referred to in the answer of 24th June, the Attorney-General evidently was not satisfied that it would be in the interests of justice to allow the trial of the offences to proceed with a jury.
On descheduling offences generally, scheduled offences are those most commonly associated with acts of terrorism and therefore more appropriate to be tried by the non-jury courts. For many of these, the Attorney-General may be satisfied in any case that it is not to be treated as a scheduled offence. An example of this might be that of an offence of assualt occasioning actual bodily harm arising out of an altercation. All cases such as this which might be eligible are already referred for consideration to the Attorney-General's office. He uses his discretion to certify out cases where appropriate. Those offences which cannot be certified out in this way are those which have inevitable terrorist connections, for example, offences against the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, which in Northern Ireland are unlikely to be committed other than in the course of terrorism.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked me that the review should be as open as possible. We would also wish that to be the case. I can say to

965
the noble Lord, Lord Blease that the report will be published but obviously not all the evidence leading to some of its conclusions. I regret with the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that in Northern Ireland as in the Republic of Ireland the problem of jury intimidation is a backwash of terrorist activity. The sooner we get that activity driven from the land, the sooner we will be back to (and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will welcome this also) normal jury trial. But I think that the Diplock courts, which are entirely open and public occasions and where the same rules of evidence apply, are widely trusted in the community. I do not agree that they have received no assent.
On the issue of baton rounds, this is a big, painful and unpleasant topic. I have gone on public record in the Province, as the Minister directly responsible for the police and for security matters there, that I hate baton rounds and deplore the need for their use in any circumstances. The fact is that the forces have, in difficult and dangerous circumstances, to protect themselves; and small, mobile crowds can be used as shields by para-military people launching attacks on the security forces or preventing the security forces from defusing a bomb or carrying out their tasks. In those circumstances, at the end of the day the security forces must have weapons with which to defend themselves. If you circumscribe their ability to defend themselves, in the long run, they are armed men and we will find them using regular weapons, in pursuit of the normal procedure for the use of arms.
I made some news in the Province by saying that in the long run baton rounds were better than lead rounds and there has been some acceptance of that argument. But I will assure the noble Baroness that we will look at whatever the boffins can come up with. We look constantly at better methods of crowd control. It is not difficult to use other weapons to control large crowds but the small, highly-mobile crowds are another matter. It is the most unpleasant and distasteful part of my duties and it is something that I lose sleep over. I am constantly looking into this with the security forces, and will continue to do so while I am in that office.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Funds for Trade Union Ballots Order 1982
8 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that the Funds for Trade Union Ballots Order 1982 be approved. This order, which will come into operation on 16th July, extends Section 1 of the Employment Act 1980. This is the section which empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a scheme which will allow payments to be made towards expenditure incurred by independent trade unions which hold secret ballots falling within the purposes set out in subsection (3). These purposes include ballots for trade union elections, the calling and ending of strikes and certain other matters. The Government's consultative document Proposals for Industrial Relations Legislation, which heralded the 1982 Employment Bill presently
966
before your Lordships, proposed that the list of purposes I have just described should be extended to cover votes on wage offers. This followed representations from several organisations, including the CBI and the Royal College of Nursing.
The order now seeks to implement this proposal by adding a new paragraph (f) to subsection (3) of Section 1. I do not propose to weary your Lordships by reading the text of the paragraph, but noble Lords will have noticed of course that it goes a little wider than wage offers and covers proposals affecting the terms and conditions upon which people work or are employed. In addition to the amendment to which this order gives effect, the Secretary of State intends to make regulations to amend the current scheme. This current scheme, the Funds for Trade Uniions Ballots Regulation 1980, came into effect on 1st October 1980. A draft of the amending regulations was placed in the Library on 14th June and the intention is that the new scheme should come into effect on 1st September 1982.
The provisions for secret ballots in the 1980 Employment Act and in the regulation made in connection with it were introduced to implement the Conservative Party's manifesto. The manifesto said that every encouragement would he given to the wider use of secret ballots throughout the trade union movement by the provision of public funds for postal ballots for union elections and other important isssucs.
There is wide public support for more extensive use of the secret ballot and, we believe, a greater recognition within the trade union movement that secret ballots on important matters are desirable. I hesitate to pre-empt the sort of lengthy discussions we could find ourselves involved in next week when the principle of this matter will raise its head in Committee on the 1982 Bill. However, it is indisputable that ballots of this sort do achieve greater membership involvement in decision-making. They give trade union members the opportunity to record their decisions without others watching and taking note. That is not the case at mass meetings with the scope they offer for intimidation or manipulation.
I hope this short explanation of the draft order is all that is needed. As I have already said, I do not expect we shall escape next week without further discussion of the related general principles involved; but with that I commend the draft order for your Lordships' approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th June be approved.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, this is indeed a strange story. We are facing here a draft order to provide funds for trade union ballots. This arises, as the noble Lord said, out of the provisions of the 1980 Act which gave the Government power to subsiide ballots for a very wide variety of purposes—for trade union elections, trade union amalgamations, changes of rules and, of course, strike decisions. The Government could run a scheme and trade unions, under the provisions of that scheme, could provide funds to assist them in running ballots for a very wide variety of purposes. But in the 1980 Act there was a phrase which was of very much concern to us on this side of the House at the time; indeed, it was of very much concern to those of us in another place,

967
because it said that the Secretary of State could provide for "any other purposes".
We sought to discover what those other purposes were, but we could not discover what they were. That was not surprising, because it appeared at first sight that the wide variety of purposes provided for specifically in the 1980 Act would cover most purposes one could envisage. So we did not know; and the years rolled on and nobody appeared to want to know about the Government's scheme. The unions at the Trades Union Congress decided not to co-operate with the Government's scheme. It is perfectly true that a very small number of professional associations—one of the more important, I think, being the Society of Remedial Gymnasts—applied for some kind of inclusion in that scheme. We understand that there are a very small number of professional associations which are registered under the scheme. But the fact is that for all practical purposes the scheme with the ballots' wide variety of purposes has not been used. Indeed, in another case in the considerations in the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, the Government actually gave as their reason for extending the scope of the provisions of the 1980 Act the fact that so far it had not been used.
The Minister of State said that in fact he was bothered about the cost of the scheme, but because the cost of the scheme was much less than they had thought it might be, it seemed perhaps a good idea to widen the scope of the scheme. That is a strange reason—to widen the scope of a scheme because it is not being used. So we were rather concerned about the particular ways in which the Government wished to widen the scope of the scheme, and we turned first of all to the draft Statutory Instrument itself. It says:
"The following purpose is hereby specified as a purpose within subsection (3) of section 1 of the 1980 Act:—
"Obtaining a decision or ascertaining the views of members of a trade union"—
here it comes—
"as to the acceptance or rejection of a proposal made by an employer in relation to the contractual terms and conditions upon which or the other incidents of the relationship"—
a strange phraseology—
"the other incidents of the relationship whereby a person works or provides services for the employer."
In an attempt to discover what these other incidents of relationships could be, we turned to the memorandum issued by the Department of Employment and contained in the 26th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Unfortunately, the memorandum by the Department of Employment is much less explicit than the order itself on this matter, because it says:
"The aim is to make a scheme which extends to ballots in which the purpose of the question asked is to obtain the decision or ascertain the opinion of members of the trade union as to acceptance or rejection of a proposal made by an employer which broadly affects the terms and conditions on which people work or are employed."
There is still nothing about "other incidents".
So in an attempt to discover what the other incidents are we went to Hansard and turned to the report of the First Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. There indeed is the first reference to a proposed draft
968
regulation, because the Under-Secretary of Employment in another place at column 3 of the report of the First Standing Committee on 6th July says:
"I should make it clear that the order merely adds to the lists of purposes which can be included in the scheme made by regulation by the Secretary of State and that regulations amending, the 1980 scheme will now have to be made."
So we are now facing the need to find out what these regulations amending the 1980 scheme are, because they may tell us more about these incidents.
We are told that a draft of the proposed regulations was deposited in the Library of the House on 14th June. I am bound to say, the noble Lord having said that a draft of the proposed regulations was deposited in the Library of the House on 14th June, that it was not deposited in the Library of this House. Indeed, it was not in the Library of this House 50 or 60 minutes ago. I think that it got into the Library of this House about half-an-hour ago, as a result of the very fine efforts of the staff of the Library of this House, who ran up and down the corridors until, somewhere, they found a copy of these draft regulations in the Library of another House. Therefore, in the meantime, we had to bend ourselves working our way through the report of the First Standing Committee of the House of Commons to see what we could find.
We found the most amazing examples of these other incidents of the relationship. For example, we were told about paragraph (f), which was mentioned by the noble Lord the Minister tonight. That contained another very funny phrase:
"Obtaining a decision or ascertaining the views of members of a trade union"—
different words again—
"to the acceptance or rejection of a proposal made by an employer in relation to any one or more of the following matters"—
we are getting to it now—
"that is to say, remuneration, whether in money or otherwise, hours of work, level of performance".
We go on reading.
Naturally enough, Members of the House began to ask what were these "otherwises"? Were they connected to the incidents? Eventually, the Minister of State opened his mind to the Committee and gave a very wide variety of reasons. He said that it might be stamps, bonds, expenses, luncheon vouchers, luncheon coupons, special pension schemes, health insurance or company cars. He said that one could almost go on ad infinitum.
So here we are. The Government have introduced a scheme for subsidising ballots. The scheme languishes unused. The scheme covers strike ballots. But the Government want to supplement that scheme with the money lying about, to cover not strike ballots, but management offers. Those offers are to include not simply offers about wages, but offers about other incidents, and those other incidents are to consist, for example—although we could go on ad infinitum—of free stamps, bonds, vouchers, coupons, special pension schemes, health insurance or even company cars.
This is the best example we have yet had of ballotomania. We are to have ballots subsidised from public funds about luncheon vouchers, about pension schemes, and so on ad infinitum. What can the meaning of this be? We on this side are not saying that we are against

969
ballots, though one must have a sense of proportion. We are not saying that we are against the use of public funds to assist trade unions. It was during the period of the last Labour Government that the present provisions, which the present Government have continued—and I give them credit for that—to help trade union education were first introduced. But one must have a sense of proportion. Are we to have the Government giving public money for the Society of Remedial Gymnasts to have ballots on luncheon vouchers? This really is ballotomania and what can be the reason?
In a search situation like this, one is bound to be a little suspicious. The fact is that we have been told many times that the Government are taking a step by step approach. They have got their seven league boots well and truly on, and we are to have the son of the son, or the daughter of the daughter of the daughter, of the Employment Act. Before the present Employment Bill is passed, another Employment Act is peeping its way round the corner, and it will be about ballots on everything. Why? It is because the Conservative Party, or a certain section of it, does not want to help trade unions. It believes that if it can usher in a period of ballotomania, it will demonstrate to itself, if to nobody else, that trade union leaders and trade union organisations are unrepresentative, even on luncheon vouchers.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I rise to speak in this debate only because of the state of the documentation that my noble friend and I found—or rather did not find—when we began to search this evening. My noble friend is not fully aware of the fact that I acquired the full documentation only after he had come into the House, and I rise, therefore, to make a separate point on this scheme. In order to make it clear to your Lordships, I must put it carefully, and may I say immediately that I join my noble friend in wishing to make it quite plain on the record that nothing that we say is any criticism of the staff and officers of this House, or, indeed, of the other House? They could not have been more helpful and they went beyond all measure to try to find the documents concerned.
As my noble friend has said, when we read the draft order it seemed rather a puzzle. As he explained, it relates to ballots which fall within the formula of,
"contractual terms and conditions upon which or the other incidents of the relationship whereby a person works".
I am stressing a different point, "a person", for the moment. Then we looked at the report of the debate in the other place and, as he said, we found that there was in some dark, obscure place another set of draft regulations. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but tonight's order is an affirmative resolution order and the other draft regulations are not in that category. Therefore, they do not have to go through the procedure that we are having this evening.
Nevertheless, we suspected, when we saw the report of the debate in the other House, that you could not understand the meaning of words that I have read out from Regulation 2 of tonight's order unless you saw the other regulations which are called the amending regulations because they amend the principal regulations of
970
1980,Statutory Instrument NO.1252, as my noble friend has explained I wish to add that those principal regulations give the certification officer the power to make the payments, whereas tonight's order amends that part of the Act which provides for the purposes for which ballots may be held. As your Lordships will see, that is a distinction which is of some importance.
When we managed to put the documents together, it seemed to my noble friend and myself, as he suggested, that this was an exercise in desperation for finding further subjects for ballots, because it was very hard to see how these small unions which will ask for the money would want ballots upon the other incidents, which turn out to be ballots upon company cars, luncheon vouchers or season tickets. I should have thought that, if one had an offer like that, one would have a little meeting at which all hands would go up and they would say "Yes, please".
However, there is an even more serious point. I suspected that the reason why the words,
"conrtactual terms and conditions upon which or the other incidents of the relationship whereby a person works or provides services for the employer",
were in that form in the order because proposals made by an employer which lead to a collective agreement frequently apply to a large number of people who are not in the union to whom it is addressed. One thinks immediately of a firm where there are unionists and non-unionists. The ballot would be among the unionists, although, because British trade unions and employers have an honourable record of demanding that collective agreements apply to non-unionists, that would include all the other persons. That is why I thought that the Government had got it right in tonight's order.
The trouble is that, when one looks at the draft amending regulations which are going through without any need for the affirmative procedure, one finds that there are some very remarkable things which affect it. These amending regulations first set out, as my noble friend quoted, the purposes of the ballot in respect of which payment can be made—parallel, it was thought, with tonight's order. That is:
"Obtaining a decision or ascertaining the views of members of a trade union as to the acceptance or rejection of a proposal made by an employer in relation to any one or more of the following matters—that is to say, remuneration, whether in money or otherwise, hours of work, level of performance, holidays or pensions".
A great deal of the trouble in the other place was caused by the use of the word "remuneration". If one uses the word "remuneration", it should surely read "whether in money or money's worth". You do not have an "otherwise" remuneration. You have an "otherwise" emolument. That is what held up members of the other place. A small drafting point of that nature would not matter. Nor would it matter that the Government are putting into the amending regulations the ability to use not only the Post Office but the new privatised postal service. That is a controversial matter which might have got an airing in the House.
The most important point, however, relates to amending Regulation 5. Regulation 11 of the principal regulations sets out the ballots in respect of which the certification officer call make his payments. Regulation 10 gives the power, provided that it falls within Regula-

971
tion 11. A new paragraph is added to the amending regulations empowering the certification officer to make payments in respect of the ballots there described. This makes reference to the new paragraph in the amending regulations—that is, to the proposals relating to remuneration, whether in money or otherwise, which I have just criticized. So it is linked in with the amending regulation which is meant to be the parallel of the order which we are debating tonight. If you want the money for the ballot which is being put within the scheme tonight, you do not get it under tonight's order. You get it under the amending regulations, paragraphs 4 and 11, as amended by the draft regulation going through on the negative procedure which would never have seen the light of day had we not chased it.
How did they amend the payment provisions? They have got the proposal by the employer, but Regulation 11 is specifically meant to provide for this by way of the certification officer's power to pay. That regulation says that he can now pay in relation to sub-paragraph (h):
"In the case of a ballot containing a question"—
I suppose that is the same as "a proposal", but it is a pity that the same word is not used—
"within paragraph (f) of Regulation 4 above, that only those persons who were union members and were affected by the proposal were entitled to vote".
Those are the key words. This is a terrible mess. Only those persons who were union members and who were affected by the proposal were entitled to vote. The Minister in another place said that he could go on ad infinitum in respect of the other instances of luncheon vouchers and so on which fell within the scheme. It is bad enough not knowing where that stops.
One could go on for a very long time, but my view is that this order should be taken back and looked at again with the amending order, partly because it was not available until too late an hour. That is a minor point. Now that we have seen it, the whole thing is a terrible mess. And why? Because the proposal on which a ballot is being taken, in which unionists are voting, may be part of a package. It would be quite extraordinary to have each proposal set out, although I shall demonstrate in a moment that this would be the necessary conclusion from the regulations as they are going through tonight—the regulation we are considering and the regulation which is going through un-discussed.
Non-unionists may be affected in a different way from trade unionists. Parts of the package of proposals may not affect the trade unionists in practice. That may be said to be an academic point. Let me make it much more practical. Noble Lords who have experience of these matters will recognise the situation. This is an illustration of the Government's failure to look at actual bargaining structures in their zeal to increase the range of ballots. They have not thought about it. Let us take the case where an employer employs some Union A members, some Union B members and some non-unionists, all within the same shop. That is the majority situation. Closed shops are not the majority case. So we have got Union A members, Union B members and non-unionists who are affected by a package of proposals. Some of
972
the proposals will affect Union A members, some will affect Union B members, some will affect both Union A and Union B members and others will affect the non-unionists. It might be that they will affect all of them. Then Union A members and Union B members could vote together. But in many situations, before a ballot can be arranged, the employer and the officials must sit down with the certification officer and go through the entire package of the collective bargaining arrangements being proposed.
The Government want there to be more formal and more detailed bargaining arrangements—not necessarily American-style contracts but clearly written documents. So they must go through all this and say that paragraph 2 affects Union A members, so we had better have a separate ballot on that; paragraph 2(b). affects the non-unionists, so we cannot have a ballot on that. I am wrong; you can have a ballot, because tonight's order relates to "any person". But you will not get the money, because, under the money regulations as amended by the amending regulations, you cannot be paid it. So what one has is a sprawling mess of hastily conceived documents for some reason, which the Government surely must explain further, which involves pushing a set of regulations through this House which makes sense. Tonight's order makes sense. It extends the range of the ballot, although the Minister has not explained to us why it is needed.
But we find on inquiry, at the last moment, that although the scheme will include this kind of ballot there will be cases (I shall not try to quantify them because I do not know what the percentage is; however, I have only to show that there is one such case to demonstrate that it is absurd) where what is within the scheme under tonight's order will not allow for payment by the certification officer.
I was put on to this point by a sentence which I could not believe in the 26th Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments of 22nd June. On page 3, the Joint Committee reported:
"A copy of the draft of the proposed amending regulations is attached for information. It will be seen from regulation 4 of that draft that this amendment to the scheme will not cover all the ballots, which include a question falling within the subsidiary purposes covered by the new purpose but will extend only to ballots in which a question is asked about offers relating to wages and certain other major terms and conditions".
I could not understand the reason for that discrepancy, and the Minister has not explained it. It is a different point, of course. It is the range of topics which can be included. Why you should have a wider range of topics which can be allowed than can be paid for I cannot understand. Now I find that you may have a range of topics which can be balloted on within the scheme where payment is totally impossible, even though at first sight they seem to fall within tonight's order. There is a certain level of law-making process, and these regulations, however useless they are going to be—because most trades unions will have nothing to do with them—involve public money. Surely the Government should have a little look at this again. It could perhaps go through tomorrow with a word or two amended, but as it stands it is not satisfactory.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, this is the first time I

973
have had to face the joint barrage of the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn of Charlton. I believe there are various points about which both noble Lords are under misapprehensions. First, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, talked about current scheme statistics. It might be helpful if I explain to him that from the introduction of the scheme from 1st October 1980 until 30th June 1982, 24 applications have been received from 19 trades unions in respect of 29 ballots. The certification officer has authorised payment in the case of 10 applications, and in a further 10 no payment could be made. The remaining 4 applications, covering 5 ballots, are still under consideration. It is expected that there will be payment for three of these applications, but the fourth application—which is that of the TUC affiliate Equity—has been withdrawn at the request of the union. I could go further and talk about the effect, which the noble Lord knows quite well, of the TUC boycott. The noble Lord talks about "ballotomania" to camouflage the embarrassing fact that the TUC will not allow its affiliated unions to draw on public money to assist them to ballot their members on important issues.
It is a matter of considerable regret, indeed concern, to the Government that the TUC has chosen to instruct its affiliated unions to boycott the secret ballot scheme, which was established under the 1980 Act. This policy, in the view of the Government, displays a remarkable inconsistency in approach on the part of the TUC, as the TUC along with other independent trades unions is quite prepared to accept public money when the Government finance the industrial relations training of shop stewards. It is a sad reflection of attitudes prevailing in the trade union movement that genuine attempts to assist trade unions to take the views of their memberships on important issues in a democratic manner, by use of the ballot box, are shunned in this way. I hope that the draft order which is now before your Lordships will be the occasion for the noble Lords opposite to persuade the TUC to think again.
The noble Lord went further. I do not believe he can really feel there is anything sinister about having a power to add to the purposes which the order describes. Surely it cannot be against the interests of trades unions to be able to recover money for ballots on a wider number of subjects. It is up to the unions to decide whether to hold a ballot on a wage offer or not. Of course the scheme covers ballots on minor matters such as luncheon vouchers, but this is verging on the ridiculous. Most ballots are likely to be about major wage offers or about other offers changing terms and conditions of employment in this way. The noble Lords opposite mentioned company cars. There are many people who have a significant role to play in some unions in this country, who are employed and have cars of substantial proportions which can in no way not be described as part of their conditions of employment.
With regard to other incidence of relationships, they are designed to ensure that every kind of benefit which might be given to employees or workers by employers is covered by the order, whereas a benefit given under a contract of employment is not. I cannot believe there is anything sinister in this. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton—and this is the last point I intend to make—talked at length about the draft amending regulations. The situation is quite straight-
974
forward. The draft amending regulations have not yet been laid. After they have been laid, noble Lords may pray against them if they wish.
I must end with a word of apology. Noble Lords opposite were unable to find or obtain the draft amending regulations. They should have been in the Library, but they were not there. I can only apologise for that. I do not know why that happened. I will take steps to find out why they were not there and will write to both noble Lords.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, it is not really satisfactory, is it?
Viscount Long: Order!
Lord Sandys: My Lords, the procedures of the House would suggest that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, should precede his remarks with, "Before the noble Lord sits down…" because there is no opportunity for a second speech on the subject. If the noble Lord has a question, would he like to follow the usual procedure?
Lord McCarthy: My apologies, my Lords. Before the noble Lord sits down, would he care to answer any of the questions posed to him by both myself and my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Chariton? I counted that my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton got to at least seven questions, and would the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, answer at least one of them?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and his noble friend fired questions at a most alarming rate. I make no excuse at all for not being able to take them all in at the rate they put them. I believe that I have covered the main points of this order and the amending regulations.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, finally resumes his seat, while I appreciate what he says, I hope that he and his colleagues will not feel that we were trying to fire fast shots at him. Indeed, I recollect that we passed one another in the corridor very rapidly shortly before this debate. Is my noble friend Lord McCarthy not right to this extent: that it will not do to say that we may pray against the amending regulations, and to give no further answer than that? Tonight's order will validate a certain area of ballots as being within the scheme, and the amending regulations are plainly meant to provide the money and machinery. So tonight's order and the amending regulations go together hand in glove. Indeed, tonight's order is the glove without the hand, because without the amending regulations the hand will not hand out the money. Would it not be right for the noble Lord the Minister at least to give your Lordships an assurance that the amending regulations will be looked at again, so that we do not pass without debate, or with the need to pray against them, regulations which, if they were looked at again, could well be put into proper shape? The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, should at least assure your Lordships of that.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend will take note of what the noble Lord says, and perhaps I might consult and write to the noble Lord on those specific points. One point that I did not cover and which I can now answer relates too the new paragraph (h) in Regulation 11 which he specifically raised. This new provision relates only to ballots on wage offers. It limits the eligibility to vote to trades union members who are affected by the proposal, as the noble Lord described. Thus, the views of those not directly affected—for example, in a different industry—would not qualify under the scheme; otherwise it would be possible to create a false impression of popular support for the trade union's lines.
One other thing I can say now is that Section 1 of the 1980 Act permits the Secretary of State to pick and choose for the purposes set out in Section 1 (3). That is what is done here. it was also done in regulation 4(b) of the main regulations. While understanding the concern of both noble Lords opposite about the order and draft amending regulations, it is not really very helpful of the noble Lords to criticise the Secretary of State for doing just what the legislation permits him to do.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down finally, I want to put this point of view. I am one of those who crave the right for affirmative resolutions.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will follow the usual procedure and precede his remarks with the words, "Before the noble Lord sits down…".
Lord Underhill: I did so, my Lords, but I will do so again. Before the noble Lord sits down, may I put this question? As one who tries to encourage the affirmative resolution wherever it is desirable, as opposed to the negative procedure, noble Lords need to have the fullest information. There are 10 or 12 noble Lords who have listened to this debate this evening and I am certain only two or three who really understand all the details. We have not had all the information placed before us, nor the answers to the questions put.
Surely, if we are to pass an affirmative resolution, all noble Lords need to have all the information and need to have the answers to the questions, which I can understand the noble Lord possibly cannot give at this stage. Would it not be reasonable to the House—not just to my two noble friends but to the House—to withdraw this Motion for 24 hours so that the matter can be looked at fully
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord says and the feeling of the House, if it is the wish of noble Lords opposite to have a fuller explanation I will withdraw the Motion for 24 hours, as the noble Lord requests.
On Question, Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The Theatre Museum: Rayner Report
8.42 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reject the Rayner scrutiny report's suggestion that the theatre museum should be abandoned, having regard to the mistaken premises on which the recommendation was made.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. It may be for the convenience of the House, perhaps if I read the Question. It is as follows:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reject the Rayner scrutiny report's suggestion that the Theatre Museum should be abandoned, having regard to the mistaken premises on which the recommendation was made."
I am not here concerned to question the Rayner scrutiny concept as such. On some other occasion it might perhaps be appropriate to do that, but not tonight. Neither am I even concerned to question the whole of the report which includes the recommendation to abandon the theatre museum. The report runs to something like 100 pages, and I am sorry to tell your Lordships that the recommendation to abandon this highly supported project is made in a single page, out of 100 pages.
The Minister for the Arts made a Statement in another place just over a month ago on this scrutiny, which is incidentally a scrutiny of the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Science Museum. It is from that scrutiny that the recommendation I am protesting tonight, as the Americans say, arises. The terms of reference of the scrutiny are these:
"To examine the Museums' activities…"
—that is, the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Science Museum—
"…the contributions they make to the Museums' main objectives and the efficiency and economy with which they are carried out; and to make recommendations on staffing and working methods."
Those were the terms of reference which were given to the Rayner scrutiny. It must, therefore, have come as an enormous shock to the Minister when he received a report which went way beyond those terms of reference and accompanied that bold venture with apparently very little knowledge of the background of the subjects which were being examined.
To his credit, the Minister immediately rejected one of the main recommendations, that the museum charges should be re-imposed. This recommendation was apparently made without knowledge that it was against the policy of this Government, and of the last one, and against the views of almost every museum authority in the country.
The Minister accepted another main recommendation, that the two museums should cease to be departmental museums. I am sorry about that, not that it was necessarily wrong but because if it had been put aside for consultation, as the other recommendations were put aside, including the recommendation to abandon the theatre museum, there would have been time for consideration, and the present anxiety among the staffs, gravely concerned the prospect of losing their Civil Service status, might have been avoided.

977
But there will be other opportunities to discuss these questions, because before these changes can be made legislation will be called for.
My present Question asks for the rejection of the recommendation to abandon the theatre museum. In this request I am joined, as will be seen I think as the debate continues, by noble Lords on all sides of this House, certainly by every Minister for the Arts that there has ever been, of any party, by distinguished theatre people who have written to The Times, by the Arts Council, and so on. Why is there such unanimity, unanimity in a field which is not particularly noted for 1nanimity, either in the arts world or in the museum World. Perhaps it is because the scrutineers betray no knowledge at all of the background of the subject they are examining. Perhaps it is because noble Lords feel as I feel; that this is an area in which the commercial considerations and criteria, which are entirely appropriate elsewhere, are completely inappropriate.
The subject is treated as though the theatre museum were nothing more than a department of the V and A, a department which is getting slightly above itself. There are a couple of inadequate paragraphs and then the recommendation to abandon. This is myopic scrutiny indeed. No knowledge is betrayed of the fact that the theatre museum is an amalgamation of a number of important and unique collections relating to the performing arts formed by private initiative over a period of more than 30 years; such important collections as those of the British Theatre Museum Association, the Friends of the Museum of the Performing Arts, the Arts Council of Great Britain, the British Council, the London Archives of the Dance, the British Puppet and Model Theatre Guild, the Royal Academy of Dancing, the Society for Theatre Research, and so on.
All these collections have been donated since 1974 on the implicit understanding that they would he housed in a separate museum where they could be exhibited and be available for research at all times. Because the theatre museum has been established by Government, and arrangements have been in hand since 1974 to house it in Covent Garden, many individuals have given, bequeathed or promised to bequeath both valuable objects and also money. I would guess, and I have the authority of the Advisory Council of the museum to this effect, that the total value is probably something well in excess of £20 million.
All this money has been given by private decision, all these collections have been given by private decision. Since 1974 only £100,000 of public money has been spent in purchases. So that this is something which people have given in the expectation, which they were entitled to have because undertakings have been given publicly by Government after Government, by Minister after Minister, that they would be giving these things on the understanding that they would be displayed in the new museum at Covent Garden. At present all this material is housed in the basement in the V and A waiting for transfer to the new museum in Covent Garden when it is ready.
It was my privilege as Minister for the Arts to set up the theatre museum in its present form in 1974, and to get agreement on the Covent Garden site, but a good deal of preliminary work had been done by my predecessor Lord Eccles, who is unhappily
978
unable to be with us this evening. My successor the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who is also unavoidably absent, has authorised me to say that he too is entirely at one with the rest of us on this, as is Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas, who was his successor, who made that very clear in a trenchant article in the New Standard. This is not a party issue. This is a matter which concerns all of us who are concerned with museums and with the art of the theatre, with drama.
As the theatre museum contains the only comprehensive archive of English theatre, as well as other more specialised international archives, no serious study of the performing arts can be made by anyone, in England or abroad, until proper use can be made of the museum. That is the situation that we are in and it is at that point that we are faced with this extraordinary recommendation to abandon the entire project which as I have said can only have been made out of a position of total ignorance of the whole background of the matter. That is the only conceivable excuse that one can think of for arriving at such a conclusion.
The design work for the new museum has been completed and considerable expenditure has been incurred both by the Department of the Environment and the Department of Education and Science both directly and by engagement of outside consultants since the project began in 1974. It would be a gross breach of faith on the part of the Government to all those who have given gifts and settlements to the Theatre Museum, if they were to abandon the project now. Abandonment would also raise the legal question of disposal of the very substantial proportion of its collections which was given by various organisations on the certain and unambiguous understandings and undertakings which I mentioned earlier.
The museum is not a luxury; it is a reflection of our national heritage; it is a unique educational opportunity, a source of knowledge, understanding and inspiration. I am indebted to the advisory council again for some of the information which I have been able to put before your Lordships this evening. London is acknowledged universally to he the centre for all performing arts, and yet it is almost the only major city in the world without a theatre museum. There are over 400 theatre museums and theatre archives in the world, with major collections in Paris, Amsterdam, Cologne, Berlin, Stuttgart, New York and so on. The idea of "luxury" which is mentioned in the report as a reason why one can abandon the project, implies that it is something that one can do without. We have the collections already and it would be a shameful waste to allow them to remain unseen and largely unconsulted and deteriorating in cramped, inadequate and inaccessible stores.
This section of the scrutiny—and I say nothing about the rest of it—reminds me of the famous report of a work study engineer after a visit to an orchestral concert at the Royal Festival Hall. He said and he wrote in his report:
"For considerable periods the four oboe players had nothing to do. The number should be reduced and the work spread more evenly over the whole of the concert, thus eliminating peaks of activity.
"All the twelve violins were playing identical notes; this seems unnecessary duplication. The staff of this section should be

979
drastically cut. If a larger volume of sound is required, it could be obtained by means of electronic apparatus.
"Much effort was absorbed in the playing of demi-semiquavers; this seems to be an unnecessary refinement. It is recommended that all notes should be rounded up to the nearest semi-quaver. If this were done it would be possible to use trainees and lower-grade operatives more extensively.
"There seems to be too much repetition of some musical passages. Scores should be drastically pruned. No useful purpose is served by repeating on the horns a passage which has already been handled by the strings. It is estimated that if all redundant passages were eliminated the whole concert time of 2 hours could be reduced to 20 minutes and there would be no need for an interval".
This section of the scrutiny comes from the same stable and I trust that the Minister will treat it as it richly deserves, and will take the opposite course of releasing the money which will enable this necessary and long overdue project to enrich our capital, our country and the world.
8.56 p.m.
Lord Cottesloe: My Lords, it is not always that I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, but I am happy to say that on this occasion I can warmly and wholeheartedly support him. This matter of the threatre museum is of course in no way a party political one; it is one to which we should all, wherever we may sit in the House, give our strongest support.
The idea that we in this country, who inherit the most splendid dramatic literature in the world and currently produce the finest displays of the dramatic art, should abandon the long-overdue project for a British Theatre Museum, is unbelievable. The project was approved by the Government more than a decade ago in 1971. It has since been confirmed by successive Governments, and its abandonment, as is recommended in the Rayner scrutiny, would be a tragedy and a most serious breach of faith. The sooner the museum can be brought into being the better. The plans exist; an admirable site exists and is available in Covent Garden; and a great quantity of splendid material is available in a number of important collections that have been given for the purpose, the value of which I see in the evening paper is stated to be £23 million. There is also a great deal of earlier material in the Victoria and Albert Museum itself that would be available. There is no doubt whatever that such a museum located as a separate enterprise, on an ideal site, is an immensely attractive project that would be an outstanding tourist attraction; and it could, once it was brought into existence, quite certainly be self-supporting financially,
I am told that when my noble friend Lord Goodman telephoned this morning to ask what names had been put down to speak on this Unstarred Question, and the list was read over to him, he said, "Well, as they will all say the same thing, there is no need for me to come". All the same, I wish that he were here to add his conspicuous weight to the unanimity of view that I am sure your Lordships will put forward.
It would be a tragedy if this great opportunity were thrown away for want of a capital sum that is trivial in the context of the national budget and could probably be provided, to a great extent, from private sources. The Minister for the Arts, Mr. Paul Channon, has done remarkable work in overcoming the resistance
980
of the Treasury to more than one valuable project. I must hope that the all-party support from your Lordships over this most important project for the threatre museum may enable him to do so in this matter also. I warmly and unreservedly support the proposal.
8.59 p.m.
Viscount Norwich: My Lords, I should start by declaring an interest, which is that for some four or five years from 1966 to 1971, I was actually the chairman of the British Theatre Museum Association. During my years of chairmanship the association accepted a large number of very important objects, documents, costumes, props—whatever they might have been—of relevance to the theatrical history of this country. We did so on the clear understanding that we were only a holding body, that we would hold these objects and documents until such time—which we hoped would be soon—when we could pass them over to the Government for a final, special, separate home which would be made available for them.
It was on that understanding that in 1974, thanks in very large measure to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, who has just been speaking to us, the Government declared their intention of setting up such a museum as we had always wanted. It was on that understanding that we happily, delightedly, and with considerable relief gave over our collections to the Government, to be kept at the Victoria and Albert Museum as a measure of convenience until such time as their new and permanent home would be ready for them. We could not conceivably have handed over this collection had it not been on this understanding. To have done so would have been a total breach of trust, a breach of the understanding on which the donors of these various items had given them to us.
That is why it seems to me indisputable that we now have a position where, if the Government go back not only on the undertakings that they themselves have made, but also on the undertakings that every Government for the last 10 years have made time and time again in both Houses, not only will the Government be guilty of a very serious breach of trust, but so will a large number of us who accepted. on the Government's undertaking, these various collections.
All that is quite bad and quite worrying enough, but there is more to it than that, because as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has already pointed out to us, not only do we know the recommendation that we should now scrap this whole project, on which a large number of people have been working for a good quarter of a century, but this whole recommendation is in a sense ultra vires because it is perfectly obvious that Sir Derek Rayner, writing this scrunity, thought that the theatre museum was part of the Victoria and Albert, which it is not. It happens to live there for want of a better home, but that is merely a matter of administrative convenience and nothing else. When he says that the scope for research in this particular field is less than it is for other departments of the Victoria and Albert Museum, the mind boggles.
First, the theatre museum is not a department of the Victoria and Albert Museum at all. Secondly, does he really think that the theatre, which is by common international consent the one art—perhaps the only

981
art—in which this country has been supreme for four and a half centuries, perhaps more, can be relegated; that the scope for research in it is less than it is for woodwork, clockmaking or stumpwork? The thought is grotesque.
Indeed, in the following resolution—I think it is No. 110—he actually says that the theatre museum is a luxury, albeit a delightful one. That sums up his whole attitude to it. In his view this is a glorified Punch and Judy show, a sort of national Madame Tussauds, which is to be there for the delectation of the public and a few tourists in the summer at Covent Garden and nothing else. It is terrifying to think that anybody can regard a serious theatre museum in these terms, but this apparently is what he does.
He then goes on to suggest that it should be self-supporting. Here I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, who thinks that it could be. I very much doubt whether any museum in the world worthy of the name has been, or could be, self-supporting, the possible exception being the Paul Getty Museum in Malibu, in California. But certainly no other museum that I have seen or visited could be.
Every museum has two separate functions. The first, and the less important of the two functions, is to entertain, instruct and stimulate the public. It is a very important function, but I submit that it is less important than the other basic point of a museum, which is for study and serious research. Study and serious research, alas!I have never been self-supporting and never will be.
The noble Lord has already pointed out that there are over 400 theatre museums throughout the civilised world. He has already pointed out that this present one that is projected will cost only a little over £4 million—peanuts, when you think that the new one in Cologne is already costing £17 million, which the people of Cologne appear to be delighted to pay, and when we already have a collection which is here. We are not starting from scratch. We have the basic and most important thing that any museum must have, the collection. All we need is the house to put it in. That collection is worth anything between £20 million and £25 million. For the sake of another £4 million, are we going to throw up the whole thing and, as we do so, throw up all that a very large number of people have been working for the last 25 years to achieve? I do not hope, and I warmly support the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney.
9.6 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I, too, think that we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for having tabled his Question this evening. As my noble friend Lord Cottesloe said, we do not often say so from this side of the House, but we are very much of one mind on this. I would add my belief to that of others that this theatre museum project should not be abandoned. In doing so, I must also declare an interest as president of the British Theatre Association —not to be confused with the British Theatre Museum Association of which the noble Viscount was chairman—and also as president of the Chichester Festival Theatre Trust. I am also proposing to establish a small theatre museum at my home in the country and was hoping to get advice and help from Mr. Shouvaloff the
982
curator of the theatre museum, on how to proceed. So I feel that I must stand up and be counted.
I agree very much with what the noble Lord said in introducing his Question, and also with what my noble friend Lord Cottesloe and the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, have said. My noble friend Lord Cottesloe, as I understand it, has built three theatre auditoria; I only helped to build one in Chichester, although my father built a theatre before me. But my noble friend Lord Cottesloe is a very good witness on this occasion.
I also agree with the article that was published in the New Standard by one of my right honourable friends in another place, who was himself a Minister for the Arts, on why this museum must be saved. I agree that drama is perhaps Britain's leading art. At all events, it is one in which we greatly excel. The letter in yesterday's Times from Sir Claus Moser and other leaders in opera and theatre seems to me to be unanswerable. If the Government are to go back, as other noble Lords have already said, on their commitment, then they would in my view certainly be guilty of a breach of faith, and I would not like to see a Conservative Government guilty of a breach of faith.
I know that my noble friend Lord Eccles, when he was Arts Minister—I saw him last night—backed this project; indeed, he virtually launched it. He also authorised me to say that he too hopes this project will not be abandoned. He said how greatly he regrets not being able to take part in the debate tonight. I trust, therefore, that the report and recommendations of Mr. F. G. Burrett, C.B., will not be implemented, and that my right honourable friend Mr. Paul Channon, whom I am so glad to see on the steps of the Throne, and who is the present Minister for the Arts, will succeed in persuading the Government not to accept the recommendation.
Incidentally, I should be interested to know from my noble friend Lord Avon whether in fact the report of Mr. Burrett, C.B., is supported by Sir Derek Rayner himself. I agree very much with many of the recommendations of Sir Derek Rayner in regard to other Government departments, but I hope Sir Derek Rayner himself does not support the particular paragraphs in this scrutiny by Mr. Burrett. I agree that £4 million is an appreciable sum and that the running costs, too, may be considerable. But here I agree with Mr. Burrett—and it is, after all, his report so far as I can make out—that a sufficient charge could be made for admission, at least to the exhibition, in order to cover running costs. I feel certain that the exhibition will be very popular and might well make a profit, as some museums do. I must dissent from what the noble Viscount said earlier. If he looks at the annexe to Mr. Burrett's report he will see that in fact a few museums make a profit.
I visited the site this afternoon. In this beautiful summer weather I was most impressed with its happy environment adjacent to the new Covent Garden precinct, and St. Paul's Covent Garden, and adjacent to Drury Lane Theatre, and indeed the British Transport Museum. The curator of the British Theatre Museum also showed me a model of the entrance hall which I hope other Members of your Lordships' House, as well as Members of another place, will look at.
To return to the capital cost, I wonder whether, if a ceiling is put on Government expenditure, perhaps a

983
ceiling lower than the £4 million mentioned, it might not be possible to raise the remainder in a world-wide appeal, in the Commonwealth and the United States, somewhat similar to that which is at present under way with some success in support of the rebuilding of Shakespeare's Globe Theatre on the South Bank. At all events, I sincerely hope that the Government will work out some scheme which enables the project to go ahead. When, as the noble Viscount said, the Germans are spending the equivalent of £17 million on their theatre museum in Cologne, I think that we in Britain, who lead the theatre in the world, could afford a modest £4 million. I am glad to note that I shall be followed in this debate by the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos. I feel sure that his famous grandfather would have supported us this evening.
9.13 p.m.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, I also should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, for his persistence and foresight in asking this Question at a time when I hope your Lordships, House can still combine with the countless voices from outside Parliament to persuade the Government to renounce what would be a sad betrayal of the British theatre. The Rayner scrutiny seems to show in these short sections not only a narrow-minded and essentially condescending attitude to the commitment of previous Governments to provide a theatre museum worthy of our theatrical traditions, but seems in places to be wilfully blind to the cultural, educational and even economic value of the project. The Rayner scrutiny implies, for instance, that the Government are being asked to shoulder the entire burden of preserving the history of theatre in this country, ignoring the fact, already highlighted by other noble Lords, that the value of private gifts and benefactions to the museum since 1974 is many times the cost of establishing the building to house them.
Like the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, I also am intrigued by the suggestion that the scope for research which is both possible and justified in this field is less than in the subjects which the V and A and the Science Museum help to document. To add to the noble Viscount's examples, how much of our knowledge of previous civilisations is based on, and expanded by, what we know of their contemporary theatre? Does research into Aeschylus and Sophocles yield less fruitful results than the study of the sculpture and pottery of Ancient Greece?
There are more distinguished pillars of Britain's artistic life than I still to speak, and the time is late. I believe that the arguments produced by the Rayner scrutiny have already been shown to be so superficial that further detailed critique is unnecessary. I am tempted to see this recommendation as an attempt to make a gesture after so many good intentions to reduce unnecessary expenditure have been frustrated. But to adopt the recommendation would be like destroying a nude by an old master because of the growth of pornography.
Each time I have spoken in your Lordships' House I seem to end up reverting to economic or financial matters, and I shall do so again tonight, even though I believe, like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that the
984
theatre museum could be justified simply as a celebration of a glorious past. But in fact it is, much more importantly, an investment for the future, not just through the tourism which the museum and a healthy national theatrical life would promote, but also through the effect the museum can have on the related and perhaps even more commercial side of the performing arts, like cinema and television.
I was told this week that the television series The Muppet Show had earned over 100 million dollars in overseas sales. If Sir Derek Rayner does not believe that the study of theatrical puppets is justifiable academically, perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer might find it justifiable economically. It is ironic that the Rayner recommendation has come at a time when the British cinema, which is closely linked to the theatre in acting, direction, music and design, should be acknowledged world-wide once more to be on an artistic and commercial upswing.
Your Lordships will know that it was not the generation of the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, or that of my grandfather which helped start the ball rolling to set up the National Theatre: it was that of my great-grandmother, working with contemporaries like George Bernard Shaw. If it is my great-grandchildren who first see the historical treasures of British theatre in proper surroundings, then this report will have done a petty and unnecessary injustice to the intervening generations. I wish therefore to add my enthusiastic support—and that of my noble friend Lord Donaldson, as has been stated already—to the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins.
9.18 p.m.
Lord Crathorne: My Lords, I, too, support the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. I am perhaps one of the few Members of your Lordships' House who are actually involved in a theatre museum. It is connected with our little Georgian theatre in Richmond in Yorkshire, which was founded in 1788. It is a beautiful theatre, which I am sure all your Lordships know about. Our museum has not been going long, but it is very popular. A question we are often asked particularly by people from abroad, is why there is not a theatre museum in London, and there is no acceptable answer to that question. Drama is Britain's premier art and has been for many centuries, and London has always been at the centre of it. Furthermore, we possess—nobody has stated this—perhaps the finest theatre collection in the world, but with nowhere to house it.
Noble Lords who have been to the theatre museum in its temporary surroundings in the V and A will know how totally inadequate the facilities are on a long-term basis, and I do not know how the staff there cope. I spent some time there two years ago researching for a lecture on English theatre which I gave at the Metropolitan Museum in New York, I was greatly impressed by the tremendously helpful way the staff looked after me and made my job so much easier, and I wish to pay tribute to their dedication and enthusiasm. As we have heard, the wealth of material there is quite extraordinary, and it has virtually all come by way of gifts. As has been so rightly stressed, items have been given on the basis that they would be ultimately displayed in the theatre museum, and I gather that a number of people who

985
are thinking of leaving items to the museum are now very doubtful as to whether they will do so, at least until the question is cleared up.
It is really appalling that London does not have a theatre museum. We have heard about the 400 museums and achives around the country. I have a long list of European cities, which I shall not read out, all of which have fine theatre museums. It is hard to understand why we so often do our best to starve the arts in this country, and along with other noble Lords, I urge the Government to reject the Rayner Report's recommendation, made, as it surely is, on a mistaken premise.
As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, so amusingly proved, one cannot approach the arts with arithmetic, cost-productive analysis. It is just impossible to do that. We think of ourselves as a highly civilised nation. We need the theatre museum, and we ought to have it. It has been promised to us for a very long time, and I wish very much to support the Question.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, appears to have forecast, noble Lords have clearly said it all. It is late, and it is unnecessary to repeat what they have said. I want only to give my support to it. The fact is that the recommendation, coming as it does from a team for which, in most of its manifestations, I am sure your Lordships have very considerable respect, is so preposterous in this instance that I cannot help believing, if I dare, that the heat that we are generating is not necessary, because the Government have no intention of accepting it. But I dare not think that altogether, and we must go on generating the heat until we are sure.
I want to make only two brief points. One is that, when I was chairman of the Arts Council in the early 'seventies, we took the theatre museum seriously. We made grants available to it. We were among its foremost supporters in its early days. More important than grants, we gave it our own collection of original theatre designs and our whole theatre archive. We did so—as many other people gave important collections—because we believed that it was a serious and important project that was to be for the study of the theatre, which is one of the most important aspects of our national life, and one of the things in which the British really excel, and in which they are supreme in the whole world.
As the noble Viscount pointed out, to call it a delightful luxury is an absurdity. Indeed it carries the implication that because it is delightful, it must be a luxury. It is not at all a luxury. It is an essential focus for the study of, and research into, the theatre, which is as important as any other subject studied at the Victoria and Albert Museum. Anyone who considers that it is a luxury misunderstands the nature of the V and A. Anyway, as the noble Viscount pointed out, it is not really part of the V and A.
The other point that I want to make about the possibility of the project being abandoned relates to the fact that I was Chairman of the V and A Advisory Council for a few years round about 1970, and therefore I read the whole scrutiny with great interest, and in part with great admiration. But the fact is that there is a curious inconsistency in it, because the very
986
first recommendation that was made is that there should be a statement of aims—something which I entirely applaud. The recommendation stated that:
"this statement should be drawn up to provide among other things an indication of priorities, and thus establish a common ground for decision taking when expansion is possible or contraction necessary".
Well, that is admirable. But, if that is right, why does the report attempt to prejudge priorities which such a statement might provide? To me, it seems a curious way of putting the cart before the horse. One should establish one's priorities, and then, if the theatre museum has to share resources with the Victoria and Albert Museum, even though it is not part of it, decide where it should come in the priorities. So I do not understand why there is suggested a statement of such aims and then it is prejudged, not only in this instance, in relation to the theatre museum project, but also in relation to another suggestion, which is that Ham and Osterley, which are not central to the purposes of the museum, should be abandoned and handed back to the National Trust, which of course would not have the money to run them. That is another prejudgment.
I found that very strange, and I think that it mars an otherwise interesting and important report. I hope that the Government will adopt the recommendation about formulating aims and establishing priorities, and I hope that they will reject the prejudgments about the theatre museum. I also hope that, in doing so, they will bear in mind that to abandon it now would be a breach of faith, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has said, and an example of the British at our very worst, under-valuing, as we often tend to do, the very things that we do best.
9.26 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I should like to say a few words, very briefly, in support of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and all those other noble Lords who have made such brilliant speeches on this subject. It seems to me quite extraordinary that when the Government have so much material and so much good will, and when there is so much desire from everybody that the project should go ahead for the very small sum of £4 million, they should think of cancelling it. It seems to me perfectly crazy, and I cannot imagine why anybody could really want to do that. As the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, has said, the collection has been built up over many years. Everybody who has anything to do with the theatre has always wanted a theatre museum. As the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, said, in the Georgian Theatre in Richmond we have erected a very small museum; it is a tiny theatre. It has been the greatest possible success. The tourists love going there. Everything that they want to see is there in that tiny museum, and it adds enormously to the value of the theatre. I cannot imagine anything that could be more important than this project for our theatre and for the people who come here. Great support for the project is being given by everybody who has to do with the theatre today.
I beg the Minister who is to reply to take our words from here as really meaning something. We all desperately want the museum to go ahead, and I am quite sure that any of us who are able to help,

987
including perhaps helping in raising money, will be quite willing to do so. I hope that the Government will not pay any attention to the suggestion that this great project should be abandoned.
9.27 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I apologise for arriving late at the debate, and I shall not keep your Lordships for more that a few seconds. I have no vested interest whatsoever in the theatre museum; yet, for the first time in this Chamber, I find myself in total agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. As he well knows, there are other matters on which we disagree, but I can only support him on this Question.
The only other thing I want to say is that I am quite sure that I am not alone. I have taken the temperature among other Tory Back Benchers, both in this House and in another place, and there is huge support. I merely wanted to add my voice and my support to the excellent Question of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins.
9.28 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, when the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, said that he was going to speak for only a few seconds, he really meant it, and we are grateful to him. I think his speech was none the worse for its brevity, and we are very grateful for his support. I am sure that we are also grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney for tabling this subject for debate tonight. As has been said by my noble friend and other noble Lords in all parts of the House, the theatre museum project has been supported by every Minister of the Arts, including the present Minister whose heart, we know, is in the right place. It was to have been started later this year, and now it has been postponed pending a decision on Rayner.
This is not the time to debate the Rayner Report in general—and here I agree with my noble friend. I hope the House will have an opportunity to discuss the report in the autumn, when there will he more parliamentary time, for there is much to be said, my Lords. There are some recommendations which give rise to great disquiet, in particular, as the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, said, the recommendations to change the status of the Wellington Museum at Apsley House, and Ham House and Osterley. There is also the absurd proposal—the really absurd proposal—to dispose of some of the material from the Victoria and Albert Museum library, which is without any doubt at all the finest archive and library for the study of the history of art in the world. Anyone who has any experience of this subject would know that what the report somewhat disparagingly refers to as "ephemeral material" is often of the greatest importance in research.
This evening the House is concentrating on another shortsighted and retrograde proposal from this extraordinary report—the proposal to abandon the theatre museum project altogether, or to devolve it from the V and A and to make it self-financing, whatever that may mean. The report calls the theatre museum an "attractive project" and a "delightful luxury", but as we find in other parts of the Rayner Report the stiletto is usually hidden in the bouquet. The trouble is that the report betrays itself throughout by its unfamiliarity with its subject, and this is never
988
more apparent than in the section dealing with the Theatre Museum.
What, for example, is meant by paragraph 109? This says that the field of a theatre collection is less central to the essential role of the V and A than that of most of the museum's other departments. Why should theatrical design and costume design, which is taught at the Royal College of Art and elsewhere, and at which many leading artists have excelled, be less central to this essential role than the museum's historical costume collection, to which it would surely be complementary?
Then there is the extraordinary remark about research—and here I quote:
"It seems to us that the field for research, which is both possible and justified in this field, is also less than in others".
How can the author possibly know this in advance of the actual research? The value of research lies surely in what the researcher makes of his study. Here I should like to ask why the report is so difficult to get hold of, and why it has been out of print, so that many interested people and outside bodies have been unable to read it.
Several important theatrical collections were given to the nation, as has been said, on the understanding that a theatre museum would he established. The foundation of this museum should surely encourage further donations. It will also provide a centre of learning and research about the theatre—far beyond the ken of the Rayner Scrutiny. There will be scope, as well, for special exhibitions; and the museum, as the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, said, would be particularly appropriate for the Flower Market, as Covent Garden has been connected with the theatre since the early 17th century. The area has recently been given an exciting new lease of life—surely an example of urban development which is the envy of other Western European countries.
Why should London be alone among major capitals in not having a theatre museum? I hope the Government will reject this recommendation from the Rayner Scrunity, and let the project go ahead without any further delay. Unless they do this, the Government will be going against the whole current of informed public opinion. I am sure the noble Earl who is to reply saw the letter in The Times yesterday. I beg them to reject this shortsighted and philistine proposal.
9.34 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I start by associating myself with other noble Lords who have spoken this evening in expressing gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for asking his Unstarred Question and for the opportunitity it has provided us to discuss a topic about which he very clearly feels deeply. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, referred to some violins and I think I have heard ten violins so far playing a very similar tune and I shall endeavour in my remarks not to be too far out of tune. The noble Lord also referred to "with the rest of us". I am only sorry that because this particular thing is sub judice I cannot go into that category. A number of noble Lords expressed their family relationships to the theatre—which had me going back. I do not think my family has ever built a theatre but my name does bear a certain relationship

989
with Stratford where my father, besides interesting himself in his constituents, took a lively and close interest in the theatre there. I am afraid that, for myself, I can claim no closer relationship than having been an occasional angel.
I listened with interest to the contributions to our debate which have indeed been eloquent and I know that every word that has been spoken will be carefully noted and borne in mind by my right honouralbe friend the Minister for the Arts. There need be no doubt that the opinions expressed and the arguments mustered in defence of a theatre museum project will be taken into account when the time comes for a decision to be made about the future of the theatre museum.
It may be helpful if I open my remarks this evening by setting the Rayner Report recommendations about the Theatre museum in its context. The recommendation is of course No. 27, one of the 53 recommendations made following a Rayner scrutiny of the Victoria and Albert and Science Museums carried out between October 1981 and May of this year. The terms of reference have already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and the scrutineer who has been mentioned on a couple of occasions was of course Mr. Gordon Burrett, a recently-retired deputy secretary at the Manpower and Personnel Office. He had in particular the assistance of Mr. Tom Hume, a former director of the Museum of London, who provided professional advice.
My noble friend Lord Bessborough asked about the production of the Rayner Report. I think I should say that so far as my right honourable friend is concerned the report was submitted to him by Mr. Burrett and Mr. Burrett was no doubt in contact with Sir Derek Rayner's office in preparing the recommendations, but I do not honestly think it would be appropriate for me to pursue this line.
Before preparing the report, Mr. Burrett and his team had discussions with a wide range of interested people, including of course members of both the museums and staff representatives. The report was submitted to my right honourable friend during the month of May. The Government decided there should be full consultation on the report's recommendations and accordingly published it on 27th May. A wide range of interested persons and organisations have been invited to comment by the beginning of August and, in fact, many have already done so.
Out of the report's 53 recommendations, my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts has announced the Government's views on two key aspects. First, the Government recognise the strong case made in the report for the two Museums, the Victoria and Albert, and the Science, being provided with a high degree of independence from Government and that they should therefore cease to be departmental museums. This recommendation will, I am sure, command wide support. The Government intend to seek an early opportunity to introduce legislation to establish separate bodies of trustees for each of these two museums. Secondly, my right honourable friend announced that, so far as the report's recommendations for the introduction of admission charges were concerned, the Government do not intend to
990
impose charges for general admission to the main collections, nor to change the well-established practice of charging for entry to some outstations and special exhibitions. But the Government would not, at this stage, wish to prejudge any proposals which future trustees may in due course put forward as part of their policy for good management of the museums.
On all the other recommendations in the report—and this includes those relating to the theatre museum—my right honourable friend has made it clear that final decisions will not be taken until after the end of the consultation period in August. The two museum directors, their advisory councils and representatives of staff are among those specifically invited to express their views on these recommendations, as are many other bodies with an interest. Representations will also be welcomed from anyone else who wishes to express a view. In addition, the Government regard this debate this evening as a welcome and constructive element in the process of sounding opinion and informing the decisions which will need to be taken.
We have heard today about the origins and history of the theatre museum project. There is little for me to add to that information. I particularly enjoyed the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich. It is indeed true that the origins of the scheme go back more than two, nearly three, decades and that sterling work was carried out by many individuals and a number of enthusiastic organisations perhaps I could mention in particular the British Theatre Museum Association and the Committee for the Museum of the Performing Arts.
Almost 10 years ago, these organisations came together with the Victoria and Albert Museum, which already possessed rich collections in the theatrical field. Those collections, incidentally, were due in part to the exceptional generosity of donors and testators, such as Mrs. Gabrielle Enthoven and the late Mr. Harry Beard, and there have been very many more. The organisations which I have mentioned wish to encourage the pooling of resources for theatre museum purposes—and here I must say that I paid particular attention to what the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, said. From their discussions came the plan to set up the theatre museum, under the aegis of the Victoria and Albert Museum, and with a nucleus of staff drawn from the V & A's Enthoven collection. The curator of the theatre museum was appointed in 1974.
The process took a new turn, following the decision announced by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, when he was Minister for the Arts, on 5th September, 1975, that the museum should go to the premises of the former Flower Market in Covent Garden. We all pay tribute to him—everybody has done so this evening—for that decision. Since that time, planning and preparations have gone ahead. Design work has been conducted in close consultation with the curator, and the detailed lease negotiations have been under discussion between the Property Services Agency and the Greater London Council.
Considerable progress has been made, although there have been problems. I understand that a relatively small number of points in connection with the lease remain to be successfully concluded. Meanwhile, detailed design work and preparations for the

991
invitation of tenders for adaptation and construction at the Flower Market premises are continuing. I believe your Lordships may take it that the present consultations will not cause any undue delay at all.
It might be helpful to the House if I were to comment upon the status of the theatre museum. The fact that it has its own advisory council, and the fact that it has been planned to house it in separate premises from the Victoria and Albert Museum, may have led to the impression that it is somehow not part of the V and A. I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, may have been under a slight misapprehension, because I am informed that the theatre museum is constitutionally a part of the Victoria and Albert Museum. Its advisory council is constitutionally a sub-committee of the Victoria and Albert Museum Advisory Council, and the curator is himself answerable to the V and A's director. So I do not think it was unreasonable for the scrutiny to address this matter, along with other aspects of the V and A's work. Clearly, since it has done so, my right honourable friend must consider its recommendations. The Minister for the Arts, after all, has an obligation to secure the best possible value for money from the arts budget, which, as we all know, faces many competing demands.
The Rayner Report has now recommended that the Government should consider abandoning the theatre museum. It goes on to recommend that the project should proceed, if at all, on the basis of a charge for admission with the objective of rendering it self-financing; and that consideration should be given to the possibility of devolving the theatre museum from the V and A Museum and making it entirely independent.
The scrutiny reached these recommendations in the light of the large-scale costs, both absolute and in comparison with other museums expenditure, which would otherwise be borne on public funds; and in the light of the scrutineer's judgment—no doubt, taking account of views expressed during the scrutiny process—that the theatre field is less central to the V and A's essential role than are other aspects of its work. Noble Lords tonight have made it plain that there are differences of view about those underlying judgments and, indeed, about the desirability and practicability of the ensuing recommendations. My right honourable friend will be taking all these views very carefully into account; and I particularly welcomed the powerful intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson.
The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, mentioned that, in some way, the country's finances could be compared with the Muppets. It would perhaps be leading me astray, but it is tempting to relate the various Cabinet figures to the various characters in the Muppet show. But I am happy in my appointment and, therefore, I shall refrain from so doing. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, particularly asked why this report is out of print. I am afraid that I do not have any pre-knowledge about that, but I understand that the normal issues have been relayed to the Printed Paper Office in this House; in fact, there have been 25 extra copies over the normal ration. So I can only say that it must be a sale inspired by the interest of noble Lords in this House.
992
Perhaps, also, I may pay tribute to the curator's work in trying to get support for his admirable project.
I hope your Lordships will understand that while it is tempting for me to join in a detailed discussion of the merits and demerits of the scrutineer's judgments and recommendations, I have to refrain from so doing at this stage of the consultation period. The Government will have regard not only to the points made tonight but also to any other representations which may yet be made before the consultation period ends. It would be wrong for me to prejudge the outcome by appearing to take sides now.
As I said earlier, I undertake to bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the points made in tonight's debate, although perhaps this is hardly necessary as his knowledge appears to be first hand. I know that he is well seized of the need to end uncertainty as soon as possible after the end of the consultation period. The speeches made this evening will certainly enhance his desire to come to an early decision.

Lloyd's Bill
Part of the order of 28th June last recommitting the Bill to an Unopposed Bill Committee discharged.
Local Government Finance (No. 2) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to
  THE PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT 1976: EXCLUSION ORDERS
  THE PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT 1976: EXCLUSION ORDERS
  THE FALKLAND ISLANDS: ARGENTINE STOCKS OF NAPALM AND DUM-DUM BULLETS
  THE FALKLAND ISLANDS: ARGENTINE STOCKS OF NAPALM AND DUM-DUM BULLETS
  DISARMAMENT: UN SECRETARY-GENERAL'S STUDIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
  DISARMAMENT: UN SECRETARY-GENERAL'S STUDIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
  HONG KONG: FUTURE
  HONG KONG: FUTURE
  HONG KONG: FUTURE AND REFORM CLUB PROPOSALS
  HONG KONG: FUTURE AND REFORM CLUB PROPOSALS
  CHEMICAL WEAPONS: SOUTH-EAST ASIA
  CHEMICAL WEAPONS: SOUTH-EAST ASIA